Completely right about TV taking over. As you say anyone can watch every City game home and away for £50 a year, so then choosing to pay £27 (or £33) before becomes daft if going to a game isn’t already in your blood. It’s in mine so I do, but we can’t ignore that it’s very different for young people nowadays. I’ve no idea what it is, but clubs need to find a way of making live attendance fun for youngsters. Too much sanitisation presumably doesn’t help, but I’m too old so it’s youngsters who need to be asked. I do wonder why the easy availability on TV seems to run alongside big crowds in American sport though? I probably wouldn’t like the answer, but they seem to manage both (he says with no stats to back it up so gets ready to be proven wrong)
What Bartlett did after he took over the club was entirely down to him, AP did nothing to facilitate any loans. Did he steal your pen as well as Percy's?
I’d say he was well aware The lease provides that the tenant may at anytime charge the property to a “respectable and responsible financial institution”. There is no stipulation that the Council’s consent is required, save where such charge is made other than to a “respectable and responsible financial institution”. Where the charge is not to a “respectable and responsible financial institution” Council’s consent is required, however, it is “not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed”. The mortgage of the stadium to RBS in 2007 by the then owner R3 Investments to facilitate the transfer of the club between Adam Pearson and Russell Bartlett accordingly did not require the consent of the Council
Bartlett obviously couldn't raise any money against the lease until after he'd taken over, by which time AP had gone. Bartlett paid for the club in installments, the initial payment being the only money he actually put in. Once he'd paid that and taken over, he borrowed the money required to meet future installments, initially by taking out a mortgage against the lease with RBS and later with a £22m loan from Investec, secured against future Premier Club income (which also funded our first foray into the Premier League). Worth also remembering, that it wasn't actually AP who wanted to sell the club, he had no option, it was Wilkinson's decision.
We've had more then our fair share of ****ish owners. Your either a supporter ( of the club, not the owners) or your not. Simple as.
Best thing for the City is one rugby league team based at Craven park which they could develop further. Initially you would have major resistance but in the long term it’s the best thing and you would likely have a very successful club. Hopefully one day when City are sold the Council are open to selling the ground which is better for the club as the SMC need removing the stadium is badly cared for. Hopefully this happens sooner rather than later.
He must have done because Bartlett got a mortgage out on the stadium, which he didn't own, to raise the funds to buy the club. That deal, with some HCC insider involvement was dodgy to say the least. Allegedly.
There was no HCC involvement in the deal, the lease (which was obviously signed years before) allowed for a mortgage to be taken out against the lease and that prevented HCC from doing anything to stop it.
If I remember correctly, Bartlett was initially not on his own. There were 3 of them (Bartlett, Duffen and ano whose name I can't recall). Their money / wealth came primarily from property investment. Wasn't it also the case that months after Bartlett and gang bought City, along came the financial crash (2008). As a result, not long after taking over the club, the other investor dropped out (as a result of the crash) and Bartlett's wealth & outlook was heavily affected . It's (maybe?) a pity that we didn't have billionaires knocking on the door (a la say Leicester) but to suggest Pearson deliberately sold to some 'dodgy ****ers' and dropped the club in it, the club that he dragged up from off the floor to where he left it, is just plain ridiculous and overtly vindictive. Pearson was good, but didn't have a crystal ball.
The Terry Neill appointment was the final roll of the dice by Harold Needler to capitalise on the heady days following the record breaking promotion season in 1965/66. When Neill came there was no money for team strengthening. Neill himself organised the Terry Neill Appeal, which basically was asking the fans to donate a £1 each towards new players, and we did. But he never bought anyone until the following March. Neill's appointment caused some excitement because he was captain of Arsenal and Northern Ireland but it has to be said that the season Neill left Arsenal won the double. However the season kicked off in style with the Watney Cup and a home game against Manchester United with over 34,000 there. Right up to March 1971 on the back of a glorious FA Cup run to the quarter finals City were in with a real chance of promotion to the First Division for the first time in our history under Neill but it fell apart in the final weeks, I think we eventually finished fifth and our last home crowd for that season was down to 11,000. Chris Chilton was sold and Neill hung around for another couple of years but that early promise was gone and the club's decline started.
As Chazz posted above, from the Hull City Council - Briefing Note to the Finance & Value for Money Overview & Scrutiny Commission Date 12 December 2014 The lease provides that the tenant may at anytime charge the property to a “respectable and responsible financial institution”. There is no stipulation that the Council’s consent is required, save where such charge is made other than to a “respectable and responsible financial institution”. Where the charge is not to a “respectable and responsible financial institution” Council’s consent is required, however, it is “not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed”. The mortgage of the stadium to RBS in 2007 by the then owner R3 Investments to facilitate the transfer of the club between Adam Pearson and Russell Bartlett accordingly did not require the consent of the Council.
Legal jargon. So who took the loan out ? Was it Bartlett or was it Hull City or was it the SMC ? I know it was the Allams who had to pay it off. Wonder why Sir Adam hasn't taken advantage of this 'loophole' to raise some cash for FC ?
