Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2021 8:47:41 GMT 1
It's very easy to say this, when it's not your £50m. It isn't £50 it's £50m, although I fully agree, it's easier us saying it when it's not our cash. That's some serious money towards kids and grandkids to come etc. Also think him falling ill has factored into it too. May have thought life is too short, family first etc. I wouldn't blame him at all, although isn't looking great for us or how he's now being seen He is fabulously wealthy. He must be worth tens if not hundreds of millions. £50 to some people is the weekly shop. £50 to alot in this day and age right now is much more than a weekly shop unfortunately. It's easy for everyone to play monopoly on here, with £50m that's not yours. He wasn't expecting it back when he put it in, but times changed and he had an opportunity to take back what he had put in, albeit it now at our expense. Everyone on here can piss and moan and say "He's got enough money etc etc" but the fact is, it's his money, not anyone's on here. Like I said before, he's securing generations of family after a bout of illness, I seriously don't blame him. Would have been brilliant had he not taken it back and helped the club massively, he didn't, we move on.
|
|
|
Post by lesgirondins on Apr 9, 2021 9:18:31 GMT 1
On the money with that post specialun! (although not sure about your conclusion.)
|
|
|
Post by richhtfc on Apr 9, 2021 9:35:12 GMT 1
He hasn’t done that though? He’s taking his loans back and more or less gifting the club for free. How is that sticking two fingers up to anyone? There are so many fans who really can’t see farther than their nose on this point. I think one of his biggest mistakes has been trying to be honest about the clubs financial position (which no other club does) and has been proved to be completely beyond the wit of the vast majority of our fans. Perhaps two fingers is the wrong expression Let me take you back to December 2014 Htafc.com - “The Club continues to be wholly owned by Dean Hoyle, with no institutional debt or short term debt funding and operates with no overdraft. The long term debt due to the former owner has been reduced to £0.5m. Long term debt due to Dean Hoyle continues to be unsecured, interest free and without repayment date.” The December 2014 article is quite an interesting read actually - talks a lot about something called parachute payments and how they give our opponents an unfair advantage (!!) “ Many clubs benefit (!!) from receiving significant and increased ‘parachute payments’ from the Premier League. Back in 2008, parachutes were around £25m. Now they are £48m and set to rise further. The amount will rise again with the dilution of Financial Fair Play rules and new TV deals.” Had we not got promoted then Hoyle would have never seen those unsecured loans repaid ... who would have repaid them? Call Phil who he’d never met to gift him the club? What’s he asking Phil to repay him with? Monopoly money? Hoyle called promotion ‘a moment in time’ He was right as it was the moment which gave us parachute payments at the end & the moment which gave Hoyle an opportunity to be able to be repaid He had two options 1. Take a view that we had won promotion, we got relegated but he wanted to keep his on the field legacy in tact and would not request his loans to be repaid or do so over a long term period - they’d have never been if we hadn’t been promoted Or 2. He could decide you know what I’m not going to get this opportunity again, this is my chance to get my loan repaid with the club getting those parachute payments .... but in doing so it the fans / team won’t see any benefit from the Premier League. We won’t see any of that benefit (!) back in 2014 we seemed unhappy others had! In other words his choices were 1. Choose the fans / club or 2. Choose himself. He chose himself. Fair enough. I don’t agree. You could argue he should have written his debts off but the club is still his to sell and has a value. He says he looked at the potential buyers and judged that it would be too risky for the clubs legacy to do it that way. Because a buyer would likely have borrowed against the club to pay him, and so we’d be back to square one. How anyone can be so sure we’d be so much better off selling to another party when you look at the likes of Wigan or Blackburn is beyond me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2021 9:49:10 GMT 1
Nice of Ipswich chairman to write off such a huge debt the club owed him, who'd of thought it he bought a football and expected to lose money.... I genuinely cannot believe how anybody can stick up for Hoyle he's completely sold us to the cleaners.
