So with all this debt, are people still content with the semi-**** football we're playing or do people now realise just how important it is for us to go back up?
I have looked at the accounts and what I see is a financially well run club aiming for promotion back to the Premier League this season. Failure to achieve this will cause financial hardship but not ruin as has happened in the past with other owners.
How is being the second most in debt club in the league having just been relegated from the richest league in the world classed as financially well run?
Half. And despite the debt being double, it's far more manageable, we are in far better shape than last time. Not least because that debt is basically all to someone with an obviously rather large financial interest in the club rather than banks. Compared to last time, we also have a decent amount of cash still owed to us on top of a valuable and saleable playing squad. And what you're not taking into account is that half of this debt is what was run up by Bartlett and Duffen. It didn't magically disappear it got transferred from banks to the Allams. Safer and lower interest. Since these accounts have been filed our wage bill has been slashed enormously (relegation cuts plus sales/releases) and we've raised millions net in player sales. I would guess that ticket/match day revenue is probably up somewhat as well given the hike in prices. (Edit: in fact they're definitely up, we were in such dire shape last time we were relegated that the ticket money was already spoken for along with advance on parachute payments, which are also higher now than before) The Allams are ****er make no mistake but your bullshit is tedious.
By any possible measure Allam is much worse. The financial state of the club was the only problem with Duffen/Bartlett's tenure. Under Allam the debt is thrice bigger, and then there's all the other problems. Under Bartlett/Duffen we lost 3,000 fans when we got relegated. Under Allam we've lost 6,000. Of course you do
Not to mention the assinine name change fiasco that made us a laughing stock to other football clubs, his constant media out bursts and tantrums. At least Bartlett kept his ****ing mouth shut.
I think you anti-Allam obsession has seriously affected your objectivity if you really believe that Bartlett was a better owner. But you don't really believe that do you?
That's the problem isn't it - your anti-Allam obsession is so deeply rooted that your common sense has now apparently gone. I think I'm a bit longer in the tooth than you and I've seen many owners come and go and, believe me, we've had far worse owners that the Allams - Bartlett being one of them.
Finally someone talking sense re these accounts! headline figure makes it look bad but we are in a much much MUCH better state then we where under Bartlett! under him it was all owed to companies who would without a second thought have us wound up etc... the money is all owed to allam (family) and no matter how mad/daft/odd he is just isn't going to pull the plug. everyone should just take the anti allam glasses off and look at it properly ffs!
Have you had time to look at the accounts Peter? If so, what's you're view on us right now? Are we doing alright or are we in the ****ter?
From what I have been told the training ground has been sold to Hull City Tigers Limited by the SMC but it doesn't seem logical that the SMC would own the Hull City training ground. If the training ground is owned by Hull City Tigers Limited it is weird that the SMC are spending money on the training ground that is not owned by them and even more weird that it is capitalised in the accounts if they don't own the asset and what is also weird is that the expenditure on the training ground is treated as plant and machinery and not land and property.
I just had a quick look at the accounts and the accounts for 2014-2015 look fine because we were in the Premier League but with reduced income in the Championship it will be scary if we don't get promoted soon. We would have to sell a lot of players.
The raising of ticket prices makes very little difference to the income of the club but it makes a big difference to attendances.
It is a strange situation. Unless it was a plan for the SMC to sell it at a loss to the football club to ensure it lost money in the year to avoid paying HCC a % of the profits.
I'm led to believe that was the reason but it is amazing that the contract would allow the SMC to make any kind of payments to ensure a loss.
