Quote ="Mrs Barista"A few challenges on this.
1) The only suggestion that Pearson is a "white knight" is that he is providing fans with some element of hope and some stated lofty ambitions. If you can provide links of anyone on here suggesting he is in it for his love of the sport or the club, I'll give you a shiny penny.
2) You claim he is fattening the club up for a sale. The fans aren't stupid and will demand success, otherwise we'll remain at the dismal attendance levels of this year, ie 11,000 ish. He will therefore only achieve profits if he delivers on the pitch. There is no downside here. In doing so he creates a compelling investment for the next owner.
3) Your comparison with Hudgell is interesting. What Hudgell has done thus far from a financial perspective is to increase debt by upwards of £2m, and a
business that's still some way from being self-sustaining. He's said he's not going to be there forever, as no board is. He's taking on more debt with the
repayments required on the £2m North Stand should that ever go ahead. Is that a compelling investment for the next owner? Peversely Pearson's plan,
whose motivation is purely financial, provides the better chance of future prosperity than Hudgell's, whose motivation is far more emotional. You talk as if underwriting a club ad infinitum is a good thing - my view is that in the
short term it's comforting but in the long term may even be damaging. Where will Huddersfield Giants be when Ken Davy departs?
Hudgell will sell Hull KR one day, and has spoken of a finite 10 year reign. He
may be gone before Pearson is from FC if that is the case. Neither of us knows who either will sell to, yet you suggest that Pearson creating a club that actually has some positive value in it is not a good thing. Personally I'd rather
be in a position at that point to have a club with positive net assets and profitability potential as this will appeal to a broader audience of potential
buyers than a club with net liabilities and a £2m debt on the North Stand; you may get lucky and have another rich(ish) Rovers fan to buy the club and continue a hand to mouth existence.
4) The Allams. Firstly, how are their detailed plans going down with council? I suggest that 1) They've not provided any because 2) they want the stadiumfor nowt to mortgage against on a commercial, rather than philanthropic so-
called "Sporting Village", and 3) the council aren't very impressed. Rovers are
more in bed with the Allams as FC as it stands. Should we read anything into
that as you seem rather preoccupied with their position re FC rather than at
Rovers? Odd.'"
What I am saying is there are two types of owners in sport; Those who are guided by an emotional attachment to ONE specific club and are therefore prepared to effectively play the role of philanthropist.
Not ideal in the long-term I grant you, but fine as long as it lasts.
Then there are the cold, hard investors like Pearson - a man who would sell his grandmother if the price was right.
He's decided to buy into Hull FC...it could just of easily been Milton Keynes Dons, Salford Reds, Sheffield Steelers or Wasps RUFC...wherever he spotted most profit potential.
I don't honestly see what fixed assets Hull FC hold as a club at the moment, or what riches are on the horizon for RL as a sport, to constitute a lucrative 'end game'. Or are we simply expected to believe he is just buying into the club to 'milk' healthy dividends each year?
From what I personally know and have heard from various associates of Pearson, there has to be more in it for him...a hitherto unrevealed bigger picture.
Redevelopment of the Boulevard perhaps?
