Ok happy, I'll take this as a genuine question. Imagine Assem, Ehab and Steve sitting in a room discussing the KC and surrounding land. They could all agree that the current lease be allowed to lapse and in its place is a brand new 150 year lease to City Till We Die Limited t/a Hull City AFC. The lease could include land on Walton Street for a new hotel, some other businesses which pay a rent to City Till We Die Limited, ie Hull City. As part of the development the East stand mirrors the West Stand and we double the number of corporate boxes. We may also see the development of the North and South Stands. If the council was being generous the football club could lease the car parking and charge throughout the week. In return for all this City Till We Die Limited would pay rent to the City Council, The council benefits because it develops the area and it receives a regular income from the club. Hull City benefit because we would have a regular income stream from the commercial development of the area and the increased match day attendances. Finally we would all benefit because the name change can be put into the long grass forever and we can all start arguing about transfer targets again. All it takes is a little imagination and clear idea of what you want. The City Council have an open door. It is up to the owners of our football club to walk through it.
If these people are supposed to be good business men, then why do they not see that we're on the edge of the greatest season ever! And it's them that are trying to f'ck it up! Can you imagine any other chairman rocking the boat when they've got nothing but good things on the horizon? It does make you think how hard can it be to sell marine engines! I'm in the wrong business! :-(
All I know is, the cnuts will not stop me enjoying tonight! No business case, not a word of any market research and even less respect for the fans. Who could still back owners like this??? It's what you get when people are not used to being told they can't have their way? Haven't they realised yet that football business is like no other business? Hope that HCC still persist in holding the olive branch and rise above this. As old Olly Cromwell once said "Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Nicked from CI: FIFA Statute 68.3 The Associations shall insert a clause in their statutes or regulations, stipulating that it is prohibited to take disputes in the Association or disputes affecting Leagues, members of Leagues, Clubs, members of Clubs, Players, Officials and other Association Officials to ordinary courts of law, unless the FIFA regulations or binding legal provisions specifically provide for or stipulate recourse to ordinary courts of law. Instead of recourse to ordinary courts of law, provision shall be made for arbitration. Such disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the Association or Confederation or to CAS. The Associations shall also ensure that this stipulation is implemented in the Association, if necessary by imposing a binding obligation on its members. The Associations shall impose sanctions on any party that fails to respect this obligation and ensure that any appeal against such sanctions shall likewise be strictly submitted to arbitration, and not to ordinary courts of law.
There will be no significant change in their ownership style as their self-interest dictates a prudent and growth based development strategy, whilst the petulance and ego-centric nature of Assem Allam will ensure that common-sense and practicality will always be threatened by random, nonsensical business aberrations. There will be no action against the FA as this would threaten their investment. All of this is insincere nonsense and should be treated as such. It seems most things were covered in the interview, except for the most important one; no one discussed the bloody great elephant in the room - the spat with HCC. I believe the emphasis on this should be changed dramatically, with questions directed at both parties, the owners and HCC. Shy bairns get nowt.
This will be hardest part for the Allam's grasp. Ploughing £70m into a football club gives you no more right to change the intrinsic value then a season ticket holder spending £400 It goes against every other business/financial fundamental basis that he who pays decides.
The biggest gobshite ever to grace the internet, the chubby **** must have about 20 accounts on the go, a real sad case.
That's right, my dad was a lifelong St Domingo's fan, ripped up his season ticket the day they rebranded the club as Everton
I do think the 'special business' argument for football is not just simply incorrect and misleading, but damaging to its own survival. When Assem Allam took over he made it very clear that the plan was to deal with the club as he would any other business; I applauded this sentiment as football is in dire need of some semblance of business control. What I did not account for was the way in which Assem Allam (through his representatives) conducts his business with misdirection, manipulation, lies and blackmail. Nor could I ever allow for the shamelessly vindictive manner in which he would be prepared to use and tarnish the good name of the successful football club (but ailing business) he bought for no better reason than to satisfy his own spite in a spat he has with the local council. Football is a sector of commerce like all others and as such is open to malpractice, poor management and blatant self-interest. Football clubs can also be ran as a successful and credible business; Assem Allam has lost the credible element through his own actions as a businessman, not because football is special.
The difference between football and other businesses is fans/customers are emotionally connected. In other businesses people just want the best product they can afford at the cheapest price
I had to laugh out loud at quite a lot of the pure ****e he came out with. He even racked his memory to recall the crisp advert where a guy has a tigers head in order (he felt) to support his position. The tiger's the ****ing mascot, not the name. That argument supports the current position. As a name change, maybe Ehab could be Ehaw?
I'm not sure increasing the capacity is right. We're only average attendance is 24,116. 800 or so under the reduced capacity. Is it worth having 30,000+ capacity and not selling out for most games?
We have a Premier League club which is not promoted at all to the local community, ground expansion with a concerted campaign to attract those who attend the odd game, or those slightly further afield, combined with a pricing structure designed to fill every game, could easily see us up our averages.
I think this has been a massive own goal for the club this morning. Ehab is normally quite a good interviewee, he sounds reasonable and is normally relatively sharp with his responses, but this morning he didn't sound like he'd convinced himself, never mind anyone else.
Depends on how successful we become, the cost of the extension and the level of income generated by the sale of the new corporate boxes. You could end up with the extension being profitable whilst the attendance stays the same. To find out all Assem and Ehab Allam have to do is sit down and talk to the council. Which is my point.
How many tickets would be sold for matches against Man U, Liverpool, etc if the capacity was much bigger? City could possibly sell 40,000+ for those games. The ground wouldn't look so good with empty seats when playing Palace or Norwich but the overall average could be quite a lot higher.
I'm sure they could sell a lot more tickets to away fans and also do a lot more hospitality. If they reduce prices they might make a lot more revenue from increased sales although that isn't so certain.