|
|
|
Post by benhomly on Apr 9, 2021 9:50:20 GMT 1
Perhaps two fingers is the wrong expression Let me take you back to December 2014 Htafc.com - “The Club continues to be wholly owned by Dean Hoyle, with no institutional debt or short term debt funding and operates with no overdraft. The long term debt due to the former owner has been reduced to £0.5m. Long term debt due to Dean Hoyle continues to be unsecured, interest free and without repayment date.” The December 2014 article is quite an interesting read actually - talks a lot about something called parachute payments and how they give our opponents an unfair advantage (!!) “ Many clubs benefit (!!) from receiving significant and increased ‘parachute payments’ from the Premier League. Back in 2008, parachutes were around £25m. Now they are £48m and set to rise further. The amount will rise again with the dilution of Financial Fair Play rules and new TV deals.” Had we not got promoted then Hoyle would have never seen those unsecured loans repaid ... who would have repaid them? Call Phil who he’d never met to gift him the club? What’s he asking Phil to repay him with? Monopoly money? Hoyle called promotion ‘a moment in time’ He was right as it was the moment which gave us parachute payments at the end & the moment which gave Hoyle an opportunity to be able to be repaid He had two options 1. Take a view that we had won promotion, we got relegated but he wanted to keep his on the field legacy in tact and would not request his loans to be repaid or do so over a long term period - they’d have never been if we hadn’t been promoted Or 2. He could decide you know what I’m not going to get this opportunity again, this is my chance to get my loan repaid with the club getting those parachute payments .... but in doing so it the fans / team won’t see any benefit from the Premier League. We won’t see any of that benefit (!) back in 2014 we seemed unhappy others had! In other words his choices were 1. Choose the fans / club or 2. Choose himself. He chose himself. Fair enough. I don’t agree. You could argue he should have written his debts off but the club is still his to sell and has a value. He says he looked at the potential buyers and judged that it would be too risky for the clubs legacy to do it that way. Because a buyer would likely have borrowed against the club to pay him, and so we’d be back to square one. How anyone can be so sure we’d be so much better off selling to another party when you look at the likes of Wigan or Blackburn is beyond me. Controversial and I doubt many would agree but I’d personally choose Wigan, Blackburn, Portsmouth all day long. Blackburn won the PL and both Wigan and Portsmouth won the FA Cup recently. So if some foreign investors came along and we got 7 or 8 years in the top flight with an FA Cup final win along the way I’d take it all day long. Even if we ended up skint and back in the lower divisions. After all we’re headed that way anyway. Just my personal preference.
|
|
|
Post by Matt1908 on Apr 9, 2021 10:08:44 GMT 1
I don’t agree. You could argue he should have written his debts off but the club is still his to sell and has a value. He says he looked at the potential buyers and judged that it would be too risky for the clubs legacy to do it that way. Because a buyer would likely have borrowed against the club to pay him, and so we’d be back to square one. How anyone can be so sure we’d be so much better off selling to another party when you look at the likes of Wigan or Blackburn is beyond me. Controversial and I doubt many would agree but I’d personally choose Wigan, Blackburn, Portsmouth all day long. Blackburn won the PL and both Wigan and Portsmouth won the FA Cup recently. So if some foreign investors came along and we got 7 or 8 years in the top flight with an FA Cup final win along the way I’d take it all day long. Even if we ended up skint and back in the lower divisions. After all we’re headed that way anyway. Just my personal preference. Couldn't agree more, if anything it hurts more that it is so called 'one of our own' that is leading us down the garden path.
|
|
|
Post by detox on Apr 9, 2021 10:22:26 GMT 1
What DH should have done is syphoned off some of the sky money when we got promoted, then when we stayed up syphone off some more..while we had those £100m + funds..Waiting until we got relegated and he sold up, knowing we had a payroll bill that would bankrupt us and relying 100% on parachute money, it was a poor choice. No one would have moaned if he'd paid himself off while we were flush with funds...it might just have stopped us spaffing £20m on Diakhaby and Mbenze..and the rest..
