It has nearly been a week since the HDM published an article in which Mr Allam junior challenged Hull FC to waive their confidentiality clause (It does exist) in respect of the SMC agreement. Nothing so far. Adam Pearson does not have to say anything, but anything he does say........... #prayforadam?
I would have thought explaining why he didn't feel Mr Whiteley was worth £20 would have been in his interest? Especially as this was in the public domain almost a year ago. Or explaining how come the SMC accounts appear to show no provision for future repairs, or why it left the football club propping up a rugby club... His comments could also help stop some FC fans making fools of themselves by going off half cocked.
Hull fans trust him to do right by them and at the moment they would rather he sought a solution than waste time with the press. Is that naïve of them? Maybe, but it doesn't concern anyone other than the Hull fans, so don't worry about it. Like I said, nothing to gain. I think you'll find there's precious little we can do about those people, the same goes for their equivalents on this board. With a foot in both camps I've kept relatively quiet on this subject as I still can't decide which party is the most petulant and childish, no-ones covered themselves in glory, that includes both sets of fans whose agendas have really masked their opinions.
Agree with all of this. Although, pretty much everyone acknowledges this confidentiality clause, Burnsy mentioned it on Humberside on Saturday quite early in the program so that probably explains AP and FC's silence.
...and yet plenty of other's with confidentiality clauses still manage to get their stories out when they really need to.
It's too patchy a reply to comment properly on but I would say they patronising comment about it only affecting the RL fans is laughable given the claim is we as a club are propping them up and as a consequence, local ratepayers are subsidising them in the short fall in the SMC. That makes it fairly and squarely our business, but over and above that, them hurling insults at our Club, sport and chairman, also makes it our business. If, as you reckon, AP has nothing to gain from commenting, that implies the version in the press is true or at least true enough for the RL lot to wait until they've half an idea what they're talking about.
That comment specifically referred to your suggestion that AP didn't think JW was worth £20, hence the multi-quote reply, sorry if you mis-read that. If that effects you I'd like to know how. Of course the rest has wider implications, that's pretty obvious. Unlike the Allams, AP understands PR and will not simply respond to some article because a group of supporters (rugby or football) want him too, he will tell his side of the story publically when its appropriate and in his best interests, as he should. We won't know what is true or not until he decides to speak, even then the facts are likely to be far from clear. Like I said, I have no allegiance in this debate, its pathetic from both sides, but the fact I'm not part of the 'we hate rugby' brigade means you have to disagree with everything I've said, regardless of how neutral and reasoned it is, I understand that.
The consequences of AP seemingly thinking it wasn't worth £20 for the pictures is the initiation of the problem that you acknowledge is clearly my and everyone in Hull's business and why AP should comment. As for your other comments, that's just silly. I reply to the comments, not the poster, even on the occasions that I think the poster is just on yet another wind up.
If that's how you want to see the situation that's fine, you could argue in an empty room and quite frankly I don't have the time to engage you. I made a simple, reasoned statement in response to the OP, nothing I've said has been inflammatory or incorrect, if you don't agree that's fine, it's a message board, but it doesn't mean its a wind up.
Mr Airlie Tiger, I take your point that AP has nothing to gain from saying anything, but what would he have to lose, if anything at all, from an open book? He seemed quite willing to openly discuss SMC matters on the tenth anniversary of the KC. http://www.thisishullandeastriding....tory-17594221-detail/story.html#axzz2Lc35sgn8
