And get a response of: "Nobody can question me!!!" and then he goes off to another interview hoping to just be allowed to state is case with no questions.
Only the first 60 characters are accepted. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/1085/schedule/3/made
He might not be a lunatic but he's not very reliable. It doesn't matter if he's put in £1 or £60m, it doesn't make him immune from valid criticism.
He didn't save the club from oblivion. He saved the club from administration. Somebody would have bought the club from the administrators. He'd be even more foolish if he tried to run the club down. He would get a lot more money by selling it when it's doing well.
No he's changing the name to some mickey mouse nonsense rather than leaving it with a respected tradition football name that it's had for over 100 years. Has anybody though Buckingham Palace should be changed to Tigers Den to get more business from Asia?
Most of us have supported Hull City for a long time and that is not going to change. Allam will never get the club playing name changed because he knows he wont get the backing of the majority of the supporters.
Even Mike Ashley has some idea of the feelings of the fans even if he has to be convinced by the fans every now and again.
He's comparing people who don't speak out against what is wrong and people who do speak out against what is wrong.
It really is time folk dealt with the facts: AA has not given our club anything in monetary terms, he has invested his cash and he receives a decent return from it. Prior to his takeover, he was watching the events at our club, being kept up to date and 'in the know' by AP; his takeover was a shrewd move that has cost him nothing, in the same way that any money he has tied up in Allam Marine costs him nothing - it makes him money. He would be on target to have built a very substantial financial empire in the City of Hull (as he once liked to refer to it) if he had of been allowed to purchase the stadium and surrounding development assets. Even if we were to accept that he has our football club's best interests at heart - and I do not - the very nature of his business style, the lies, the deceit, the confrontation, the snide public comment, the manipulation of the supporters, the limitless exaggeration he is prone to (I've said it a million times), all portray a business man who anyone, but the most foolhardy, would give a very wide berth to. PeterSaxton has it right where he says (or infers) that his blustering is a sham, aimed at brow beating the media. Those close to him will have seen all of this before, which is why they are nowhere to be seen or heard; just like other investors. I am grateful for the fact that his investment decision coincided with our club's urgent need; it was fortuitous for both parties. I am grateful that the Pearson / Barmby debacle gave us an opportunity to see his and Pearsons true colours. I am grateful that he felt he had to support his investment with a further one; Steve Bruce and promotion to the PL. I was quite happy for him to rub his hands together at the thought of his investment potential. I was indifferent to his spat with HCC; that is until it became apparent that he was being demanding, manipulative and downright dishonest. I am not grateful to him for creating a Strawman out of the club's historic and cherished name - the vast majority were very happy with it until he fabricated his marketing lie and the reason for it. I resent the fact that he believes he can lie to me, that he can denigrate the history of a football club that I, my family and friends have held dear through many generations. I resent the fact he believes he can bully me and ride roughshod over me with a flimsy tissue of lies and deceit that he was arrogant enough to believe would endure in turning our heads. I resent the fact that he has used everyone's sincere gratitude against them in such an insincere manner. We should hold our heads up and stop any hint of cooperation and fight him openly and honestly; he deserves no less than that.
Can I put to rest one popular myth. Buying Hull City for a pound. Purchasing a business prior to administration. This is done to stop others buying the business that you want. The administrators will sell to the highest bidder. All football creditors must be satisfied in order to play in the Football League and if we plummeted to the Conference ALL creditors. So in reality the amount needed to be available would be in the tens of millions. The difference in financial terms is minimal, if you have a goal of Premier League football. The 15 point deduction restricts promotion, but with investment we have seen that it can be only season long, but the cost of that season added to the football debts, will in my humble opinion equal the amount paid by purchasing prior to administration. Purchase prior to administration, promotion to the PL in 3 seasons = cost £65m Purchase in administration, promotion to the PL in 4 seasons = cost 65m You get to the same point over a longer period of time spending the same amount of money.
I can't understand why you would think changing the club's name isn't as bad as changing the club colours? To me, they're equally bad, in fact I'd say a name change was worse.
I don't think it is a myth. In real terms he contractually bought the club for £1 (or some similar peppercorn sum); what cost him millions were the operating losses and debts he adopted subsequent to purchase. All assets (investments) will gain or lose real value (invest £10 today and in ten years it will have a face value of £10, but what it will buy you will have changed in real terms) and Hull City AFC is no different. If handled correctly, as AA says, the club can be self-sufficient, the big question is, will changing our name to Hull Tigers go any significant way to achieving that? All of the professional views that have been aired say an emphatic no, while one says it will diminish the brand identity and it's returns. On the other hand AA first tells us he will do a 2 -3 year study to determine the effect of name-change and then, within weeks, that changes to 2 - 3 months and when pressed, in a reasonable manner, for where he will seek that information, he refuses to answer and starts to rant. Let us not be blinded by nuance of detail, but let's see this man for what he is.
Me too. The chants, the scoreboard and the programme adequately say who we are; the colours are good to keep but they do and have changed. Although I could well imagine AA making us the first lilac and beige striped Tigers out there.
I'm not about to start am argument about how much he paid. But it was in the millions, to Russell Bartlett. Statements keep being repeated that he could have saved himself millions if he had let the company go into administration and bought it for a pound, my point is that it would have cost the same amount, just over a longer period.
No but it should deserve more gratitude and respect than some of the cyber-warrior abuse being meted out on this thread.