|
|
|
Post by specialun on Apr 9, 2021 11:22:08 GMT 1
Perhaps two fingers is the wrong expression Let me take you back to December 2014 Htafc.com - “The Club continues to be wholly owned by Dean Hoyle, with no institutional debt or short term debt funding and operates with no overdraft. The long term debt due to the former owner has been reduced to £0.5m. Long term debt due to Dean Hoyle continues to be unsecured, interest free and without repayment date.” The December 2014 article is quite an interesting read actually - talks a lot about something called parachute payments and how they give our opponents an unfair advantage (!!) “ Many clubs benefit (!!) from receiving significant and increased ‘parachute payments’ from the Premier League. Back in 2008, parachutes were around £25m. Now they are £48m and set to rise further. The amount will rise again with the dilution of Financial Fair Play rules and new TV deals.” Had we not got promoted then Hoyle would have never seen those unsecured loans repaid ... who would have repaid them? Call Phil who he’d never met to gift him the club? What’s he asking Phil to repay him with? Monopoly money? Hoyle called promotion ‘a moment in time’ He was right as it was the moment which gave us parachute payments at the end & the moment which gave Hoyle an opportunity to be able to be repaid He had two options 1. Take a view that we had won promotion, we got relegated but he wanted to keep his on the field legacy in tact and would not request his loans to be repaid or do so over a long term period - they’d have never been if we hadn’t been promoted Or 2. He could decide you know what I’m not going to get this opportunity again, this is my chance to get my loan repaid with the club getting those parachute payments .... but in doing so it the fans / team won’t see any benefit from the Premier League. We won’t see any of that benefit (!) back in 2014 we seemed unhappy others had! In other words his choices were 1. Choose the fans / club or 2. Choose himself. He chose himself. Fair enough. I don’t agree. You could argue he should have written his debts off but the club is still his to sell and has a value. He says he looked at the potential buyers and judged that it would be too risky for the clubs legacy to do it that way. Because a buyer would likely have borrowed against the club to pay him, and so we’d be back to square one. How anyone can be so sure we’d be so much better off selling to another party when you look at the likes of Wigan or Blackburn is beyond me. It’s up him what does as a shareholder/owner - agree As a fan I would have hoped he’d have taken a significant haircut but he chose not to and that’s his decision - I expect most would have done the same if they could find someone willing to do the deal agreed with Phil As a Director he has different duties If we are insolvent then as a Director and connected party then he has even more duties
|
|
|
Post by richhtfc on Apr 9, 2021 11:31:42 GMT 1
I don’t agree. You could argue he should have written his debts off but the club is still his to sell and has a value. He says he looked at the potential buyers and judged that it would be too risky for the clubs legacy to do it that way. Because a buyer would likely have borrowed against the club to pay him, and so we’d be back to square one. How anyone can be so sure we’d be so much better off selling to another party when you look at the likes of Wigan or Blackburn is beyond me. It’s up him what does as a shareholder/owner - agree As a fan I would have hoped he’d have taken a significant haircut but he chose not to and that’s his decision - I expect most would have done the same if they could find someone willing to do the deal agreed with Phil As a Director he has different duties If we are insolvent then as a Director and connected party then he has even more duties I thought it was widely accepted that he has written off a significant sum over and above the amount he is taking back?
|
|
|
Post by Up the Duff. on Apr 9, 2021 14:28:32 GMT 1
Nothing has been written off. The final payment is repayable upon certain events which remain unknown.
|
|
deo1
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by deo1 on Apr 9, 2021 14:52:47 GMT 1
I’ve never been a fan since he started having a go at Ken Davy (who incidentally has just bought the YMCA and gifted it back to the local community). Hoyle loved the limelight and adulation he got when becoming town owner and granted got us to the promised land. Since then he’s changed the town badge twice which I’m not happy about, bought Canalside and changed it from a community club and hub into a closed door affair which promised a lot but delivered minimal, got us massively into debt/not self sufficient and now looks like he’s getting all of his outlay back from what he’s put in over the years. He said in a recent interview that he probably won’t go to the games anymore as he feels unwelcome, if I’m honest he’s brought it on himself that he’s made to feel like this from sections of the town fan base.
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Apr 9, 2021 17:24:23 GMT 1
Can’t be mean to ol Dean Hoyle.
|
|
|
Post by birchencliffe on Apr 9, 2021 20:57:26 GMT 1
looking forward to a summer holiday any suggestions? Are you planning to go far ? Turkey
|
|
|
Post by daveswithy1982 on Apr 9, 2021 21:07:34 GMT 1
I’ve never been a fan since he started having a go at Ken Davy (who incidentally has just bought the YMCA and gifted it back to the local community). Hoyle loved the limelight and adulation he got when becoming town owner and granted got us to the promised land. Since then he’s changed the town badge twice which I’m not happy about, bought Canalside and changed it from a community club and hub into a closed door affair which promised a lot but delivered minimal, got us massively into debt/not self sufficient and now looks like he’s getting all of his outlay back from what he’s put in over the years. He said in a recent interview that he probably won’t go to the games anymore as he feels unwelcome, if I’m honest he’s brought it on himself that he’s made to feel like this from sections of the town fan base. Really good post - agree 100% with everything you've said! Hoyle and Wagner both left when the going started to get tough and left the club in a huge mess. Phil Hodgkinson hasn't covered himself with glory but anyone who had to pick up the mess Hoyle and Wagner left us with would have found it tough.
