You're right. Before he lent the club £30 million he had an offer for the club of £60 million, The catch was it had to include the freehold to the KC. No wonder he was upset when the Council refused to transfer the freehold. A quick £20 million or so profit went out the door when they turned him down.
havehave Are you saying someone offered £60m for a club, which was £30m in debt, if it included the freehold for the KC before AA bought it ? Must say it's the first time I've heard of that. I was led to believe that the £30m was signed away within two hours of AA buying the club. So are you claiming someone else offered £60m for club and stadium inside that two hour window ? Sorry, it just doesn't add up. If it is true then I think it was a good offer and I'm surprised the council didn't send someone with a bit more seniority and foresight then Terry ****witt to do the negotiating or that the 'buyer' didn't step in and buy City before AA did because the club was on the open market for long enough. Surely if that was the case AA might as well have offered to buy the KC outright off the council for around the £35m mark (original cost £40m less depreciation) then waited until City went into administration, which they would have done if he hadn't of stepped forward ( when no-one else did), took the 10 point deduction and bought the club for £1 ? If your angle is correct all he actually bought was someone else's considerable debt when a different approach may well have seen him as the new owner of the KC Stadium with a football club thrown in.
I'm saying when Assem Allam bought the club he had two offers for it, one without the freehold and one with it. The offer with the freehold was for £60 million. I think without the freehold was around £15 million. If Bartlett knew of the offer he didn't have the time to negotiate the transfer of the freehold and sell the club because of the Inland Revenue's court action. It needed someone with money to pay the Inland Revenue off thereby getting the necessary time to talk to the Council. The buyer wouldn't buy City without the freehold. Without seeing the books I don't know how beneficial administration would have been. Assem Allam would have had to pay all the wages and transfer fees, ie the outstanding football debts. All the gate receipts were charged to the bank so he'd have had to find working capital to pay the wages of the players together with the on going running costs. If the SMC had gone bust as well then the lease may well have been terminated so the club and Hull FC would have had to re-negotiate a new lease. When Assem Allam bought the club the Council was Liberal controlled, he might of thought getting the freehold wouldn't be a problem.
All interesting stuff. Are you sure the Council was Liberal controlled at the time of the club purchase ? If so why was Labour councillor and portfolio holder Terry Geraghty involved and why did Labour leader, Steve Brady, say any decision to sell the KC would go to a referendum ? The KC would not have got built at all if the decision to build it had of been made when the Libs were in power. Lib Councillor Simon Butterworth's name appears of the acknowledgement plaque outside the stadium which caused a few raised eyebrows at the time because she opposed the building of it. I do think AA was led to believe in early negotiations to buy the club that the Council would be favourable in any decision to hand over the leasehold.
Labour took control of the council four months before Allam met with Geraghty to try and get hold of the stadium,
Do you think Labour regaining power scuppered AA's plans to get hold of the KC leasehold ? Had he been given assurances that the Libs would have looked at his plans more favourably ?
The first question yes. I have no idea about the second. I always suspected he'd got an amber, if not a green light, from the Liberals. It is a logical explanation for his reaction after Labour said no. It would also explain the allegations of dishonesty he made.
