|
Post by northstokie on Mar 18, 2014 13:16:54 GMT
Hull are screwed - he'll put the club up for sale, no-one will want it and all the while he will spend absolutely nothing as they prepare for their crucial second season
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 18, 2014 13:42:17 GMT
Hull are screwed - he'll put the club up for sale, no-one will want it and all the while he will spend absolutely nothing as they prepare for their crucial second season I don't know about nobody wanting to buy it. Although debt has been a problem for them they have quite a lot to offer a potential buyer: # No close competition and quite a big catchment area. # A very nice stadium (which they usually fill) in a good "in town" location. # A passionate fan base who will be on a high if the current owner does disappear. # The makings of a decent squad - yes they are inconsistent but they do have some very good players. A lot will depend upon how much a new owner could get the club for and how much debt the present owner is prepared to write off as part of the deal. If, like the Coates family did, the new owner(s) can strike a good bargin then I'd say the future for Hull will be pretty bright.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 13:56:44 GMT
I expect Findus or Captain Birdseye may make an audacious bid on a very high tide....
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Mar 18, 2014 14:36:41 GMT
Hull are screwed - he'll put the club up for sale, no-one will want it and all the while he will spend absolutely nothing as they prepare for their crucial second season Personally I think he'll climb down now it's the FA and not his own fans, he'll just rail against the FA instead. In the wider interests of the game, congrats to all at the FA responsible for turning this around - retrospective action against Vincent Tan next??
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 18, 2014 14:51:26 GMT
I hope he doesn't climb down.
I think he will take it really badly and possibly fuck the club up.
If he does then the ungrateful fuckers will have no one to blame but themselves.
|
|
|
Post by northstokie on Mar 18, 2014 14:56:31 GMT
Hull are screwed - he'll put the club up for sale, no-one will want it and all the while he will spend absolutely nothing as they prepare for their crucial second season I don't know about nobody wanting to buy it. Although debt has been a problem for them they have quite a lot to offer a potential buyer: # No close competition and quite a big catchment area. # A very nice stadium (which they usually fill) in a good "in town" location. # A passionate fan base who will be on a high if the current owner does disappear. # The makings of a decent squad - yes they are inconsistent but they do have some very good players. A lot will depend upon how much a new owner could get the club for and how much debt the present owner is prepared to write off as part of the deal. If, like the Coates family did, the new owner(s) can strike a good bargin then I'd say the future for Hull will be pretty bright. You can't imagine the current owner will give anything away given how he feels he has been effectively hounded out. In terms of your points, it's not a very fashionable place for players and is very much a Rugby area. The 'nice' stadium isn't owned by the club which makes them less attractive. In terms of the decent squad, it has some good players but need strengthening and the ones they do have like Huddy, Long and Jelavic are all said to be on 50k/week which is pushing their wages to an unhealthy % against their income. The current owner has been pretty irresponsible financially and not sure it's an attractive proposition to prospective owners and as far as I know even if they qualify for Europe I'm not sure they will be allowed entry due to them breaching FFP. I'm sure they will find someone but the question is when will that happen and more importantly, what will happen in the meantime?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 14:56:46 GMT
I expect Findus or Captain Birdseye may make an audacious bid on a very high tide.... British gas are buying them on the condition they can change their name from "City" to "Fire"
|
|
|
Post by alster on Mar 18, 2014 15:03:33 GMT
They should be forced to change their name because there is no such City as Hull.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 15:12:59 GMT
They should be forced to change their name because there is no such City as Hull. in the same way there's no such city as "Stoke" either you mean?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 18, 2014 15:14:12 GMT
They should be forced to change their name because there is no such City as Hull. Just as there is no city called Stoke! SNAP!
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Mar 18, 2014 15:22:33 GMT
I expect Findus or Captain Birdseye may make an audacious bid on a very high tide.... Yes especially now that the Captain has retired. They've taken the old sea dog off their packaging. I've heard that Paul Heaton and Norman {Fatboy Slim}cook are considering a bid if it all falls apart. A sticking point is whether Hull Housemartins would be acceptable. {Reckitt & Coleman.. glue and toothpaste etc were always massive on Humberside, I lived down wind from one of their huge rendering plants for a time.}
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Mar 18, 2014 15:25:13 GMT
They should be forced to change their name because there is no such City as Hull. Just as there is no city called Stoke! SNAP! Yeah and Hull City Council should be disbanded, and Hull City Hall should be razed to the ground. The City of Kingston upon Hull.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Mar 18, 2014 16:39:29 GMT
They should be forced to change their name because there is no such City as Hull. in the same way there's no such city as "Stoke" either you mean? Of course there is Stoke-on-Trent, just as Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Its the City name just that people don't routinely use it in full but Hull City is no more correct than Trent City or Tyne City. Lyme Town ? Maybe they should be renamed Kingston Town at least they'd have a ready made song.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 16:42:33 GMT
in the same way there's no such city as "Stoke" either you mean? Of course there is Stoke-on-Trent, just as Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Its the City name just that people don't routinely use it in full but Hull City is no more correct than Trent City or Tyne City. Lyme Town ? Maybe they should be renamed Kingston Town at least they'd have a ready made song. that's just in bad taste alster....if allam sells up then half the squad could be using UB40s in a few weeks
|
|
|
Post by alster on Mar 18, 2014 16:51:50 GMT
Of course there is Stoke-on-Trent, just as Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Its the City name just that people don't routinely use it in full but Hull City is no more correct than Trent City or Tyne City. Lyme Town ? Maybe they should be renamed Kingston Town at least they'd have a ready made song. that's just in bad taste alster....if allam sells up then half the squad could be using UB40s in a few weeks Get in there Hughesy. Huddlestone, McGregor, Jelavic for £2.50 plus Shotton and Shea.
