Quote ="Mrs Barista"Disappointingly whilst you try to claim you want a sensible debate on the relative merits of an emotional or commerical owner of a club, the bit I've underlined is full evidence that you're ill-equipped to so. You admit that Hudgell's failure to run a self-sustaining business, and intention to take on a further £2m of debt, is "not ideal" in the long term but dismiss it as inconsequential. No administration lasts forever. Are you seriously suggesting that it's of no consequence that little progress is being made to prepare Rovers for its inevitable sale down the line? That as long as Hudgell is swaying about on top of bar stools and stopping clocks at 6.42 in the bar at Craven Park tomorrow will take care of itself. Forgive me, but you're simply in denial of long term consequences. Lucky us. You are confirming 2 things here: 1) Pearson knows a good opportunity when he sees one. and 2) Hull FC has a shedload of potential. Stadium? Check. Commercial infrastructure? Check. Fanbase? Check. On the pitch? Awful. But, relative to football, this last one is fairly cheap to fix for someone with a business head and modicum of ambition. Before Pearson's interest, FC were wallowing in mid-table mediocrity, a bit like Rovers over the past three seasons, hovering round mid table albeit with bigger crowds and making profits. He's seen that as a club we can realise more. Lucky us to be the recipients of his cash and business acumen. FC made profits of £250k a year at one point when we had some success. You are
saying that Pearson's agenda is not driven by FC making profits. I think you need to be clearer about what the conspiracy theory here is, exactly. You implied earlier that he is a pawn in the Allam's game to acquire the KC, but oddly failed to respond to my earlier question on how those plans are progressing with the stadium owners. Perhaps you missed it. How do you think that's going? Council engaged and ready to roll? I'd say, er, no.OK. So to be
crystal clear, you are [unow[/u saying Pearson has spent £3m on the club, binned off coaching staff and players, brought in a DOR and sought-after new coach,and is talking up filling the KC and paying fees for players, on a sort of twisted route to the actual final destination, the supreme prize if you will, of relocating FC to a much smaller non existent ground in a residential area at
the behest of the Allams. Introducing the Boulevard is a new line of argumentation, granted. Perhaps it's easier to fabricate this than address my own points on the Allams. Glad we got that cleared up. I do find it
interesting, but entirely unsurprising that you have failed to address the key points. 1) No club stays in one ownership forever. To optimise the chances of re-sale, it's not a bad idea to build up a profitable business to make it a more
compelling investment for the next incumbent. 2) Pearson's new broom has provided hope. More so than the previous regime. This is a good thing for the supporters, right? 3) You paint the spectre of the scheming Allams in the
background, yet ignore my point that as it stands Rovers are more in bed with them than FC are.'"
To address your points; 1) We are not talking about football. With no global TV rights deals in the offing, there is a clear ceiling to what a provincial RL club is ever going to be worth, particularly one based in a congested sports market. Pearson will not 'price the club out of the market', therefore his actual investment will be limited.
2) Don't disagree.
3) I merely suggested that the 'scheming Allam's' (your words) may form part of Pearson's 'end game'. This is borne out of his obvious reluctance to break association with them through Hull City. I am not alone in thinking that the Allam's 'soft loan' to Rovers and Pearson's purchase of FC are synchronised somehow!
Pearson's exact motives will come out in time, but I find it very hard to believe he is only interested in £200-300k residual profits, and that is all!
