The statement about 'delaying the sale until September' was bollocks, they killed the sale when they hiked the price on Thursday and they well aware of that when they spoke to the Yorkie Post.
Which would suggest that the Allams wanted to deal the deal in dollars maybe... Then surely OLM if they have given an interview which is not truthful, they are in breach of a confidentiality agreement ..?... that would reasonably allow the Americans to turn around and say that no sale in abeyance is in place and the sale fell through due to the unreasonable demands of the Hull City board..?
Wtf Not truthful? They may have killed the deal when they upped the price, but that doesn't make the statement that they are suspending talks untrue (just not the real cause of the issue). And, how can a demand be unreasonable? No such thing, it's just unacceptable to the other side. Gong round in circles here. Again and again. It is what it is.
Exactly. It's all perspective, but everyone here is blinded by their dislike. I'm as suspicious as the lot of you, but it doesn't mean they are automatically at fault for the lot! What have they done that most clubs haven't done when trying to buy a player! You can't will something to happen so hard it does. I'm not supporting them for one minute... Just asking for some sense on this thread.
They agreed to pay the price quoted on Thursday morning, it was what we were worth by Thursday afternoon that was the issue. Maybe they discovered oil under the training ground during lunch?
Unfortunately, it's the sellers prerogative to be able to change the price. May be that it's not cricket, but it's not illegal to do it. And that's about it. This over thinking and analysis of ifs and buts won't change that single fact.
I understand that. So did the Allams string this all along all this time cos they had no intention of selling and just did it for laughs and giggles? I'd say no. They think they can get more out of the Yanks. If they cant then they are ok to keep owning the club. Unless there are others interested.
I think they just looked in a mirror and remembered who they were............. pair of ..............
They will have wasted a lot of cash on a smokescreen if so. I can't see t being a charade. And that's based on my knowledge of the intricacies of negotiating and paying for those needed to begin this process. It's unlikely they started off like that, though the process may have shaped how they felt and perhaps their minds did change. That's a guess!
So I will pay fifty pence. We are worth fifty pence Give over. I have enough commercial business knowledge to say that's just daft. We are talking value in the context of a sale process here. Only one value judgement matters in this circumstance. Your statement is only true if we completely refocus the context and get into some pointless philosophical debate!
If they accepted 50 pence then we are worth 50 pence. That's how the free market works. If someone comes in and pays the revised price the Allams are after then we are "worth" that price. If no one comes in and pays the Allam's price then the price is more than we are worth.
I get irritable when it's hot Just saying. If they accepted the fifty p offer, then my statement would be proved true you half wit (owner thinks that's what we are worth and so accepts)! Or are you baiting me!?
