No. I mean that they've remained engaged with someone who claims to want to put a lot of money into their club without once making any stupid public statements or falling for what might just be spin.

I'm not exactly Hudgell's biggest fan (to say the least) but I honestly can't see where he and Crossland have put a foot wrong here.

I have got to agree with you and hope it all comes good it will shut up some folk on here but not for good

Nobody has said they have made mistakes but keeping quiet and giving a deadline for a former player to come up with a promised 15 MILLION investment is hardly skilful is it .

I think they've managed both Larvin and the media well, so skilful is a reasonable term. You could use professional if you prefer.

I really don't see the point in taking pot-shots for the sake of it. Just makes the person doing it look childish IMO. Regardless of who they support.

Aye - and poop guns backfire more often than not.

The club have avoided any big pratfalls, in a slightly surreal situation. As a fan, it is has [ireally[/i dragged on, but much as I always thought it was a bit unlikely (and as the deadline approaches even more so), holding out on the off chance is unlikely to cause any long term damage.

It really has dragged. Season kicks off soon at least.

I think giving someone 3 months to atleast prove they have the money he says he has is fair enough.

I think that's fair enough. Apart from the apparent tweet from RC, I agree the club have played this 'saga' with a straight bat. It's a pity you (being a Hull fan and all that) have had to post common sense on here though. I'd like to think, a warning will follow. 'The Judge' is the typical freptat we like to read on here from Hull fans.

I think giving 3 months is way MORE than long enough,where could somebody have 15 million held (legally) if it takes 3 months to prove it exists which was my original point in as much as the board where desperate for his claims to be true.

TBF, hudgell has been looking to jump ship for some time, so you cannot blame him for holding out for as long as possible. Maybe one of his last hopes to recoup some of his money.

Yes boss, I can confirm, WE are in agreement on this.

Deny what may i ask

That you're a prawn, a fraudster, a sham mockery of a man, a varlot, a harlot, you've got an Aunty Charlotte. A trollop, a dollop you deserve a mighty wallop. A trump face, certainly not ace, I'd like to clonk you with a mace.

One day to go to the deadline... what do we think Yeah or Neh

I say Yeah

I know its a Nay.

Much as I'd enjoy a soap operatic finale, I remain in the nay camp.
Just not seen anything that comes close to convincing me. I hope I'm wrong, of course, though even that not without reservation now.
To avoid contributing to lockage, I guess it'd be better to explain more of my reasoning after tomorrow, either as slight mitigation in an apology or of the minor sense of disappointment.

Nay from me

Are you moderating yourself now? Why don't you post your thoughts, then lock it by giving yourself a warning in red type



I'll say my thoughts; He is full of BS.

Love a caveat me. Well, sometimes.

Honestly, [igenuinely[/i, really more excited about yours and Leeds 19 man squads being announced imminently. It'll feel like the season is getting underway properly.

I'm quite excited.
I think I might be getting wet on Friday evening looking at the weather. I also cannot decide whether we are going to win, or provide a no show, dismal display and get panned.

Can't see it, he's got rubbish shoes, Hi-Tec Silver Shadow.

TBH would worry me much more if it came off,if suddenly Mr Larvin had (proof of)millions the spanish authorities might look differently upon his case and re issue the arrest warrant,at this moment in time they wont go thru all the work detailing who,how much etc unless a substantal sum can be recovered i guess !
Just my humble opinion of course !

Lets hope when tomorrow comes rovers tell us and do not keep us in suspense one way or another

If people bear AUP 1.2a in mind then we can keep this open. And obviously that'll apply irrespective of the outcome of all this.

You think he will come forward with an explanation, if this all comes out negative?

Bearing in mind Kim Jun Mild's recent reminder of AUP 1.2a, I can't think of a suitable answer to that question.