![]() |
Terriers v Swans - Printable Version +- Sports Babble - sports forum (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk) +-- Forum: Football (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: English Football Leagues (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=2) +---- Forum: Sky Bet League One (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=79) +----- Forum: Huddersfield Town (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=70) +----- Thread: Terriers v Swans (/showthread.php?tid=10914) |
RE: Terriers v Swans - Lord Snooty - 16-01-2022 Swansea Anagrams: An old one, a current one, a footy ground and a singer still to get.
RE: Terriers v Swans - jjamez - 16-01-2022 Liberty stadium? For number 8 RE: Terriers v Swans - theo_luddite - 16-01-2022 "It's a Hard Egg" getting some of these 5. Bonnie Tyler RE: Terriers v Swans - jjamez - 16-01-2022 5 bonnie tyler Beat me to it Theo 1 Ivor allchurch Then the final one will be Matt Grimes. He had a good game for them yesterday RE: Terriers v Swans - theo_luddite - 16-01-2022 Just beat me to Ivor the Engine too jjamez. Toot, toot. RE: Terriers v Swans - Lord Snooty - 16-01-2022 Swansea Anagrams: Well done, lads.
RE: Terriers v Swans - theo_luddite - 17-01-2022 Did anyone read Dean Hoyles comments? Not sure how I take them, he made a rod for his own back with comments hes made before, like the sleep walking comment and the comment on the podcast last year. Some of the piece today seemed like he has a bit of a saviour complex and wants his saving exploits to be announced to the world. Just dont mention some of the things he's done to drag us back down! Only seen what "The Papers" have reported. He sold the club for what, £5m plus repayment of his loans if you believe all that you read? It's been the current (absent) Chairlump's decision to pay him back from club funds rather than from his own (or maybe that's how the deal was worked out), but then again he (Hoyle) made the loans to the club not our (absent) Chairlump. He could equally have put the price of the club at the cost of his loans plus £5m. That he's still adding to those loans because the "cash flow" in the club's finances wasn't what he was told it was kind of explains why Phil's "man" was shown the door. If our CEO didn't understand the club's finances (or chose to lie about them) why the hell was he in that job? We'd still be in League 1 or 2 with our "prior to Hoyle" Chairlump still putting in his £1m per year whilst spending 2-5x as much on Huddersfield Giants, or maybe challenging AFC Halifax to be top of the Conference. Yes he (Hoyle) put the money in as loans as it was "tax efficient", but if any of you borrowed £20 off me over Christmas to buy a round I'd expect to get it back from you this month. Marcus Evans got what he wanted (which I doubt was walking away from everything he ever put in) when he sold Ipswich to a bunch of Yanks after presiding over their slide into League 1 mid-table mediocrity. He's still got a thumb or two in that pie crust. Hoyle could equally have sold up to a bunch of Yanks and got all his money back in one go. Where would that have left us? Anyone's guess but they'd be expecting some return on their investment and the Prima Donna League parachute payments would have been a significant part of that return. If you've ever worked for a company that gets taken over by an American (usually) Private Equity Company, you'll know what I mean when it comes to asset stripping. If you haven't, just hope you never are. "Last year" (2020 as the article is from Dec 2021), "U.S. acquirers bought $137 billion worth of British companies" - according to Dealogic, reported in the Wall Street Journal. We could, perhaps, have been one of them. RE: Terriers v Swans - WakeyTerrier - 17-01-2022 Our current or should I say ex charman (PH) went to watch Liverpool v Brentford yesterday. He posted a picture of the Liverpool programme on his Instagram account followed by the following words First live in the flesh game of football in exactly 3 months to the day. Excellent programme as well, full of well written, wholly accurate and respectful articles..... ---------------------------------------- As for Marcus Evans, I'm told that deal the BBC broke on Friday is wide of the mark. Can't say anymore than that. RE: Terriers v Swans - theo_luddite - 17-01-2022 Wouldn't surprise me Wakey. It was rumoured long before Friday and held about as much water as him taking over Direby. Let's see, Ipswich Chairman sells club, now reloaded with the money he used to have. Two clubs (1 definite, 1 maybe) looking for new owner/Chairlump. Ooooh, the glass slipper fits both feet in lazy journo world, except it probably doesn't. Given his success in the real world he lives in and his apparent lack of success in the the unreal world of football, why realistically would he waste all that