Consortium Rumours

  • 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!
Castro's Coffin said:
People forget that FC had been signed up to the KC project for over a year but no way we're try going ahead without the football club as the stadium we have now wouldn't have been justifiable. Buchanan and Hinchcliffe wouldn't sign up as it would have exposed their shenanigans. Only when Pearson bought us and committed City to the project did it go ahead. If he hadn't bought us we could have gone to the wall, as could FC who had all sorts of problems with debts and the money which the Boulevard needed spending on it, and the KC could have been a 15,000 seater stadium with standing areas as demanded by many rugby fans and the more cynical of Hull residents who said that 15,000 was big enough for FC and City would never fill one that big never mind 25,000. There was a campaign lead by their fanzine editor Vince Groake a Jim Gardner for a 15,000 capacity stadium with the capacity to swap ends at half time, a rugby tradition apparently, standing all around and a stand named
The Three Penny Stand. These clowns were given a lot of space and airtime by the HDM and RH.
I have contacted the HDM and asked them to contact them to get their thoughts on what would have happened if a 15,000 stadium had gone ahead. No voncerts, no internationals for football or rugby, no City in the PL and even fans missing out for derby matches. They could have been asked about their comments which included the KC would be a white elephant, Hull City would never get more than 15,000 this century and the only way to fill it would be if Leeds United relocated. They either haven't bothered, unsurprisingly, or they did and they didn't want to be embarrassed.
Click to expand...


It really doesn’t bear thinking about and the damage it’d have done to the Hull economy.

How many jobs would have never been created? How many more unemployed? etc

Which raises the question, does RL in this city ever offer ambition, aspiration or even a view beyond its parochialisms? Does it genuinely contribute to the wider Hull economy and bring money and jobs into the city?

I know everything can’t always be reduced to a monetary value and in truth, I don’t mind RL at all and I’d like the Hull clubs to prosper but their fans and traditions ‘seem’ to carry a disproportionate weight in this city and RL’s traditions seem almost like some quasi dogma that have to be acknowledged to the oft detriment of the wider city’s progress and economics.

That said, the RL pawned its history and identity for the Sky money in the 90s – so perhaps these seemingly prominent views are just local?
 
Does anyone have any stats on how successful clubs owned by non-family consortiums (presuming that's the case here) have been?

If the investment and commitment required to run a club is shared by several people, then surely the club is vulnerable to how long the least enthusiastic member maintains interest. Then if that member decides to withdraw investment the whole structure becomes unsteady resulting in all sorts of negative possibilities.
 
Craig in Nottingham said:
Does anyone have any stats on how successful clubs owned by non-family consortiums (presuming that's the case here) have been?

If the investment and commitment required to run a club is shared by several people, then surely the club is vulnerable to how long the least enthusiastic member maintains interest. Then if that member decides to withdraw investment the whole structure becomes unsteady resulting in all sorts of negative possibilities.
Click to expand...
Lots and lots of teams here are owned in this way (we call them sports groups) it's probably even the majority form of ownership. In general it's normally considered safer to have your team owned by a sports group rather than one individual as the sports group tends to think long term while a single owner can be nuts (like the racist basketball owners, or teams with racist names that won't change them etc.). My hockey team has been owned by a sports group for probably 15 years. we are far better ran now than we ever were before.
 
ellewoods said:
Lots and lots of teams here are owned in this way (we call them sports groups) it's probably even the majority form of ownership. In general it's normally considered safer to have your team owned by a sports group rather than one individual as the sports group tends to think long term while a single owner can be nuts (like the racist basketball owners, or teams with racist names that won't change them etc.). My hockey team has been owned by a sports group for probably 15 years. we are far better ran now than we ever were before.
Click to expand...
Eh?? Who's that Ell
 
ellewoods said:
Lots and lots of teams here are owned in this way (we call them sports groups) it's probably even the majority form of ownership. In general it's normally considered safer to have your team owned by a sports group rather than one individual as the sports group tends to think long term while a single owner can be nuts (like the racist basketball owners, or teams with racist names that won't change them etc.). My hockey team has been owned by a sports group for probably 15 years. we are far better ran now than we ever were before.
Click to expand...
Thanks Ellewoods, but I was more interested in the track record of consortiums in this country.
 
Craig in Nottingham said:
Thanks Ellewoods, but I was more interested in the track record of consortiums in this country.
Click to expand...
Yea I don't have any stats, and there are major differences between sports in our two countries (namely that teams here are not allowed to take a financial loss). Perhaps someone has stats for the UK but my guess is there probably won't be a link to that type of study.
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
Is redskins racist?? kinell
What sort of racist mascots.
I'm glad they arent giving into the pc lot
Click to expand...
Yea it's a racist term. The name will be changed, either he will do it or the next owner will. They have already lost their copyrights to their logo and name, most sports reporters will no longer say their name, charity's have been refusing donations from the team etc. It's not some vague PC issue, it's a racist term, and has been for forever.
 
Craig in Nottingham said:
Does anyone have any stats on how successful clubs owned by non-family consortiums (presuming that's the case here) have been?

If the investment and commitment required to run a club is shared by several people, then surely the club is vulnerable to how long the least enthusiastic member maintains interest. Then if that member decides to withdraw investment the whole structure becomes unsteady resulting in all sorts of negative possibilities.
Click to expand...
Aren't Reading, CP, Leicester, Brentford, Sunderland owned by consortiums and 4 of them doing ok?
 
so just to clarify then, we`re 5 pages in to a thread about a proposed consortium, of which Adam Pearson is NOT part of, we`ve discussed everything about Pearson, PC brigades and potential racism in American football, but we`re still none the wiser as to who it is that is behind this consortium, glad i just wasted 20 mins of my life reading that lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hullborn, mazzer, spesupersydera and 1 other person
swftiger said:
Aren't Reading, CP, Leicester, Brentford, Sunderland owned by consortiums and 4 of them doing ok?
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on the wealth of the consortium and whether it can continue if members leave.
Leicester is a family consortium which arguably has a stronger bond than individual businessmen. I'm not sure about Reading, but Crystal Palace is owned by 3 life-long fans of the club (so again that's quite a good bond). I didn't think Brentford was a consortium and Sunderland's success is debatable.
 
Blaknamberblood said:
so just to clarify then, we`re 5 pages in to a thread about a proposed consortium, of which Adam Pearson is NOT part of, we`ve discussed everything about Pearson, PC brigades and potential racism in American football, but we`re still none the wiser as to who it is that is behind this consortium, glad i just wasted 20 mins of my life reading that lot.
Click to expand...
It could be the Cali sports group I mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back