Its like Ehab has hacked into your account on here. All the talk about selling, 24hrs, give it away, offers but not a good home and at last a chance to walk away with a decent profit all turned to nothing so why do you believe things will change in September? You're not happy with others posting what they think or know about the deal and yet you go on and on about the payment plan, even going as far as saying they don't have the money. Its often better not to pay up front even if you have the cash in the bank.
I'm perfectly happy with other people posting their thoughts. After Bartlett I think how a prospective buyer intends to pay for us, what debt remains outstanding and how deep their pockets are is important.
I bought a new car recently, I could have paid cash but it was better for me to borrow the money and repay over three years so that I could use my cash in other ways. I buy equipment for my business, I could pay cash up front but it's better for tax and cash flow that I pay on finance. There are lots of reasons that a buyer of a football club would want to pay in instalments, especially when the sums involved in future income are so large, perhaps they wanted to make sure there was enough spare cash available for short term player investment. For me personally a new owner would mean I would return to the KC so I'm very disappointed that this particular bullet has been dodged.
Thats strange Ben they are all the exact reasons I won't be joining the scheme. Strange how others don't seem to see that.
The question is that may be what the buyer wants but do you think the Allams would sell on those terms. I don't unless there were cast iron guarantees in place to make sure they got the sale price plus their £80 million. I presume you didn't borrow the money from the owner of the car. Would you sell me your car for an £100 deposit and the rest over three years? Having paid the deposit I'd expect you to sign the vehicle registration documents, a contract saying I was 100% owner and then hand me the car and keys.
That's exampling the importance of hire purchase, and title retention issues... Sensible business finance arrangements . Forget it, it's like arguing with finger puppets. The concessions thread again... "Oh no you can't." ... "Oh yes you can!". Etc. Etc. Etc.
I don't know if you have read other things than I have seen, but I find you conclusion strange. But that's not my point; if you read properly, you will see I disregard the takeover and ask whether or not you did not already have sufficient information and evidence to conclude they are greedy and stupid. Let me help you: before the takeover debacle, before any mention of Americans, had you seem enough example of both greedy and stupid behaviour to conclude that they are just that? Bearing in mind other conversations on here.
There would obviously be collateral and guarantees. No-one would sell something on a promise and no-one would try and buy on a promise. If a sale was agreed, or even close to being agreed as Ehab alluded to then the terms of payment must have been acceptable to both parties. When I buy on credit the finance company or bank makes sure I have the means to pay, or the assets to seize if I default, the same applies when making large purchases and it would make no sense to pay all up front if it's not necessary.
I don't find them overly greedy no. The administration fees and the 4% interest is more than I'd like them to take but I wouldn't call it excessively greedy. They could have taken far more out of the club then they have done. Do I find them stupid. Not particularly. I could find reasonably sound motives for almost everything they've done. Things like Airco and the membership scheme I think are disgraceful but there is a logic to what they've done. I just don't agree with it. Bullying and vindictive, yes but no, not stupid.
It's my experience that ****s is usually ostracised purely because they are ****s, not because they've broken rules. R7 is a rule, is that broken by these ****s, or is there a concession being made for them.
According to OLM they were to discuss the terms on payment on the Thursday but didn't get around to it because of the £6 million demand for the SMC. There may have been agreement on repayment already but it didn't sound nailed down to me.
Even if it wasn't nailed down there must have been a basic agreement on whether it would be cash up front, or deposit plus terms. The fact that it wasn't cash up front is definitely not a reason to be suspicious.
Any perspective buyer would purchase the shares to Superstadium Holdings Limited (the holding company of the SMC) and the shares of Hull City Tigers Limited (Hull City AFC). Hull City Tigers Limited owes Allamhosue £80 million roughly. Once you buy the shares you are then responsible for paying the companies debts, including the £80 million to Allamhouse. The Allams would want some form of guarantee that the loan will be repaid and an indication of when. Ideally they would get it all paid on the date of sale. If any of the debt is left outstanding they would want a copper bottom guarantee of being paid. Neither Hull City Tigers Limited or the SMC have sufficient assets to cover the loan. Can you really see Assem Allam signing any document that doesn't give him a cast iron guarantee of payment. I can't.
That's a good point, that I am a bit confused about. I thought the club and the SMC are two business entities that are tied to sole ownership, but separate accountability and corporate governance. Am I wrong in this and if so, what is the link? On the other hand, if I am right and they are linked, why was Allam pimping the SMC separately? Keep it simple (not just you Dutch, anyone) no swear words or insults (it looks like kids are involved in this discussion) and nothing from you, Happy, as we can't believe it anyway.