money again? Unless he has nobody to leave it all to. Can we apply to be surrogate family members? RE: Terriers v Swans - jjamez - 17-01-2022 The thing is, we were in a poor place under Davy and Hoyle came in and put money in to get us going again, whilst sticking the knife into a few people along the way and getting the fans to go against them. He said at one point he didn't expect his money back, but after the shambles of the second premier League season, his mind changed. Yes I know he was ill but he was just as culpable for the shocking signings as everyone else, you can't expect to invest poorly and still get every penny back. When we got to the championship, I feel Hoyle realised that the league one spending wouldn't be enough and the increase was out of his financial reach, we then became a club with the sole aim of becoming self sustainable. Admirable, but ultimately it is a fairly flawed ideology, the figures at every club shows that. Unless you have a genuine star that's worth multiple millions that you sell, you ain't getting to self sustainable levels. So Hoyle knew there that he was going to be needing to finance more and more, whilst saying he doesn't share in which would be a good way of sharing the burden The promotion to the premier League was a fluke, let's be honest, but the money earned from it should have far exceeded our outlay whilst there. At some point along the two year, probably the second summer, we spent more than we should and ended up being saddled with overpaid mercenaries like mbenza et Al, that falls just as much on Hoyle as it does the dof, Wagner and whoever else. The podcast last year to me showed Hoyle was good at dishing dirt on people and giving a lot of stick to them, but when he was recieving it from the town fans, he hated it. I feel he has tied hodgkinson up big time with nda's from the original take over, throughout his tenure to now. I feel this just means that Hoyle is back controlling the narrative without anyone else having a right to respond. I'm not sticking up for Phil, I think he made a poor start to his time by making things up, saying things such as being able to finance the club, but in fact not. Selling players and saying they'd be replaced, weve never replaced mooy, sure we'd not get that quality back in, but we've not even got a fraction of his ability back into our midfield, the closest probably being eiting. Hoyle said he had 3 days notice, but let's be fair he didn't, he'd have known all along of Phil's financial situations, especially if he was using club funds to actually buy the club. Sure Phil may have said that he was financially fine to Dean as he did us, but he said he'd been impacted like a lot of other businesses, Dean would have been wary of the fact his money may have been needed again at the start of the covid outbreak when almost every club in the country were struggling. I never took to Phil and think he was a needs must sale to Dean for him to get the vast majority of his money back, if he sold to Americans or whoever, the odds are he'd have had to take a hit personally or it would be a case of the new owner taking the debt on as a loan to the club, much like Evans did to Ipswich. Speaking of Evans, if he is to be a new owner/investor then there's a few things. Hoyle has said he won't share Huddersfield town, yet he did with Phil and it seems he will with Evans. Why the change? If Evans' history with Ipswich is anything to go by, has he learnt anything in way of being a non existent decision maker or does it still baffle him as to how something can fail when the money man and decision maker can't be reached? Just going back to Hoyle, he has been notorious for PR spin, look at the stadium share deal, where he got fans up in arms at Davy. He's always done it and it's why, reading his comments from Saturday, I have to take a rather more cynical view on it. He used to be a god amongst town fans, myself included, mainly because he was just that, a town fan, but it all seems to have unraveled big time, maybe because it was his ego Vs Phil's ego in the club, but over the last year or so, or when he sold the club probably to be exact, theres been instances of the real Dean Hoyle that he never truly showed town fans come through. I guess that's why he became a rather successful business man. We saw his weekend persona or the one he really wanted us to see, we never saw his ruthless business persona, which seems to be eeking out a bit. I feel like there's more to the Dean v Phil but we'll never truly know due to the Nda's. Not without someone breaking it. I feel the original deal between the two of them could or should have been a lot better, it seemed rushed and I don't think any sort of due diligence was ever done on it. We're lucky we haven't truly suffered (yet) which we would have had we got relegated in any of the two seasons before. |