I probably sound like I'm a bit obsessed with Tunnicliffe but I posted on the Man Utd board months ago asking what they thought of him. Most thought he'd be in their squad as a Carling Cup type fringe player and didn't think he'd be going out on loan again. This is very good news if it happens.
Good stuff. I'm not trying to be negative, but if we do sign these two as looks pretty likely. Is it an indication that our transfer policy remains similar to what it was under Barmby and Pearson rather than a new desire to spend heavily? If we go out and sign a couple of proven players for hefty fees then my question will be withdrawn but as the only clue we have so far is that we're after more cheap youngsters, you have to wonder... And really, I'm not complaining before anyone kicks off.
After all that has been said by the Allams, I think it will be very difficult for them not to spend money this Summer whether that is on fees or contracts I don't know.
Not kicking off but i hope our policy is the name. I really hope we don't spend heavily as personally i don't want the fines and possible points deductions that go with it under FPP rules. Unless we get the KC in Hull Citys name we won't be able to spend big for a long time.
Good point really. By kicking off I meant people potentially having a go at me for questioning the Allams' word, not saying no one can respond at all!
Not that i'm a financial expert (far from it), my understanding was the benefit of having the KC was that we could go to banks for loans and use the stadium as collateral to borrow against. I thought the FPP rules were basically there so you have to live within your means and not spend more than you earn. So I don't see how owning the stadium would help us under FPP rules. We get the all the ticket revenue and pay a peppercorn rent even though we don't own the stadium. If we did own the stadium and took out loans using the stadium as collateral wouldn't we be going against the rules by using loans that outweighed our actual income? I also realise the FPP rules are about owners plunging their personal wealth into a club when the club might not make anywhere near as much. Like I say I'm sure someone will prove me wrong as my brain usually turns off when economics or finances are being discussed, nothing more boring than either of those in my opinion.
The policy of loaning quality youngsters from Man U has been quite successful & we seem to have the option of buying if they're not deemed potential Red Devils first teamers. So why change it by risking big money. Steve Bruce prolongs the tradition which I see as a very positive point. Chester, Stewart, Evans & Dudgeon are all likely to make a tidy profit if & when sold. Don't go calling the owners tight if in fact we're being shrewd. Heskey however may demand higher wages than anyone else currently on the books bar Olofinjana & Ghilas although we'll be looking to shift them.
I think there's some sort of specific rules on stadium ownership and the borrowings allowed against it, so that the new rules don't prevent clubs from investing in infrastructure.
Yes but they'd be borrowing against the stadium to invest in players not infrastructure. I'm guessing that's what they're trying to prevent so clubs don't get a massive debt and go under like Pompey to an extent.
What's happening with Pompey anyway, have they managed to dodge liquidation again or are they gonna go the same way as Rangers?
Impressive work by City Independent. Broke this story from their "Sources" on 11/06/2012 at 19:55 Amusingly, given the little "discussion" between Stovolos and National on their forum, Strovolos actually broke it before them on here, quoting his source. http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/150826-Michael-Keane-and-Ryan-Tunnicliffe?highlight=ryan+tunnicliffe+keane. Unless Scoots can back up CI, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bullshit on their "sources".
Still trying to figure out if they were being genuine when they claimed they were the ones to exclusively reveal Bruce to be the manager. They have to be on the wind-up.
The first person to SERIOUSLY suggest Steve Bruce was going to be our next manager was Mike White on Twitter. Prior to that CI had only ever mentioned Steve Bruce as one of a number of possibilities to be the next manager. CI and Ian Waterson are just a bunch of clowns regurgitating other peoples scoops claiming it for themselves. They state it's just a laff and not serious but when you confront them with the truth they go all serious and anal. Not the most intelligent of people.
CI were sticking with McCarthy throughout. In a last paragraph they probably said something like 'rumours persist with regards lee clark, phil brown, Steve Bruce and Greg abbott'.
Some weeks ago, I pm'd someone off CI with what turned out to be old news, but in their reply they not only mentioned the manager, but also the facts about some players liable to arrive. Some of you seem to expect 100% accuracy on events that can change. Just because something doesn't come to fruition, doesn't mean it wasn't a realistic consideration. It's also true that some details have to be kept back for fear of dropping the source in it. Just take what's posted at face value instead of expecting chapter, verse and copper bottomed guarantees.
That's not the issue. The issue is trying to big yourself up in order to improve circulation by claiming you are first with "The Scoop" when that is a lie. I, personally, know who to trust about information and who not to. But what I find despicable is after the fact falsely claiming you were first to break the news. As for keeping things quiet, I, and a number of others I know of, have information about what has been going on at Hull City that we have chosen not to put in the public domain. So what if CI do the same? I don't make any claims to be more special than anyone else, I simply keep it to myself.