|
|
|
Post by surreystokie on Mar 18, 2014 18:47:49 GMT
Abolutely delighted, not to mention relieved, as it could have been the thin end of the wedge. For those who must offer red herrings, it's not 'merely' the name change, but its undemocratic thrust upon the club and its proposed stand-out idiotic nomenclature. I'm disappointed that no credit is being given, especially on this MB, to FSF, who fight hard on behalf of supporters and who were represented on the FA committee dealing with it, by Malc, as published in one of the broadsheets, yesterday. I'dlike to think that "some common sense at the FA, at last" is not entirely disconnected with the place on the top table we'd been fighting for, for years. I know I'm biased, in this respect, but don't criticise me for fighting our cause. I'm just very aware and proud of the work our council and working members put in. Any encouragement to balance the usual question of "and what exactly does the Football Supporters Federation do?" is always most welcome. Ta.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 19, 2014 8:32:38 GMT
My simple understanding of this is that the owner wanted to change the name of the club to make it more attractive to overseas markets to, I presume, increase revenues coming into the club for the long term future.
From what I can tell, the fans are more interested in preserving the name and pissing off the owner who is ploughing money in for the benefit of the club and the community.
If the fans and the FSF think that history and heritage is more important than the future of the club then yes, I suppose you could argue that the FSF are helping.
There seems to be a train of thought that fans always know best which on many, many occasions has shown to be completely and totally false.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Apr 7, 2014 16:09:50 GMT
BBC Radio Humberside ?@radiohumberside 12m BREAKING: Hull City fans vote YES to changing the club name to Hull Tigers #hcafc
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Apr 7, 2014 16:13:16 GMT
BBC Radio Humberside ?@radiohumberside 12mBREAKING: Hull City fans vote YES to changing the club name to Hull Tigers #hcafc Was just about to post this. Only by 48 votes though. Around 2,500 each votes each, definitely no majority. Looks like Hull have well and truly sold their soul.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 7, 2014 16:30:21 GMT
BBC Radio Humberside ?@radiohumberside 12mBREAKING: Hull City fans vote YES to changing the club name to Hull Tigers #hcafc How can 5000 votes (including 2548 simpletons) be a fair reflection of their fanbase?
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Apr 7, 2014 16:31:42 GMT
BBC Radio Humberside ?@radiohumberside 12mBREAKING: Hull City fans vote YES to changing the club name to Hull Tigers #hcafc How can 5000 votes (including 2548 simpletons) be a fair reflection of their fanbase? Surely all of their season ticket holders should be voting on this?
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 7, 2014 16:38:14 GMT
How can 5000 votes (including 2548 simpletons) be a fair reflection of their fanbase? Surely all of their season ticket holders should be voting on this? Can we even trust it to be a fair vote? The results should go where they belong - the dustbin.
|
|
|
Post by trigger on Apr 7, 2014 16:49:01 GMT
Never thought of Hull as being a nice place really, seemed pretty horrid.
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Apr 7, 2014 16:59:19 GMT
They have voted to change their name? I simply don't believe it.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 7, 2014 17:54:25 GMT
Apparently they asked their season ticket holders, all 15,000 of them, 5,000ish replied.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Apr 7, 2014 17:59:17 GMT
They have voted to change their name? I simply don't believe it. Sold their soul
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 7, 2014 18:08:08 GMT
Apparently they asked their season ticket holders, all 15,000 of them, 5,000ish replied. A properly organised election would have stated what the "hurdle" was for a yes vote to be accepted. With 15,000 season ticket holders, I'd have hoped that a 7,500 yes vote would be required to change the name - but I suppose that would not suit the owners' agenda. I wonder how long before there are claims that some people never received a ballot paper? Again, a properly organised election would put the polling (including the contacting of the ST holders by post or email) in the hands of an independent adjudicator. A lot of organisations use the Electoral Reform Society to organise their polls.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on Apr 7, 2014 18:10:18 GMT
the poll had three options.
A: Yes to hull tigers B: No to hull tigers C: Not sure either way
My guess is that Allam took the votes from the not sure catagory and included them in the 'Yes' category.
|
|
|
Post by baystokie on Apr 7, 2014 18:12:50 GMT
BBC Radio Humberside ?@radiohumberside 12mBREAKING: Hull City fans vote YES to changing the club name to Hull Tigers #hcafc How can 5000 votes (including 2548 simpletons) be a fair reflection of their fanbase? If only 5000 people voted, those are all you can count. At a General Election, Britain never gets 50 million voters through the polling stations/post so those who don't vote can have no complaint at the result.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 7, 2014 18:15:10 GMT
Apparently they asked their season ticket holders, all 15,000 of them, 5,000ish replied. A properly organised election would have stated what the "hurdle" was for a yes vote to be accepted. With 15,000 season ticket holders, I'd have hoped that a 7,500 yes vote would be required to change the name - but I suppose that would not suit the owners' agenda. I wonder how long before there are claims that some people never received a ballot paper? Again, a properly organised election would put the polling (including the contacting of the ST holders by post or email) in the hands of an independent adjudicator. A lot of organisations use the Electoral Reform Society to organise their polls. It's still a poor show and poor turnout and that sits with the reaction I think we've seen in social media and in and outside the ground. A good number don't seem to give a shit, they deserve each other.
|
|