Do you have that reply copied and ready to paste? Do you think you contribute any intellectual input! Or add anything to the debate? If so you are suffering from a misapprehension.
Without knowing the exact details of the deal it's all hypothetical. But if I was a betting man I'd say the currency benefit to the buyer was around £10 and AA wanted a slice of it. Ask an extra £6m and settle for £4-5m And then donate it all to good causes in Hull
If it was about the exchange rate the Americans would have agreed to pay the extra £6 million for the SMC because they would have got the club cheaper in July than they would have in June. So the issue for me is about how much money the Americans were going to pay up front and what the repayment terms were. According to OLM that was going to be discussed Thursday on the phone before the contracts were signed on the Saturday. I would have thought when you get paid is just as important as how much.
Precisely, until you have the details of the deal you don't know whether what Allam asked for was reasonable or not. Just because he's unreasonable in general doesn't mean he's unreasonable in this particular instance.
For many, including me, the current state of our club & the prolonged negligent manner in which it is being run is a great concern, is football related & is certainly important. Currently a damn sight more important than what's occurring on the pitch. The game, the supporters, the players, the manager, the coaches, the owners, the business are all important & football related. The conduct of our owners is nothing short of scandalous. They have blatantly ignored rules & rulings set out by the FA & PL. They have made business decisions that may well lead to serious, long term, problems for the club. They have bullied, threatened, abused & split the fan base. They have presented themselves, publicly, in such a manner that they have become an embarrassment to the club. Whether they're lying to the media, being negative about supporters with idiotic & childlike jibes, being aggressive towards the interviewer or posing for pics with a 40 year old programme that has "Tigers" on the front page & using it when trying to make a valid name change argument. They don't even know the club's name. They have implemented huge ticket increases on all supporters, astonishingly the biggest increases have been aimed at the disabled, children & youth, & the long serving oldies. All of these things & the many others all have had a negative impact on the football club are football related & important. If you believe they're not football related or important & all it's about is the 11 blokes kicking the ball around on a Saturday (Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. Thank you Sky - ****s) you could, maybe, start posting on some of the specific football posts & not bother with these. You must get tired of blindly defending what is so obviously wrong & being critical of those highlighting & striving to put right the wrongs. In-fact, there's a football related MDT dedicated to our game last night, a football thread. As yet you haven't contributed despite another injury to another key player. Maybe put your money were your mouth is & contribute something to what you consider important & leave the important stuff to those that care.
When have I "blindly defended what is so obviously wrong"? As to contributing something on our game last night I wasn't there so how can I comment on something I didn't see? Dawson was injured - how badly we don't yet know. For me to say it's bad news would be stating the obvious - how does that add any benefit to this Forum?
I realise that merely asking this will mark me as an 'apologist by some, but **** 'em, I don't know it, so I'm interested in the answer. For clarity, can someone list the rules and rulings that the Allams have actually broken as opposed to being accused of, and what the PL./ FA penalty was?
Nope, I mean any at all. We should find out on Thursday if they've broken any ruling on concessions, as yet, it's in the pending file.
Then I'm not sure what you're asking. Who has accused them of breaking PL rules beyond the lack of concessions?
They've more accurate gone against the spirit of the rules, rather than actually breaching anything (other than the ongoing concessions one), largely because the FA/PL never expected anyone to do the things they've done and so didn't legislate for them (ie ASI fund, refusal to use club name on anything and deliberately using the rejected name on anything they think they can get away with etc).
Name change wasn't so much broken as refused. They've not broken the concession one yet, we find out on Thursday.
Against someone's interpretation of the spirit of the rules. The use they put the ASI money to was praised by some in the prem. But that wasn't the question. I'm curious which rules they've broken.
