A Different Perspective on Assem Allam

Besides lying, telling fans they can go die, and regularly resorting to blackmail tactics?

Erm, not much really, you've got me there!

 

I wouldn't exactly call RAF Coningsby a school !!

 

OK ill phrase the question a bit better - name a decision he has made that has been proven wrong

 

He made the decisions to repeatedly lie, tell fans they can go die, and to regularly resort to blackmail tactics?

 

Well nothing. Though using that as defence for him having the right to change the name 'because it might be a right decision' is just plain stupid.

Appointing Steve Bruce is arguably his best decision.

Failing to see the daft motive for the whole name change (HCC feud) and claiming it to be a good decision, when quite simply it wouldn't have even come around if he'd have had his free KC Stadium is a point worth noting

 

Its easy.

Assem Allam still maintains that a hotel and development of the kc would generate commercial funding that would support the club.

It doesn't work. He has got it wrong.

 

Im not using it as a defence for him, im just trying to make the point that he may not be wrong about this either. I am very dubious about it, i really am, and of course i would rather we be called Hull City however i would also rather have the Allam family in charge of us than anybody else. Don't forget, for every Roman Abramovich there are four times as many Massimo Cellino's out there. Its clear that Assem Allam is set on this idea and its either the name changes or he goes. No one wants that to have to be a choice but people have to deal with the fact that that is the only choice out there now.

 

For me, Assam Allem hasn't really done anything that Duffen didn't do - Duffen got us promoted to the Premier league, survival in the first year (only 1 place lower than last year), and bought some record big name signings (who unfortunately didn't work out). Allam hasn't bought the players himself, he's loaned the club the money (at 5% interest) which is pretty much what Duffen did, and probably put us into our biggest ever debt. The improved training facilities and the spending on players wouldn't have been possible without the massive hike in TV sponsorship money, so the only real difference is that we got to the FA cup final under Allam - but that was more down to very good luck in our opponents getting there. At least Duffen didn't want to change the name/badge or location!

I'm not saying Duffen was good, far from it, but Happy and others should stop looking at Dr Allam as though he's God's gift to Hull City.

I haven't watched the full conference, but watching the highlights I'd say that he gave an awful presentation, and any multi-million pound business should be keeping him as far away from the spotlight as possible. I would have thought most businessmen would have taken the fans (customers) dislike of the name, the FA refusal, the current 'success under 'Hull City', the City of Culture, and numerous other reasons as a reason to drop the idea and milk the current success of 'Hull City' for all it was worth, but instead he comes across as a child throwing his toys out of the pram because he didn't get his way.

Happy also says he is happy as long as the team has 'Hull' in it's name and plays in the area. It's a very slippery slope though. If he get his way and is allowed to change the name to what he wants what is to stop a change to Hull Cash Converters (or other brand) if that will bring more money in. Don't doubt for a miunute that it would happen - just look how many stadia have had their names pimped out for a few million quid. What about if moved to Melton - that's fine says Happy as still representing Hull, but then East Riding Council sponsor a change to East Yorkshire Tigers? the new will not even represent the City at all. Some will still be happy though as they can see all the premier league stars.

 

So you are saying one of the most successful business men in the area doesn't know what he is doing, I don't see your name on the times rich list !!

 

As a Hull resident (and not a City fan in this instance) why should the Council give him the KC stadium (which cost approx. £45 to build), just on the assumption that building a hotel, etc. would develop the area? Not being funny, but who would come to a hotel there when we have a lot of better located hotels that probably aren't full. No need for a supermarket or shops at the KC as Tesco and St Stephens better located in town. Sports academy - is this a posh name for a gym/pool? again already have surfeit of facilities in the City, and people tend to go for the most convenient or cheapest option so no guarantee these would make any money.

As a tax payer I would not be happy that such an expensive asset was given away.

 

Do you know what my name is ? , no it's not HullTigerSteve . Therefore , how do you know you don't see my name on the times rich list when you don't know what it is .

 

Is it just Steve?

 

Damn, you know .

 

In this case, yes. Just because he is a success at one business, doesn't mean he is good at running a football club. Yes, there will be transferable skills, it doesn't mean that you run them the same way.

