Name change discussion

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The Omega Man said:
Why didnt he offer Tigers co op a share at the time? In fact why where Tigers co op not beating a path to his door at the time? He wanted 8m for a 20% stake. Now I dont think 8m would get a 5% stake, in fact I dont think it would even get 2%.
Click to expand...

Which values the club at £40m, £160m and £400m respectively. Only the first of those seems even marginally reasonable (notwithstanding the fact that a minority shareholding can have no influence and therefore the valuation should be supressed much further than were it for a controlling stake).
 
Leon T Trout AFC said:
Naturally, I understand your analogy, just doesn’t seem to fit with the moderate CTWD that I’ve seen.

So, what are you basing this ‘pack mentality’ on that you parallel with anti-social behaviour in the stadium? What actions have you seen that justifies such an observation? Have you been to any of the meetings?

I’m supposing you imagine that meeting at Tigers Lair as some sort of putsch or perhaps a group of men egging each other on to draw nobs and fannies on pictures of Allam.
Click to expand...


<laugh>.
 
.... said:
why not ?
Click to expand...

and why do you believe he has - so far he's spouted nothing but nonsense - he's increased the debt from £30mill to £100 mill - he's losing £20 mill a year - if he had some master plan why didn't he do it a year ago and save another £20mill - the debt will be £120 mill before his alleged new sponsor comes in - why didn't he buy out cash convertors and get the new people in and get the money in now - why is it such a secret, surely any new sponsor would want to obtain as much exposure as possible - why would any sponsor only want to get their brand advertised against a forced name change that is clearly unpopular and attracts bad press almost universally - he's already refused to consider selling part of his ownership, so he expects someone to come in and spend £20 mill per year and all they want is a change of name - do you realise just how stupid that sounds - that's why people believe it's utter bullshit - and that's why anyone who believes any of it is a ****ing moron
 
You are right, the club isnt worth twopence never mind £400m. But just how much is a Premier League club worth? £1 or £100m the truth is its worth what someone will pay and what someone needs to raise from the sale. What amount is a share worth, say in Everton? £1500 per share? Swansea how much is 20% of that club worth?

Maybe Ringwood 49er and maths don't go.
 
.... said:
why not ?
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious. No sponsor is going to put in that much money and I don't believe a sponsor would want us to change our name. As for "cashing in on the Asian market". Its not going to happen. Clubs such as Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea etc will always be far more popular than us because they have been in the Premier League longer and have a bigger reputation then us. To suggest that changing the name to Tigers will suddenly make Asians love us and pour money into the club is just plain stupid. We have a strong Asian community in this country and I don't see them showing any interest in us. Whatever happens I fear for the future of this club.
 
Some hilarious flights of fancy on here. Fan ownership hogwash that holds no importance in the name-change debate. Bullshit knee-deep and getting deeper. <laugh>
 
The Omega Man said:
Jules

Sponsorship at the level that we will need will not be forthcoming, anyone with half a brain knows that.
Click to expand...

When Manchester United's shirt sponsorship is for £20M sponsorship at the level we need is not going to happen, anyone with half a brain knows that.
 
Fez said:
Some hilarious flights of fancy on here. Fan ownership hogwash that holds no importance in the name-change debate. Bullshit knee-deep and getting deeper. <laugh>
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Fan ownership is a great idea and TOM has some good ideas but it's not relevant to whether or not Allam is a lying ****.

He is btw.
 
The Omega Man said:
But the running costs of the club exceed its income. For a trust to raise the money needed to be able to pass the financial fitness test its membership would in my simply thick none qualified way would have to have 10000 members who paid £1650 as an initial payment, with monthly payments at £25 per member, for no guarantee of a return. They would be investing in the promise of a club with no assets and even if the club had the KC the return on an expanded stadium would compromise the profits for at least five years.
Click to expand...

You don't need to pass the fit and proper person test unless you have a shareholding in excess of 30% and the numbers you suggest(ie £16.5m up front and £3m a year ongoing) is way more than the club is worth(based on a 20% shareholding).

Though I believe in the principal of fan ownership/involvement at all clubs and we are putting things in place to make this a possibility, I don't see it as ever being likely with AA in charge. As despite him saying he's very keen on the idea, I don't see him actually giving up any of his shareholding and we're taking a very long term view.

The reality is, that anyone with a minority shareholding would be completely ignored by AA.
 
Well do you know I was told today that neither of the two sponsorship offers 'on the desk' at HCFC are dependent on us changing our name to Hull Tigers?

Reliable source as always when I post.
 
Stuart Blampey said:
Well do you know I was told today that neither of the two sponsorship offers 'on the desk' at HCFC are dependent on us changing our name to Hull Tigers?

Reliable source as always when I post.
Click to expand...

There are definitely no sponsorship deals on the table that are dependent on a name change.

Our new kit sponsorship deal is dependent on us staying in the Premier League, but that's the only deal that is on the table.
 
Stuart Blampey said:
Well do you know I was told today that neither of the two sponsorship offers 'on the desk' at HCFC are dependent on us changing our name to Hull Tigers?

Reliable source as always when I post.
Click to expand...

Did anyone ever really believe they were?
 
originallambrettaman said:
You don't need to pass the fit and proper person test unless you have a shareholding in excess of 30% and the numbers you suggest(ie £16.5m up front and £3m a year ongoing) is way more than the club is worth(based on a 20% shareholding).

Though I believe in the principal of fan ownership/involvement at all clubs and we are putting things in place to make this a possibility, I don't see it as ever being likely with AA in charge. As despite him saying he's very keen on the idea, I don't see him actually giving up any of his shareholding and we're taking a very long term view.

The reality is, that anyone with a minority shareholding would be completely ignored by AA.
Click to expand...

Stuart Blampey said:
Well do you know I was told today that neither of the two sponsorship offers 'on the desk' at HCFC are dependent on us changing our name to Hull Tigers?

Reliable source as always when I post.
Click to expand...

originallambrettaman said:
There are definitely no sponsorship deals on the table that are dependent on a name change.

Our new kit sponsorship deal is dependent on us staying in the Premier League, but that's the only deal that is on the table.
Click to expand...

Stuart Blampey said:
Naughty or stupid of people to misrepresent the situation last week in the media.

Draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...

It is simply amazing anyone believes anything he says or infers. He has been blatant in dealing himself from the bottom of the deck and all he can manage is a busted flush.

I had to laugh at the nonsense about folk hating him, he is far more likely to be pitied. I can't abide the fool, but hate him, no, he isn't worth that much effort.
 
PLT said:
Did anyone ever really believe they were?
Click to expand...

Some did and will.

It was certainly punted to the media as 'Approve the name change as these sponsors are tiger-fixated, and their withdrawn interest means 50% price increase.'

I take it back about it being appalling timing- it seems to have unsettled Tan's DRagons a treat. <ok>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back