Just wondering does anyone know what asset stripping rules the Fa put in place? Any income to the club seems to be going towards paying the interest on the loan. Anyone know what interest rate they are charging
4%/ It's not 'asset stripping' as such, at least not in terms of selling off any saleable asset. Just continual cloth cutting that is taking us down a depressing spiral. The gift that keeps on giving.
Isn't it? Surely they HAVE sold all our most saleable assets (i.e. Robertson, Maguire, Clucas, Bowen, etc., etc.)
Could it be hormone or steroid injections gone wrong? He wanted hair growth, but didn't bargain for a big forearm. I don't want to bring it up again, but maybe he was after a bigger thingy and it all went terribly wrong. Is this where all the money's going, so he can end up looking like Pete Burns?
My thoughts , I thought laws now existed whereas you had to invest a percentage of income, now after all the players we've sold or recieved sell on fees for , we havnt really spent **** all.
I'm not defending them, they are ****s. But they are not asset stripping and they haven't sold all our saleable players. Sorry those are just daft things to say. If that were the case, LDS would have gone in January, as would half decent players like JDW, RB, KLP etc etc and they wouldn't have spent (small amounts) on new signings like JS, MS, etc. nor not so small amounts on loans, nor would they have extended certain contracts. Instead they would promote even more youngsters and bring in freebies on next to nothing. They are 'just' continually cutting the budget which will only result in a continuing slide down the divisions. In their warped minds, and even though they say they know nothing about football, they still appear to think they can bring success with their masterplan. They are utter idiots, having already lost out on £100mill+ deal through their incompetence, greed and ego. I'm not aware of any rule that forces owners to spend on signings; someone correct me if I'm wrong.
asset stripping /ˈasɛt ˌstrɪpɪŋ/ noun the practice of taking over a company in financial difficulties and selling each of its assets separately at a profit without regard for the company's future. Sounds exactly like what they've been doing to me, GFAW.
The Master Plan, mooted somewhere and I see no reason to doubt it, was buy the club, obtain the freehold, and immediately sell for a considerable gain. The haste in which the purchase was done left no time for a thorough due diligence or search into the accounts. The revenues demand was public knowledge, winding up orders tend to be out there, but lurking unseen was a similar amount that they had to provide guarantees for. Then the council said no. The FA then said no and the club was put up for sale, walk away, give it away in 24 hours. Oh yes, and the bank of papa was declared shut. Directors notes to the accounts for at least the last two years have stated, without third party monies the club is not a going concern. The bank is shut, so why are people shocked and surprised that the only way to keep the club afloat is by selling players? All the club has to do is unearth another few of the like that Large Elephant listed. Piece of piss? or, good luck with that?
I don't see a lot wrong with the so-called Master Plan as Asterix claims. So, if true, which I doubt very much, was to buy the club and the freehold which means the stadium then sell it immediately for considerable gain then surely the club AND the ground would have been worth considerably more ? What is the problem with that ? Who ever bought us in a deal like that would have bought a football club with assets, something we don't have now hence the difficulty in finding a buyer today ?
Doubt very much? What sense is there in someone who self-confesses they nothing at all about football to buy a club that is the verge of being wound up? The reasons I outline make sense, to me at least. As for the stadium being an asset, something else to crawl out of the woodwork many months into their tenure, was the mortgage obtained on the lease by Bartlett to buy us in the first place. Are you advocating that the stadium be used as collateral for the next wannabe dreamers bank loan? The only saving grace in this **** storm is that they themselves are owed the money.
In practice and in simple blunt terms asset stripping means selling anything that can be sold for whatever it can be sold for. They clearly arent doing that. They seriously think they are geniuses that can survive, even thrive, even with the ever reducing budget. Their latest delusion was with McCann, thinking they had found some secret tactical formula with young cheap exciting talent in his 4 3 3 high press fast paced style (yep, right) And so it goes on and will continue to go on. Allams are deluded arrogant idiots. But they are not asset stripping; if they were then many more players would have been sold, Maddison wouldnt have been loaned (what a waste of money), MS and JS wouldnt have been bought, etc etc. A hundred mill, you ****ed it up, ....
If they just wanted to run off with a bag full of money from selling the club why didn't they wait another few days for it to wound up and buy it for £1 ? My notion is that the Allams were hoodwinked into believing the ownership of the stadium would be up for grabs if they bought the club. Either by the then owners or the Labour council who were in opposition at the time. They decided to buy the club when Bartlett and Co came begging a second time for investment, if they were going to invest considerably more then why not ask the asking price and simply buy the club ? Which is what they did. By the time they had bought the club Labour were then in power and Brady realised they couldn't simply sell the stadium but I'm sure a deal could have been cobbled together if both sides had been willing. I've heard the rumour before that the big plan was to buy the club and stadium then sell it on straight away but I don't believe a word of it. So our next owners are going to be 'wannabe dreamers' are they ? Does this describe any new owners of any football club ? Are they all 'wannabe dreamers' ? The ownership of the stadium/freehold will always be a bone of contention. Like one family owning Boothferry Park was all the time we were there. The club could only move on once the shackles had been removed. Whilst we don't own our stadium, or much for that matter, it will always restrict us moving forward. It's certainly not helping in any future sale.
You have heard the same rumour, urban legend, myth, or maybe truth, that I have. You choose to pooh pah it, I choose to believe it. Any more we just go round in circles. I will finish with, how does this affect any sale? http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/...he-kc-stadium-as-an-asset-of-community-value/ "This means that the KC Stadium cannot be sold without the local community being told about it, or being given the opportunity to bid for the stadium themselves, should the local authority choose to sell their asset."
HCC own Craven Park and they are willing to sell to the owners of the rugby club so the club can move on and progress, Same council, same city, so why is any sale of the KC so complicated ? Are not the ratepayers allowed to have a say on the sale of the council asset which is Craven Park ? What is the difference ? On the other point you pooh phad of mine, Of course the ownership of the stadium would effect any future sale of the club because the club would be worth considerably more. Is a freehold building worth more then a leasehold one ?
the rumours was bartlett wanted a severance payment before selling the club to the allams at the time