If Crossland were that concerned about the opinions of his peers (which would be slightly worrying in of itself), then surely he could explain it away as an indulgence - like buying a villa or a flash sports car or some such.
I agree about Pearson's MO and ambitions, Hudgell's and Crossland's have been and (for now) are different. Going forward I imagine that the issue would the money itself, not any reputational damage. McManus has lost a tonne of cash at Saints and bankers don't get rich by running up massive losses do they? Oh - my argument appears to have just fallen to pieces.

So you assume that only those with identical business models will succeed.

The only thing I suspect, as we look at things historically, is that Adam will be on his bike in the near future...
...will he need a push off is the only question I ask?

Agreed!

Pearson will not invest his own money, any Hull fan that thinks otherwise is a fool!!!

Investments will made with bank loans and sponsors money, not his own, as soon as he has some assets to sell (paid for by the club!) then he will be off!

Quite a one-eyed view there. Easty-esque.

Any increase in the value of assets will surely be offset by the increase in Hull's liabilities (the bank loans you mention), effectively offsetting eachother on the balance sheet.

Might have an omlette for tea.

No! you are wrong!

Oh no! How so?!

For the Hull board really, but Pearson's approach is (probably, going on previous experience) very roughly like a property developer. Buy it, do it up and sell it on for more than you paid up front and spent on repairs - you hope.
He's got a few things working in his favour, one or two problems to overcome and the imponderable vicissitudes of RL to worry about.
Our club's restoration was for the love of it. Now it is done, the maintenance costs are the worry.
On fire with my poop analogies today.

BINGO!

take out his profit share and leave Hull with the liabilities!

A little like Man Utd! but on a much smaller scale!!

You're a dimwit. How can Pearson 'leave Hull with the liabilities', and why would he considering your whole argument centres on Pearson selling Hull for a profit?

It's a complete contradiction. Think about it. Any liability he left would effect the clubs worth and therefore it's sale price.

For example: Hull, as a club, take out a bank loan and buy a new training facility. The loan will be listed as a liability on the balance sheet, the new training facility as an asset. Effectively cancelling eachother out.

What the hell is a 'profit share'.

Yep. Although in FONT's world, this means 'leaving Hull with liabilities', whatever that means.

Personally, I see it as a good thing for Hull. Quite why some of our fans are making comments along the lines of, 'he's in it to make money', I've no idea. Surely a chairman coming in and increasing a clubs worth can only be a good thing for that club and it's supporters? It'd be an indicator of progress surely?

I never said selling Hull FC for a profit, dimwit.

Are you a Hull FC fan?

Or just stupid?

You are so wrong

You are so wrong

Wrong about what? be specific.

Mrs B, please explain how the dark world of accountancy works to this poor fool, I can't be bothered with him anymore!

You quoted Mild Rover's post (which compared AP to a property developer 'doing the club up' to sell for a profit), and wrote 'BINGO'.

You're literally a moron, and have no idea what you're talking about.

I could take you down on the Paea thread too, complete dimwittery, but East-sard is taking care of that.

Feel free to "take me down"

, it is a forum after all!

Are you a Gangster?



Or just a CHAV?

You are making yourself look silly now, stop it!

So, I've challenged you to be more specific, to explain what you meant, explain why I was wrong, and I get this in response? Pathetic, yet brilliant.

It's probably best you learn from this Fonty. If you know nothing about a subject, it's probably not the best idea to get involved in a public debate on the subject.

Again, I'd welcome you to pinpoint any specifics where I was incorrect?

Nah, thought not. What a gormclopse.

FONT - the bold bit above is 100% correct. You are making yourself look daft.

I am a Chartered Accountant btw

Cheers Barney (nice name). It was a very simplified example, but I guess it had to be to get it accross to a simpleton.

I think you're at cross purposes.

It is possible that AP could run at a loss and increase debt and still add value. As with top-end houses you're selling a dream, to an extent. So while payments and assets might be zero-sum on paper, it is about putting together an attractive package - trophies on tap, state of the art training facility recently installed and that (I'd be an ace estate agent).

He can leave Hull (the new owners) with liabilities. But if he's done it right, this isn't a case of selling the new owners a pup - they'll know what they're getting. He can't turn debt directly 1-for-1 into profit, but if spends wisely and manages the business well he can, he'll hope, get a good price for the club - debts'n'all.