 

He may have known what he was doing two or three years ago, but now, no he doesn't. I suggest that you do some sums. Look at Norwich and then look at how many retail units are available in Hull.

 

As a Hull Taxpayer you have a right to view what we do with the stadium.
You clearly are not bothered about the football club
But Do you sit on the Council? Your views on development & attracting external investment & income into the City seem to match their ambition & foresight.

The stadium & surrounding area is crying out for ongoing investment, improve facilities for fans & improve the area for the community.
The Council will not / can not pay for it so it will never happen unless external investment comes in.

Whether you like it or not a successful Premier League football team creates wealth for the City... not just the Club.

 

Allam's main problem was the way he went about the name change.

If he had slowly, in a consultative way, brought the fans along with it, with clearly laid out evidence of increased revenue and business plans for the future, then probably there would have been less of a furor.

But he didn't, he badly misjudged what it is to be a custodian of a club and alienated his key customers, which is terrible business practice.

Today's press conference was the act of a spoilt brat and achieved nothing. "Let me change the name or I am selling" is no different to "pick me first or I am taking my ball home". There is nothing new, he said the same thing last year, so today's conference was to re-iterate something he said last year and didn't follow through on. Wow. Well worth a press conference that. Unless the aim was to enjoy time in the spotlight.

It is a distraction that our exciting new team, the hugely motivated fan base and indeed the hugely impressed national media, do not need ahead of seeing our new signings in action, live on the TV.

 

Have you considered that the furore might infact be the "tigers" marketing strategy in itself?

Keeping the branding potential in the wider consciousness whilst avoiding becoming a deified, irreplaceable figurehead might well be the most sensible way to attract foreign investment or a new buyer in his eyes.

He's 75, wants to leave the club on a sustainable footing at the top level and recoup the majority of his investment.

Considering the only thing needed to market "hull tigers" abroad is the registration and use of a trademark then it is the only logical explanation. He's purposefully generating headlines. That seems clear to me. I think he's using it to attract interest from potential buyers.

Otherwise he's just a bit mad and to be fair if he wasn't he'd probably not have spent 40m preserving championship status when he could have let it wind up and buy it for a fraction of the price - albiet starting from a lower level.

Of course, if you have time ahead of you you can slowly build. If you are in your 70s and have philanthropic motives then perhaps you don't quite have the time to rebuild and don't want don't want to see another damaging administration against the clubs name further suggesting the clubs lack of potential to sustain itself at this level.

His investment decisions seem to be about proving that with the right priming investment the club can indeed prosper at this level.

Of course if you, a friend or loved one ever had an emotional interest in Ruscador then to you he'll probably always be a lying ****e of a snake oil salesman - aint that right PLT?

 

Duffen was never the owner, Bartlett was.

There is a massive difference between borrowing money from one of your own tangible assets to finance another venture, and tying that finance to your own holding company as Allam seems to have done than using an intangible property bubble to borrow against from an external financer at far more than 5% as Bartlett evidently did.

Allam can choose when to call in the debt (or not) as and when he pleases and under what terms he chooses. Bartlett couldn't, hence allam gaving to pay off investec and barclays 20 m before he could relieve Barrett of his "asset" for the princely sum of £1.

In terms of finances there is no comparison to be made. We are actually as solid in that respect as we can be.

Assem would not be fronting up and would be as shadowy as Bartlett if the finances of city were built on theoretical cash as they proved to be under the previous regime.

He might be a mad old **** but he seems to be one with honest intent and built on his own wealth. Bartlett never had the money to start with. Duffen was a paid figurehead, nothing more.

Melton won't happen either - the money he would have used to buy and develop the kc in 2011 or move to a new stadium in melton has been invested in the club already. He'd need external finance to do it and doesn't seem to want to go down that route at the moment.

 

Did Bartlett make a loss? Obviously he paid more than he sold for but how much did he get from the club during his reign? I remember someone mentioning that he took a large chunk of the premier league money for his own business then replaced that with the bank loans and chained the security around the clubs neck. Risk free for him, his business venture paid for itself and he wouldn't lose out if/when the football club gamble lost, which it did.

Assuming I'm both remembering correctly and that whoever it was that said that was right.