Firstly, and in general terms, I don’t know that they (the current HCC cabinet) aren’t fighting tooth and nail to bring all kinds of investment into the city. Of course, this cabinet might not be the most able people to do this and they may have failed in some endeavours we/I know of or don’t know of; but they have at least been elected to these positions by local people. I’ll hold my hands up and say that I don’t have an intricate or detailed knowledge of this cabinet’s strategy to bring more investment and jobs into the city. AA seems to have publicly burnt his bridges with HCC. What possible insult to him could have happened for him to do this? Is this rational behaviour especially if this was the means to give the club some kind of autarky? Is this mature behaviour even? Given the hindsight of the former paragrapah and further still the hindsight of the last few months (the confusion over the club name/company name, the disastrous handling of PR with core customers, the admission of an absolute lack of research before undertaking major marketing decisions and of course the many public, embarrassing comments to the national press) I think HCC were dead right to expect at least an offer. I suppose a lot hinges upon what actually was discussed and what was on the table but it seems to me on one hand AA is saying: we need the stadium to progress/survive; but I’m not talking to the ‘owners’ because they hurt my feelings/ego/pride in some way.
You seriously don't know what was said by Terry? There'll be quotes and possibly even radio links on t'interweb.
Link us up to the quotes (if you don't mind). I know that it was said TG said something like: 'not getting is hands on my stadium but I didn't hear or read it from him (just second hand). Since then, I've read comments from Brady that would suggest HCC were open to offers.
It's more than just one quote, it was a few, and it was also the general attitude, so rather than get bogged down with whichever one I post in isolation, it's far better for you to google the full thing and get a feel for it. Making a bid for the stadium is a red herring. The issue wasn't so much about a single, cast in stone offer, but the possibility in principle of a concept. Talking about the value of the stadium itself is nonsense, as the stadium, with it's caveats, actually devalues the land to such an extent it's possibly worth nothing. What value would you put on the stadium with no football team? It's certainly a cost to the Council at the moment. The real discussion is what can be done to bring investment and development into the area. If the Council have a plan, it seems to be top secret. For all his eccentricities, Mr Allam had an idea that was seemingly booted out through ignorance before every avenue was explored. It could well have turned out to be bollocks, we'll never know now and the area continues to decline.
By Hull Daily Mail | Posted: October 03, 2011 CITY councillor Terry Geraghty has hit back at Hull City owner Assem Allam over the ownership of the KC Stadium. Mr Allam and his son Ehab criticised Hull City Council and the portfolio holder for leisure after being told the council was not prepared to sell the stadium to them at a meeting earlier this week. Councillor Geraghty said he was "astonished" at the comments made by Mr Allam and his son following the meeting. He said: "It was an amicable, laid-back meeting which lasted three hours. "At the end of it, we all shook hands, agreed to continue working together on a few ideas and Mr Allam even invited me to visit his factory. "The next thing I know, he's calling me dishonest and criticising the council for not agreeing to what he wants. "I have got no axe to grind with him and he can call me what he likes because I have always told the truth. "I have no reason to lie about anything – I'm too long in the tooth for that sort of thing." Mr Geraghty said Mr Allam wanted the council to give him the freehold of the stadium. "That was something we were not prepared to do for a number of very good reasons," he said. "The main one was that he could not give any guarantees on the stadium's future. "It was built and opened without any debt, but his proposal was to borrow against the freehold and that would create a debt. "Anything with a debt carries a risk and, as a council, we are not prepared to have a situation like that. "No one wants a repeat of what happened at Boothferry Park when the club got locked out of the ground because of financial problems." Mr Geraghty said the businessman's proposals for developing a sports village complex on nearby Walton Street were vague and unclear. He said:"He said he would raise £120 million by borrowing on the stadium and getting £25 million from the Sports Council. "I know for a fact the Sports Council hasn't got that sort of money to hand out. "When we said there was a perfectly good ice arena already in the city and Albert Avenue baths just around the corner, he said the ice arena and the swimming pool they had been talking about could be dropped. "He wasn't even prepared to show us his plans. He said they had cost him £3,000 and they belonged to him. "You can't really work in partnership with someone if they are not prepared to share basic information like that. "We've had nothing in writing from him at all, no offer to buy the stadium or anything like that." Councillor Geraghty said they had offered to work with the Hull City owners to relocate training pitches at Cottingham and Ideal Standard to land next to the KC Stadium "He seemed happy about that," said the councillor. "We also offered to help locate a squash centre as part of that development, but then he got talking about shops and boutiques. Now, he's even talking about having a supermarket on the site. "Either he wants a sports village or a shopping centre. "He has his own style and his own way of going about things, but I think he wants his own way and nothing else. "I certainly don't think he understands the workings of local government." Mr Geraghty said he was committed to sport in the city but claimed Mr Allam and his son appeared unaware of other existing facilities in the city. "We suggested Costello as a place to put the football training pitches and they said it was too small, which is just nonsense. "I mentioned we have got 23 different big sporting events lined up in Hull next year and they did not seem to know anything about them. "All they were interested in was getting the stadium freehold. They kept coming back to it time and time again."