|
|
|
Post by Christ in Shades (art) on Apr 9, 2021 21:18:17 GMT 1
He is fabulously wealthy. He must be worth tens if not hundreds of millions. £50 to some people is the weekly shop. £50 to alot in this day and age right now is much more than a weekly shop unfortunately. It's easy for everyone to play monopoly on here, with £50m that's not yours. He wasn't expecting it back when he put it in, but times changed and he had an opportunity to take back what he had put in, albeit it now at our expense. Everyone on here can piss and moan and say "He's got enough money etc etc" but the fact is, it's his money, not anyone's on here. Like I said before, he's securing generations of family after a bout of illness, I seriously don't blame him. Would have been brilliant had he not taken it back and helped the club massively, he didn't, we move on. Are you saying its just about money principles?
|
|
|
Post by TommyTheTerrier on Apr 9, 2021 21:23:52 GMT 1
Nobody takes over the club they "love", or any League One club for that matter, and expects to receive their investment back especially when you're the main protagonist in a snowball effect of poor decisions that wiped out the potential financial safety of the club for 10+ years.
Head over heart decision, which is ironic because he ripped the latter out of Huddersfield Town.
|
|
|
Post by elindalo on Apr 9, 2021 21:26:04 GMT 1
Hoyle put money in. He then mis-spent a fortune. He wanted his money back to pay for his own mistakes. He expects the club, the fans and the heart of Huddersfield to bleed for him. A greedy, wicked charlatan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2021 21:30:41 GMT 1
£50 to alot in this day and age right now is much more than a weekly shop unfortunately. It's easy for everyone to play monopoly on here, with £50m that's not yours. He wasn't expecting it back when he put it in, but times changed and he had an opportunity to take back what he had put in, albeit it now at our expense. Everyone on here can piss and moan and say "He's got enough money etc etc" but the fact is, it's his money, not anyone's on here. Like I said before, he's securing generations of family after a bout of illness, I seriously don't blame him. Would have been brilliant had he not taken it back and helped the club massively, he didn't, we move on. Are you saying its just about money principles? I think his health has factored into slot of this. Would you blame someone near death bed? Yes he's said he loves the club etc, yes he may have millions in the bank too, but this could last his family and their family setting their own business up, home living no mortgages and live comfortably for many many years. He should have sold when stock was high after Chelsea,but it isn't my money to cast judgement. Should he have sold to a consortium of sorts and maybe had a right go, maybe win a Carling cup or FA cup like Wigan? Maybe gone down as teams like them have, but we would have something to show and be back in the lower leagues. We went up, survived miraculously and the next season, just ghosted the whole season and look shot now. I don't think we will go down, but I've seen us in a stage similar as many of us have. Odds on to stay up or not likely and then get relegated by Birmingham after a lad set of results. Lightning can't strike twice, can it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2021 21:31:39 GMT 1
Hoyle put money in. He then mis-spent a fortune. He wanted his money back to pay for his own mistakes. He expects the club, the fans and the heart of Huddersfield to bleed for him. A greedy, wicked charlatan. No issue with him taking it back, but he can't expect legacy status now. If he hadn't and he wrote it off as he thought he wouldn't get it back, this thread would be miles different. Footballs a money game and it's sad to see
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2021 21:42:13 GMT 1
I’ve never been a fan since he started having a go at Ken Davy (who incidentally has just bought the YMCA and gifted it back to the local community). Hoyle loved the limelight and adulation he got when becoming town owner and granted got us to the promised land. Since then he’s changed the town badge twice which I’m not happy about, bought Canalside and changed it from a community club and hub into a closed door affair which promised a lot but delivered minimal, got us massively into debt/not self sufficient and now looks like he’s getting all of his outlay back from what he’s put in over the years. He said in a recent interview that he probably won’t go to the games anymore as he feels unwelcome, if I’m honest he’s brought it on himself that he’s made to feel like this from sections of the town fan base. Yup if I'm honest all that crap turned me off him somewhat, aided and abetted by his little busy body supporters...who were almost the exact same group of fans who were insisting that Adam Pearson *HAD* to become the Town owner, and Ken Davy was some kind of devil for daring to refuse his aggressive and unwanted (and undervalued) £3m offer. Obviously its not necessarily true that we'd have gone the same path - but I much prefer the kind of crappy state we've ended up at, compared to where the club he did do a sneak attack on before selling it down the river to a bunch of charlatans are currently at.
