The years i've supported City, do you honestly think I give a **** if someone I've never met decides I'm not a supporter
, get to **** daft lad Sir Adam....
- Thread starter SW3 Chelsea Tiger
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
, get to **** daft lad 
Your the daft lad pal, I couldn't give a toss if you go to city or not. I enjoy the day out and couldn't care less what you get up to.The years i've supported City, do you honestly think I give a **** if someone I've never met decides I'm not a supporter
Bartlett took out the loan against the SMC lease, Hull FC have no involvement in the SMC and so no access to any funds it can generate.
The deal was dodgy and borderline legal. However this all sprung from a post claiming that Pearson sold the club to people who didn't have the necessary funds. I'd take a punt that Bartlett didn't have a pot to piss in without this loan.
Who has said any of that bollocks about Pearson? No one.
we were a self funding club with no debt
Greatposition to be in
He sold us to someone knowing the money him and his mate were getting was from a mortgage on the club
Whether you like it or not or don’t want to hear it
That’s a fact
I'm answering you out of civility and good manners seeing as you quoted my post. I don't care what you think about me, so can we end the convo there? Oh yea, i'm not your pal
For someone who "couldn't give a toss if you go to city or not" you don't half ****ing go on about it.
Change the record and we might believe you.
It's not a fact, it's an opinion, you have absolutely no idea what AP did or didn't know abut how the purchase of the club was funded.
The bloke had £20m property portfolio and came to games in a helicopter, it wasn't unreasonable to think he had a few bob.
Of course he knew he still owned it when Bartlett was taking the loan out on it
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.
We have a **** fan base. 10,000 max on a good day. But your not part of that so don't lose any sleep over it. The people who might not sleep well are those trying to sell the club with a fan base more fitting for a League 1 club and those pondering about making an offer on such a poorly supported club.
But if hearing the truth is such a problem to you just put me on block. I don't mind at all
That says nothing about what AP did or didn't know, it just says Bartlett didn't need Council consent to borrow the money he needed to pay AP.
Worth also remembering, that loan was for £2.9m, the purchase price of the club was £13m.
Hinchcliffe and Buchanan came to games in a chaffeur driven Bentley, Both wore expensive suits and dark glasses. How much of Bartlett's '£20m' property portfolio was mortgaged ? Must have been most of it because it quickly came crashing down.
Last edited:
I have no intention of getting in to the nitty gritty of any of this, but do you not think Pearson and/or Wilkinson wouldn't have made sure that the people they are dealing with, actually had the funds, or at least the ability to pay them before they handed the keys over?
.... but to suggest Pearson deliberately sold to some 'dodgy ****ers'
Post [HASHTAG]#486[/HASHTAG] on this thread.
"But he sold to some dodgy ****ers that nearly broke us knowing they didn’t have the funds to buy us"
You did.
Post [HASHTAG]#486[/HASHTAG] on this thread.
"But he sold to some dodgy ****ers that nearly broke us knowing they didn’t have the funds to buy us"
Ah right
Well yes I suppose knowing and facilitating a mortgage on the club does make it that
The **** him
A self funded club with no debt
Him and his mate did alright tho eh
I'm sure they were confident of getting paid before they agreed the deal, but I don't know what they did or didn't know about the precise mechanics of how it was being funded. Presumably they saw some sort of proof of funds, after all, the SMC lease loan only made up about 20% of the purchase price.
It is more than likely that they had known about the plan, which is my main point.
Possibly, but none of us actually know. It's no wonder local businessmen don't want to get involved, even if you do a brilliant job, there'll still be people queueing up to accuse you of all sort of dodgy dealings, despite having no knowledge of what actually went on.
My point still stands.
It's more than a reasonable assumption that a businessman involved in a deal of that sort of financial level would have done the basic homework to make sure they're going to get paid.
It's no more than a mortgage company does when you're trying to buy a house.
EDIT. I've not accused him of 'dodgy dealing' as there was nothing illegal found in any event. It's just a reasonable assumption from the events.
Last edited: