He owns the club. I have to accept it and I am glad he bought us and saved the side from oblivion. I disagree with him but accept his right to want to do things his way.
You are allowed to have a differing opinion, Steve7. Neither the Gestapo or the Thought Police will come to take you away.
I am very grateful for AA has done. But what makes my blood boil is the way he continously calms he bought City as a gift to the community, yet is making/saving nearly £10m a year from the club. I have no problem with him making a profit on City, why lie about it.
My point was I do have a different opinion to the name change. I don't see him as milking he club. I have to accept his wish to change the name as he owns the club. That sentiment does not mean I don't oppose it, it means I can see he has the right to ask for it. Different things.
If he never asks for the cash back it is a gift. He doesn't make any profit until he sells up or cashes in. Who knows what he will do with the loans. Just because it is classed as a loan for corporate purposes doesn't mean he has a payback date. His gift was to put he cash in and risk losing all of it. Too many people presume to know what is going on and seem to base this on speciation and forum factology. Just as easily as the success we are having, and with it the extra money, we could have crashed and burned and slid back to the Championship. From there the club could have done a Wolves and dropped further, leading to a point where the loans may end up being written off as a bad loss. Wonderfully, the cash has helped and we stand a chance of staying up and making money for once. Success is not an evil thing, and making money from it is what makes the world work. The risk was the most important thing, and The dr took it knowing he may never see his wad again! If he ever gets his money back it means we are doing pretty well without him - a self sufficient club that he talks about. Oh, and the name Change thing is still another subject entirely...
I never fail to be disappointed at how folk can take a simple thing and make it something else. Mike Ashley has given the club interest free loans, so they are only an investment in-so-much as he gains if the club is profitable; although he will gain indirect benefits (tax breaks) through his wider business links. His sports business also benefits. Allam has invested his cash, as he receives a good rate of interest on his magnanimous gesture - no matter what the profitability of the club; he too benefits further from substantial tax-breaks, believed to be in the region of £3.8m - I have seen it reported that the annual total benefit could be as high as £8.8m - I wish I could be that generous! This whole 'given us a gift' nonsense is something started by Allam for his own self-aggrandisement - now that's a phrase that should be more commonly associated with Mr Allam in the media. As far as I am aware Abromavich wrote off his loans to equity, but looking back it seems to be unclear now. Mohammed Al Fayed turned his loans into equity (shares) which, as we know, he then sold on. Here's a link that explains the restructuring of his investment: http://hammyend.com/index.php/2013/01/al-fayed-converts-loans-into-equity-fulham-now-debt-free/ This was a statement made by the owner at that time - the ownership and improvement of the stadium was integral to his strategy, but so was the clubs heritage - so riding roughshod over heritage is not a mandatory characteristic of an elderly Egyptian businessman : Other owners, such as Dave Whelan, Steve Gibson and Bill Kenwright have worked tirelessly to keep their respective clubs alive and successful, but at what real cost to them is unknown. Only a fool would begrudge a businessman (whether a supporter or not) a fair return on his investment; why not, it's the right way to progress a football club. What is poor is a businessman-owner trying to pull the wool over the eyes of his customers by making out his moves are motivated by purely philanthropic, public spirited reasons; it is made even worse when he embroils the customers in some spurious marketing initiative that insults their heritage and history, not to mention their intelligence.
Doesn't it annoy that, although he is the owner, he will not even poll the fans? Don't you think the fans are owed a chance to voice their opinions on such a huge, unprecedented change? Why won't he allow that? Why should it just be meekly accepted? If you disagree with what he's doing, I don't see why you also have to be silent about it. If there's a smell, it's worth investigating, and this certainly stinks.
It does annoy me but it STILL does not change the fact it is his right as owner. As for the claim it was a gift to the city, he gifted a huge risk that might not have paid off if we had dropped down the league. Remember we had Barmby in charge then and were a long way off fighting for the top spots. We could have gone nowhere and this argument wouldn't be happening. Success can't be blamed on the owners, as if they have milked it. It was never a given we would be having so much luck!
I just think it's a shame that you feel that way, but are brow beaten into obedience. It's not right. His threats, insults and arrogance clearly work on some. C'mon Steve, don't fold.
No i haven't, I said I don't pay now. I haven't paid for the last five years hence why I said 25 years of money and not 30.
Because although you disagree, you suppress that in favour of thinking it's better to let him do what he wants. If you disagree, oppose it. Otherwise, you don't really disagree do you?
As I wouldnt be able to find your quote from ages ago when you said it I'll accept that. So you've never paid a ****ing bean into the club in 5 years and you think you're entitled!!! GTF. Get that two n half grand paid into the CTWD coffers
If your neighbour owns his house, would you then accept it is his right to build a two storey extension without consulting those people that are affected by it? If he asks, you object, but the council say he can build, then due process has been followed. It would have been dilligent of Mr. Allam if he asked, by way of a supporters poll, to change the name. It may not be the way he does his normal business but it would have given an immediate insight as to the views of the majority, the minority from whichever side can then make decisions on whether to attend or not. Those who are happy to accept a new name have no decision to make as they are (obviously) happy to be Hull City/Whatever so will attend regardless. Those of us who cannot stomach Hull Tigers because it is stomach churning and cringeworthy do have a decision to make and is why we are desperate to retain the name.
As I also said in the same quote, the club get far more out of me than £25 per match. Think ten times that. They get - or got as I'm now boycotting - a ****ing good deal believe me.