|
|
|
Post by ritchie on Apr 10, 2021 12:01:50 GMT 1
All those who say “dean hoyle never expected to get it back, but saw the opportunity to after the PL, so it was his right to take it back and shouldn’t be criticised for it”
Its complete rubbish. This was only true at the beginning of both PL seasons.... They were the time for him to withdraw the money owed - he didn’t - he gambled it. And lost.
He should take responsibility for that, because taking the parachute money from the club is completely unethical when he was the one who signed those deals. Deals making us dependent on that money to transition back from the situation he had created healthily.
As much as we all loved him shooting his load on players at the time, it was the wrong decision. As norwich have shown, the way to do it was invest as a championship club but plan as a PL club. We did the opposite
Of course, Dean hoyle is within his right to get his money back, but in doing so should absolutely expect to incur criticism. Because we as fans expect owners to have the best interests of the club from the minute they get involved until after they leave.
|
|
|
Post by nicovaesen on Apr 10, 2021 12:14:35 GMT 1
All those who say “dean hoyle never expected to get it back, but saw the opportunity to after the PL, so it was his right to take it back and shouldn’t be criticised for it” Its complete rubbish. This was only true at the beginning of both PL seasons.... They were the time for him to withdraw the money owed - he didn’t - he gambled it. And lost. He should take responsibility for that, because taking the parachute money from the club is completely unethical when he was the one who signed those deals. Deals making us dependent on that money to transition back from the situation he had created healthily. As much as we all loved him shooting his load on players at the time, it was the wrong decision. As norwich have shown, they way to do it was invest as a championship club but plan as a PL club. We did the opposite Of course, Dean hoyle is within his right to get his money back, but in doing so should absolutely expect to incur criticism. Because we as fans expect owners to have the best interests of the club from the minute they get involved until they leave. Brilliant post
|
|
|
Post by nicovaesen on Apr 10, 2021 12:14:58 GMT 1
All those who say “dean hoyle never expected to get it back, but saw the opportunity to after the PL, so it was his right to take it back and shouldn’t be criticised for it” Its complete rubbish. This was only true at the beginning of both PL seasons.... They were the time for him to withdraw the money owed - he didn’t - he gambled it. And lost. He should take responsibility for that, because taking the parachute money from the club is completely unethical when he was the one who signed those deals. Deals making us dependent on that money to transition back from the situation he had created healthily. As much as we all loved him shooting his load on players at the time, it was the wrong decision. As norwich have shown, they way to do it was invest as a championship club but plan as a PL club. We did the opposite Of course, Dean hoyle is within his right to get his money back, but in doing so should absolutely expect to incur criticism. Because we as fans expect owners to have the best interests of the club from the minute they get involved until they leave. Brilliant post Just liked my own post 🤦♂️
|
|
|
Post by Farsley Terrier (UK product) on Apr 10, 2021 12:19:12 GMT 1
All those who say “dean hoyle never expected to get it back, but saw the opportunity to after the PL, so it was his right to take it back and shouldn’t be criticised for it” Its complete rubbish. This was only true at the beginning of both PL seasons.... They were the time for him to withdraw the money owed - he didn’t - he gambled it. And lost. He should take responsibility for that, because taking the parachute money from the club is completely unethical when he was the one who signed those deals. Deals making us dependent on that money to transition back from the situation he had created healthily. As much as we all loved him shooting his load on players at the time, it was the wrong decision. As norwich have shown, they way to do it was invest as a championship club but plan as a PL club. We did the opposite Of course, Dean hoyle is within his right to get his money back, but in doing so should absolutely expect to incur criticism. Because we as fans expect owners to have the best interests of the club from the minute they get involved until they leave. unless he knew before hand that he would sell the club and insist on his money being returned to him.. The very definition of a no lose gamble. That's why they were loans to the club. Loans can be re-couped at a later date. Gambling the very future existence of the club with no risk to himself as an individual. The only risk would be if the new owner put us into admin then he could kiss his loans goodbye.
