Takeover

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
bobby ace said:
We were dire in the second half of our first season, too.

Sorry, but Hull is a backwater. It is as relevant as Northampton, which has the same population, or Wolverhampton, or Plymouth.
Click to expand...

Unless the population of Northampton has increased by about 40,000 or that of Hull decreased by that many then they aren't the same size.
If areas which would be included in other cities populations were included in Hull's then itv would be much higher. As it is the urban population fir .Hull is over 500,000 and the amount of people with City as the nearest club makes it one of the highest in that category, Which if course makes our crowds down the years even more disappointing compared to some..
In any case size of somewhere doesn't make you irrelevant or not.
 
Pity we cannot inflate another few seats when the plastics return. On a more serious note,does anyone think Waggy will ever be replaced ?


Allam OUT.
 
I've always thought the sensible argument on here was based on increasing to 30-35K. That needs PL games. It also needs ground ownership or a more constructive partnership. The ticket pricing policy is also of importance.
 
tubbylard said:
I don't think they are 'chancers' at all. If they were they could have waited for the club to go belly up, took the ten point deduction on the nose and bought us for a £1.
But they didn't, they came and paid way above the odds and also cleared the debts. It was a huge gamble and could have quite easily have back fired.
IMO I think someone ? over sold the club to them with a notion that the council would bend over backwards and hand them the stadium, more fools them for believing that if indeed my notion is anywhere near the truth. Bigger fools the council for sending the village idiot Terry Geraghty to the initial talks on the subject, because some sort of deal could have been struck if there was a willingness from both sides of the table.
They said from day one that they had a five year plan to get the club back in the Premier League and they achieved that in one. Luck or good recruitment ?
On the plus side we are very well positioned to win automatic promotion back to the Premier League.
They have invested in the Academy and the Training Ground far, far more then any other owners.
I wouldn't label them as 'chancers'
Hinchcliffe and Bucanhan were chancers.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, which I disagree with. They are chancers. They saw a commercial opportunity, buying a struggling club was the way in; it would also give them, they thought, a huge credibility lift for their future plans within Hull. Hull was perfect, they thought, for their style of dominance. Yes, they pumped money in. Yes, they had other options. Yes, Pearson's involvement was not entirely as it seemed. But they made mistakes, these perfect businessmen (look at their CV) they broke the rule of due diligence. They saw riches in and around the club, but they made assumptions and we all know what they can do. They should have been astute businessmen but they behaved like chancers, they did their best to make it look like largesse, but it wasn't. Subsequent actions define them far better than the purchase of Hull City AFC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bengals Tiger, Pat E O'Dors, Kempton and 2 others
Was It Lambrettaman, who said the new owners would gather pace sometime in January, it's now February :emoticon-0136-giggl
 
Fez said:
That's your opinion, which I disagree with. They are chancers. They saw a commercial opportunity, buying a struggling club was the way in; it would also give them, they thought, a huge credibility lift for their future plans within Hull. Hull was perfect, they thought, for their style of dominance. Yes, they pumped money in. Yes, they had other options. Yes, Pearson's involvement was not entirely as it seemed. But they made mistakes, these perfect businessmen (look at their CV) they broke the rule of due diligence. They saw riches in and around the club, but they made assumptions and we all know what they can do. They should have been astute businessmen but they behaved like chancers, they did their best to make it look like largesse, but it wasn't. Subsequent actions define them far better than the purchase of Hull City AFC.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion - but it's totally subjective, completely lacking in facts, and absolute rubbish!
 
trouserpress said:
Of course, promotion is great - that goes without saying. Surely it's better to do all that without owners locking you out of the ground, or not having two pennies to rub together for transfers though? It's not about the league we are in - I'd be happy if we were top of League Two with a decent squad, decent manager left to get on with managing the team, and funds to buy players.
Click to expand...

Would you rather be Hull City in League 2 or Hull Tigers in the EPL?
 
Irememberwaggy said:
You are entitled to your opinion - but it's totally subjective, completely lacking in facts, and absolute rubbish!
Click to expand...

There's plenty of supportable facts in there: it was openly admitted they moved too quickly and missed critical debt; their model of their commercial aspiration was there for all to see; their demands, threats, blackmail, lies, and manipulation were real, not imagined. It took two inquiries of the FA to halt their key strategy, one built on a tissue of lies and deceit. They spent a good few bob, they dragged the club and it's support through the mud, they never hesitated to abuse and lie, but most of all, they failed to achieve their true goal. The football was a sideshow for them, a decent but necessary gamble that is ongoing, but has now become an unwanted distraction. The publicised outpourings about their legacy plans are simply stretched truths about them getting their money back and getting themselves reestablished as community heroes - ready for their next commercial venture. The daft thing is they have done some good, but they taint it by their other nonsense.
But perhaps you will tell me, specifically, what it is I am wrong about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bengals Tiger, Muffinthegoat, Kempton and 2 others
Fez said:
That's your opinion, which I disagree with. They are chancers. They saw a commercial opportunity, buying a struggling club was the way in; it would also give them, they thought, a huge credibility lift for their future plans within Hull. Hull was perfect, they thought, for their style of dominance. Yes, they pumped money in. Yes, they had other options. Yes, Pearson's involvement was not entirely as it seemed. But they made mistakes, these perfect businessmen (look at their CV) they broke the rule of due diligence. They saw riches in and around the club, but they made assumptions and we all know what they can do. They should have been astute businessmen but they behaved like chancers, they did their best to make it look like largesse, but it wasn't. Subsequent actions define them far better than the purchase of Hull City AFC.
Click to expand...
I agree with some of your comments but signing cheques for over £30m in their first few hours after taking over is not the form of your average 'chancer'
A chancer would have let the club go bust and then paid £1 for it.
 
Last edited:
PLT said:
I hate this attitude.

If we actually made an effort to be a big club and attract big crowds we could do it. This is a big City not some backwater, and we must have one of the biggest undisputed catchment areas for fans in the football league. There are much smaller cities and towns than Hull, on the doorstep of other FL clubs who get much bigger crowds than us. It's a lack of ambition.
Click to expand...

Rugby league has twisted a lot of people towards City
 
tubbylard said:
I agree with some of your comments but signing cheques for over £30m in their first few hours after taking over is not the form of your average 'chancer'
A chancer would have let the club go bust and then paid £1 for it.
Click to expand...

I think there is more to that idea than a simple statement of:

A chancer would have let the club go bust and then paid £1 for it.
Click to expand...

I do wonder just how fully they had grasped the detail of the situation and whether or not it would have happened if they had of been aware of the debt they admit they found after their takeover. On that I am guessing, on everything else I am using well established facts that puts them firmly into my belief of what constitutes a couple of chancers - not very good ones at that.
 
Fez said:
There's plenty of supportable facts in there: it was openly admitted they moved too quickly and missed critical debt; their model of their commercial aspiration was there for all to see; their demands, threats, blackmail, lies, and manipulation were real, not imagined. It took two inquiries of the FA to halt their key strategy, one built on a tissue of lies and deceit. They spent a good few bob, they dragged the club and it's support through the mud, they never hesitated to abuse and lie, but most of all, they failed to achieve their true goal. The football was a sideshow for them, a decent but necessary gamble that is ongoing, but has now become an unwanted distraction. The publicised outpourings about their legacy plans are simply stretched truths about them getting their money back and getting themselves reestablished as community heroes - ready for their next commercial venture. The daft thing is they have done some good, but they taint it by their other nonsense.
But perhaps you will tell me, specifically, what it is I am wrong about?
Click to expand...

Basically - everything!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back