To be clear, Iâd love the ideas to happen. But, Iâd still say that itâs bloody minded (to say the least) of AA to publicly burn these bridges that he has said are so important to the future of the club. Iâd have thought the AA, who according to some has âplayedâ the CTWD group, would easily be able to outwit mere public servants such as TG or Brady. Or, is TG such a cutting individual, heâs got his way and brushed AA off with a few (alleged) choice comments. Instead, to raise this revenue, AA is prepared to risk alienating a big slice of core support based on something which has not been explored or researched and has been unanimously doubted by the academics that I have seen comment on the matter. The way this has been handled puts the stadium question/problem, in my opinion, into a different light, as unfortunately, doubt has been cast upon AAâs word.
I still think it is something to do with the old maternity hospital fiasco on Heddon Road, some deep issues there between Allams and Hcc.
Actually, given recent events, and whatever your political stance (I know that most people's default is anti-HCC) does HCC's position outlined in this article seem THAT unreasonable.
For me these are the biggest issues & why Allam must never get his hands on the stadium !! It is clear that Allam did not wish to pay for the stadium, he simply wanted an asset to borrow £120 million against
You did. I've had a quick look and can't find anything else of repute (so far) that differs or adds anything of significance. Be interesting if anyone else posts anything (or if they can be arsed). There was a lot of hearsay at the time, was this bullshit, exaggeration, or fact?
pasted from the article Muffin posted about the Geraghty/Allam meeting : "It was an amicable, laid-back meeting which lasted three hours. At the end of it, we all shook hands, agreed to continue working together " remind anyone of a recent meeting ?
People will believe what they choose to believe. People will find quotes that suit their needs, others will dissect that quote in isolation. Many will try to make it A v B, when it's more than just that. People have long since stopped searching for the truth, they're now hunting scraps that support their theory, despite openly admitting they haven't looked for or been given any facts.
I try and approach everything with balance, exploring both (or all) sides - I do emphasise TRY. Naturally, I'm full of inherent bias - I'm (apparently) human - but despite this we still try and make our minds fairly. My mind is not made up. Far from it. But given recent events, it has placed this in a new light for me – though nothing is cut and dry and I’m more than comfortable outside of the ying/yang or a and b. I’d be interested to read (or hear) the counter evidence and the remarks made by Geraghty that hurt AA so much, his only option is to enter into changing our name despite no proven benefit and despite the proven harm (proven in the sense that it will and has alienated core support).
The highlighted bit seems to conflict with your last paragraph. Have a google, it's not all out there, but the bits you seem to want more information on should be. As I said, posting links in isolation just leads to people splitting hairs, the picture's bigger than that.
No, as stated my mind is not made up. The last paragraph is an articulation of part of the thought process and is not the absolute product by any means. You seem to have a lot of this information at your fingertips, or are at least aware of it and its location, couldn`t you chuck in a few of the reputable sources into the mix? Especially, if they counter what has been said. Anyone who treats them in isolation (as you say) would be making an error of their own and not of your making.
If I put my house on sale, I'll put up a "for sale" sign and advertise a price. If, however, you knock on my door and say," I want to buy your house", my response is likely to be "make me an offer". If AA hasn't done this, but has instead said that he wants KC for nothing, with only pipe dreams on offer, then Geraghty (if his version is accurate) has behaved exactly as most of us would. Especially as the KC belongs to the City as a community asset.
There's information that's not on the web. A lot of what's been said isn't really worth countering anyway. As you say, you've an open and inquiring mind, it shouldn't take much to pull a few of the facts together to get a better picture. I doubt even the most informed people (which I'm not) would have a definitive angle to post that would satisfy all. I reckon there's even several versions, based on solid fact, that would totally conflict with each others conclusions. People seem to be looking for links between A, B, C and beyond and colouring in the grey areas. Me, I don't like the name change, and I particularly don't like how it's being done. Maybe those are the only bits that matter?
