Just seen this on twitter, didn’t realise there was so many layers haha Hull City Tigers Limited is 100% owned by ACM Sports BV (a company incorporated in the Netherlands). ACM Sports BV is 100% owned by Acun Medya Holding BV (a company incorporated in the Netherlands). Acun Medya Holding BV is 100% owned by Acun Medya Holdings A.Ş. (a company incorporated in Turkey). Acun Medya Holding A.Ş. is 100% owned by Ali Acun Ilicali.
Well that is interesting news. And seems to be following the trend of English teams (especially. premier league clubs) having a feeder club. So a sign of ambition. Actually had no idea where Dundalk was in Eire. See its close to the border about an hour from Dublin. Also see the club was formed the year before City in 1903. From a fan perspective in terms of an itch to visit a more exotic location might have been more appealing but I am told rural Eire has its charms.
Interesting, according to Wikipedia their original shirt was black and amber stripes. Seems a natural fit!
Some one posted earlier that those are the original colours they played in. Probably a heritage kit judging by the photo at the bottom. EDIT: They were wearing Black and Amber when the club was revived in 1919.
As usual some negative sod on the comments section in the HDM disparaging it and asking if any top clubs do similar. There are numerous. Although my favourite link up would be Spurs with Leuven. Home of the Stella Artois brewery whose beer bears no relation to the gassy, chemically laden, brewed under licence here crap which bears its name.
As a fan of the game, I hate the concept of 'feeder clubs'. OK, you might have an unspoken arrangement with a local non-league side in the 10th division, but purchasing a team in another country's top tier? It just doesn't feel right. They were going toe-to-toe with Arsenal in the Europa League barely 2 years ago ffs
I think that's a valid view but I'm not sure what them being in the Europa League has to do with it. Sounds like you're saying they matter because of their success.
After listening to that 15-minute interview, it sounds like the ground isn't in the best condition and needs some pretty hefty investment. I completely understand why people think the idea of a feeder club is bad but I don't really see the difference between that and us loaning kids from Chelsea/Arsenal etc. It's not like we'll be sending anyone over there and they'll be forced to play them. Some of our youngsters will play because they're good enough but not quite ready for that jump to the Championship. We've seen with Harvey Cartwright this year that he's gone on loan and doesn't look like making a league appearance all season. Callum Jones has gone pretty stagnant for the last 2 years as well. You've also got the nugget of potential European football which will really help attract young players.
Is it feasible to say lift the turf at the MKM, lay a new pitch at our place, and then use what you took up for their ground? Maybe, our used pitch with a bit of care and attention is better than what they have! Just a thought.
