And no- one would have been crazy enough to pay good money to buy a club and avoid a 10 point deduction......oh hang on a minute I forgot that nothing good about Allam is allowed on this forum as it annoys all the anti-Allam obsessives and makes them throw out their childish insults!
You think a good deed at the start means whatever else he does is also good, no matter how bad it actually is or how many people suffer because if it. Pathetic. If someone else had done this you wouldn't be defending them. Allam could do anything he wants and you, Happy and Chazz would say it's great and [insert victim here] have had an easy ride for too long etc etc.
I understand he had an offer to buy the club for over £60 million if it came with the freehold. Pays off the debt for £40 million and collects £20 million profit shortly afterwards. No wonder he was upset when the council said no to giving him the freehold for his sports village.
I've never said that everything Allam does is good. Like all owners he does some things I fully agree with & some things I totally disagree with. The key thing is - does he do what he does with the best interests of the club in mind? I think yes, you think no & there we differ.
Sorry no names, but I heard they were middle eastern. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Bartlett laid a small amount of bait as, from memory, he'd give a few personal guarantees along the way.
Have a good trawl, you won't find any post from me criticising Allam when he first acquired the club. In fact I went so far as to say that having invested to the extent that he did initially, he had as far as I was concerned secured the ability to do what he wanted to do with the club subject to involving stakeholders so any strategic decisions were as universally accepted as they could be. He then started the whole name change scenario, when again initially I was open minded, he owned the club after all, but I began criticising both the Allams when they contrary to supporters and the FA's view, began their underhand tactics in changing all aspects of the clubs name on marketing material etc. although no such name change had been formally approved nor accepted. At that point I saw Allam as someone sticking his two fingers up to me! To close, if the name change is so fundamental to achieving greater revenue streams, then that applies irrespective in my view whether we be in the Premier League or the Championship. Now the silly old fool says in the Premier League we need to be global, in the Championship local, and whilst tactically that may be a correct statement, he is in essence stating that the name change is now not relevant! Completely wrong and contradictory. On a personal note I started supporting Allam, however over the last 12 months or so he's lost my support
You wrote that under the circumstances you would have done exactly what Allam did regarding the Arena. Which doesn't gel with your comment when the issue first surfaced of "Allam's dictatorial attitude all over this! Not a leg to stand on at face value."
I'm only interested in what's in the best interests of the footie team I support; taking the action the Allams did over the Airco was on this occasion in the best interest of Hull City, in fact the only option in the circumstances to secure Academy status in the short term. Could they have planned better beforehand, carried out better research, probably! In general terms, and particularly the name change fiasco, the Allams have lost my support. I'm not either all in or all out; my consistency is my support for Hull City, and what's in the clubs best interests. Some people seem 'blinded' by the need to either be 100% behind the Allams or not. It's clear they have done some good work, equally they have undermined the good work considerably by some pretty stupid, and as you say dictatorial decisions. They have certainly divided opinion! Still standing on both legs!
What he did with the Airco cannot be excused by saying it was the best thing for the club. If he robbed a bank and spent the money on players the club would benefit but it wouldn't be the right thing for anyone.
That's the trouble with you anti-Allam obsessives - you make up hypothetical claptrap. The club didn't rob a bank - it made a legal decision that resulted in the granting of academy status which was an action taken in the best interests of the club. Yes, a handful of citizens have lost their facility & it was handled badly, but it wasn't a criminal act ffs.
As I recall the redevelopment was for the refurbishment of the park, the provision of a stadium for hull City and a multi sport facility for a wide range of other indoor sporting activities. Clearly you have a myopic view that anything goes if it's for the benefit of Hull City and hard luck to any others whose sporting activities are compromised. What a disgraceful and selfish view you have. The club knew for over a year an indoor facility was required and what did they plan in bringing this about. Rebuffed at Bishop Burton for whatever reason and when and no plan B unless that included taking the easy option and throwing out other sporting pursuits.Thank heavens a lot of people have a more sympathetic overview than you.
Not getting at you specifically but out of curiosity, who has lost the right to play at the Airco Arena? This is a general question for anyone who can answer!
In one sense nobody has lost the right to hire the Airco as long as they use the 3g pitch. In another sense everybody who used the Airco for different sports, ie all the users that were given notice, have lost the right to use it for their particular sport.
That's my understanding too, but I can't see how that fits with comments in the Court Report. "7. It is possible to place a removable hard surface over the 3G Surface. This has occurred when SMC hosted major events such as a National Trampolining competition on 27 and 28 June 2015. These events last for at least a day. Thus the installation of the 3G Surface does not completely preclude those sports being carried out in the Hall in future."
The temporary surface is okay for a one-off major event, but it's not practical for people who want to use the facility on a regular basis and it can't be used for netball or wheelchair football anyway.
But could you hire the hall for trampolining for an hour? I don't think so. So in practical terms those sports are excluded except for one-off special occasions.
Aye, I can see why it would still preclude netball and the wheelchair sports, that need the full hall, but in my ignorance, I just assumed it would be laying a board down to stick the trampoline on. Clearly it's more than that.
I don't see any reason why it should preclude netball or wheelchair sports. Although wheelchair users may have problems getting onto the raised floor unless adequate access was provided. I just don't see the Allams paying somebody to lay and remove the floor for a couple of hours. I didn't look this Saturday but I'm sure I've seen the floor stored outside the Airco, open to the elements, at previous matches.
