17-01-2022, 16:57
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.
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.
Another day, another door, another high, another low