Which part do you mean - the £100million of debt or the massive split between fiercely loyal fans? David Lloyd could have got us in the Premier League if he'd taken on £100m of debt.
Everybody has a different view over the name change and it won't go away until we have a new owner. In the meantime until the name changes we are still Hull City and so we (Thee adults long time supporters) will carry on paying to support them. The moment it becomes Hull Tigers we will stop going and therefore paying.
I don't think you grasp how utterly absurd this latest outburst is, and your post. Assem Allam is chairman of the club. These things such as negotiating/dealing with the council are his job as chairman. What's even more absurd is the council were willing to work with Assem Allam, but he spat his dummy out and refused to work with them because Terry Geraghty was wearing his shirt slightly untidily and he left his ipad on the table. That is ****ing ridiculous. And now he's blaming the fans for it (which includes you). That's even more ****ing ridiculous. And you're agreeing with him.... It really is gutting to see just how stupid some of the 'people' we are forced to share a planet with actually are.
I don't believe for one minute that Happy, Caveman and their fellow cohorts actually believe 100% themselves what they are posting. You just couldn't be totally happy with his inconsistencies of what he's saying. The worst thing is that people who don't support even chip in with , what's the problem with changing the name.
Of course they don't, their just looking for a bit of attention, which they unfortunately we keep giving them.
But you've just made my point for me. I dont know why people are celebrating us having 3 times the debt that Bartlett was abused for.
You obviously didn't go to any away games in the 07/08 or 08/09 season then, Paul Duffen used to get plenty of chants, especially when he sat in the away end on a few occasions. In fact I'm sure the prick purposely hung around the away end each game just to get some attention.
Alas!! I'm afraid you're correct. Not that I take take any of their comments with the slightest of seriousness.
Are you enjoying City in the PL? Yes Allam is a silly old fool on the name change but without him as guarantor for the debt we'd be well down the pyramid. Can't you at least appreciate he's taken on a lot of risk? If you think the debt is all bad then you shouldn't be following City in any way. Why come on here with opinions on City player's performances if you are so concerned the money shouldn't have been spent on them in the first place?
It really makes no sense at all, Bartlett was as bad a villain as ever there was for running us into £30m debt. Allam runs us into £90m debt and is considered by some to be a hero who has brought success to this club at great personal cost. When really, when Allam finally leaves this ordeal, he will walk away tens of millions better off for it, and the club will be right up **** creek.
I can agree with your point, but only to a point . . . . . . Take away the name-change nonsense and there would not be an issue as AA has the personal wealth to support the level of debt he has incurred: of course we have to gift him the label of a honourable man in that he would honour his debt - but I can just about still mange that. He has hit the buffers on sensible investment - in his own words (more or less!) ' it would be throwing money at it and he has not got that money'. He has brought the matter to its only real conclusion: give me the benefit of owning the KC Stadium or I will sell. This was always it, the rest was smoke and mirrors - not to mention a huge chunk of ego and bile. He will not get the stadium, even though he is now calling in all of his favours in support; he will sell. Whoever he sells to will be his choice, all they have to do is meet the conditions in place through the FA/PL. We can only hope for the best; but whoever comes will get a set of supporters who (mostly) are passionate about their club, organised and ripe to move forward with sensible, proactive initiatives. Assem Allam has lost the impetus he once had in achieving this, as his stubbornness will always make him a risky partner in anything. It's the stadium and its development potential, it's his grudge with the council, it's not the City, it's not it's folk, it's not paying back something; if it is then he has a very strange way of showing it.
Complete speculation, you can't say what would have happened had he not got involved. What we do know is that because he got involved we are now in three times as much debt as we were before.
The last I saw was circa £350m for personal wealth. What his football clubs' liquidity is can be seen as a different matter; I have seen it said our debts are somewhere between £70 - 100m and I have seen a sale value of £50m plucked out of the air. Maybe someone else could be more precise on both counts.
Allam was estimated to be worth £320m on this years Times list, though that's largely based on guesswork and we should find out the current debt level in the next couple of weeks(Ehab said the figures would be out by now). The value of the club is harder to gauge, it's basically what someone is willing to pay.
The £50 million sale price came from the BBC sports website regarding his Football Focus interview. The important things is not his personal wealth but how much cash he generates each year. Football gobbles up cash. Not many employees are on at least £1 million a year except in the Premier League when you may have 20 or 30 on that money. He can borrow to pay for wages and transfer fees but eventually he'll run out of assets, which is what happened to Russell Bartlett.
Villa was up for sale at £200 million but reports suggest he'd be willing to take closer to £100 mill to get out. Based on that £50 million seems to be a pretty fairish figure