|
|
|
Post by ritchie on Apr 10, 2021 12:39:07 GMT 1
id also add, if DH ran his business towards the end of selling up, in the same way he ran town before selling up, he'd have never got close to what he got for card factory. obviously he didnt, because he's a good business man. which just shows he let his heart rule his head with town, resulting in wrecklessness. so why should he be judged by us with head over heart? the head on me thinks he's well within his right to get his brass back, heart says we are all fans who love the club and throw money at it non of us want it back we want a successful club so im not sure how much sympathy i have with him feeling unwelcome. obviously he doesnt deserve abuse, and id still buy the tight sod a pint but i'll never agree with his decision being fair or a good one for the club
|
|
Sabre
Tom Cowan Terrier
Posts: 655
|
Post by Sabre on Apr 10, 2021 12:58:26 GMT 1
FWIW .... I think Dean Hoyle has messed up.
Huge mistakes have sadly been made.
Certainly for me his legacy is tainted.
Nice bloke? .... Totally .
Done our legs? .... Totally.
UTT
|
|
|
Post by Detective Boyle on Apr 10, 2021 13:03:26 GMT 1
Worst part for me is that he has given it to someone who doesn’t and never did have the funds to make us competitive, and will see us in league 1 in the not too distant future.
|
|
|
Post by bluesandtwos on Apr 10, 2021 13:13:35 GMT 1
id also add, if DH ran his business towards the end of selling up, in the same way he ran town before selling up, he'd have never got close to what he got for card factory. obviously he didnt, because he's a good business man. which just shows he let his heart rule his head with town, resulting in wrecklessness. so why should he be judged by us with head over heart? the head on me thinks he's well within his right to get his brass back, heart says we are all fans who love the club and throw money at it non of us want it back we want a successful club so im not sure how much sympathy i have with him feeling unwelcome. obviously he doesnt deserve abuse, and id still buy the tight sod a pint but i'll never agree with his decision being fair or a good one for the club Card Factory was a business which could be planned and managed. If it had 30 stores and one was losing money the manager or staff could be let go, or changed, or the store could be closed. All items and groups of items could have their profitability checked, designs changed, prices raised or lowered, all this stuff could be monitored and amended if required. It takes time but you can see what works and tweak it as required. Your customer base can also be grown. In football if you purchase a poor player on a 3 year deal you are stuffed. Get in a manager who doesn't cut the mustard it costs a lot of money to get rid of them. You cannot sell tickets to more people than will fit in your stadium and you can't really change your customer base, who by and large are a pretty fickle bunch. Someone gets injured long term it still costs you a lot of money and you are limited when you can bring in a replacement and how many staff you can have. You don't, in Town's case, have full control of your business premises, so you cannot maximise profits there. If you go up a division you have very little time to adjust your business model and personnel whereas growing a normal business slowly allows you more time to plan and scale up. In all businesses bad decisions cost you but in football they can very expensive very fast, we are certainly not alone in that. Very few football clubs are consistently successful except the big ones, and the Premier League has made that more pronounced. Nobody has denied mistakes were made but football is not a normal business and that has to be taken into account.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2021 13:33:23 GMT 1
All those who say “dean hoyle never expected to get it back, but saw the opportunity to after the PL, so it was his right to take it back and shouldn’t be criticised for it” Its complete rubbish. This was only true at the beginning of both PL seasons.... They were the time for him to withdraw the money owed - he didn’t - he gambled it. And lost. He should take responsibility for that, because taking the parachute money from the club is completely unethical when he was the one who signed those deals. Deals making us dependent on that money to transition back from the situation he had created healthily. As much as we all loved him shooting his load on players at the time, it was the wrong decision. As norwich have shown, the way to do it was invest as a championship club but plan as a PL club. We did the opposite Of course, Dean hoyle is within his right to get his money back, but in doing so should absolutely expect to incur criticism. Because we as fans expect owners to have the best interests of the club from the minute they get involved until after they leave. What is stooping even lower is telling people DH was unethical when you have inadequate factual knowledge or right to do so!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2021 13:43:24 GMT 1
FWIW .... I think Dean Hoyle has messed up. Huge mistakes have sadly been made. Certainly for me his legacy is tainted. Nice bloke? .... Totally . Done our legs? .... Totally. UTT For me what's tainted Huddersfield Town isn't DH or even PH it's the shitty expectant 'so called' supporters who bleat on endlessly about money that isn't theirs!
|
|