Its a real shame as if you look at the basics of where the club where at the start of his reign and were they are now, add the achievements in between the man could have been a hero at Hull City for as long as the club lasts. As it is he will probably be remembered as the man who tried to change the name and charge pensioners and kids full price.

Seems to have a personality flaw of getting himself into great positions and then finding the best way to shoot himself in the foot.

I would worry about american owners though, their isn't a great deal of evidence of successful US owners in premier league teams, most have caused fan unrest and made some very unpopular decisions. Americans are the great believers in franchising and fans as 'customers'.

Well if you want to jump on the bandwagon you need to pay £24 (a one off joining fee) for the membership before the 24th June after that you will need to pay £84 http://mobile.hullcitytigers.com//news/ ... 38573.aspx

Well if you want to jump on the bandwagon you need to pay £24 (a one off joining fee) for the membership before the 24th June after that you will need to pay £84 http://mobile.hullcitytigers.com//news/ ... 38573.aspx

Cheers, Fred. Thought in the run up to Wembley it was labled "the £167 millon game". I was under the impression that City would get quite a bit up front to allow them to build, in an effort to counteract yo-yoism.
Bruce has given himself ten days to see what happens with any buy-outs. Realistically, he needs more time to decide on bringing players in, £100 million pounds, probably gets you four reasonable players nowadays? How's the weather there, been smashing here for the last few days but rain forecast for tomorrow.

His arrogance around the name change really hit it home to me how much of a prick he was. After stating there was evidence that the name change would increase revenue he went on radio humberside. He was asked what the evidence was. He said something along the lines of... "I'm the evidence, if I say it, that makes it evidence".

The only way to return more than 4% in today's economy is through risk based investments, like stocks and shares, property, acquisitions etc. You'd have certainly done well last year to have made 4% even there, the market dropped 5%, even the likes of Woodford made losses. Base line interest rates are too low for any fixed products, like savings and bonds. There are some fix terms options that might exceed 4% (only just) but there is no way you are going to be allowed to invest millions into them.

Bugger, don't what my 7s-6d in TSB will be worth do you?

If an entrepreneur has £50m to invest I can absolutely guarantee he'd return more than 4%. Do you think these people stick their millions in the bank or dabble in shares? They'd be looking at a spread of investments to balance risk and reward and would get much more than 4%. I have some unit trusts sat in an ISA which returned 19% last year

... but he put his money into a football club, what has that got to do with a "spread of investments"?

Because he was speculating on getting the freehold of the stadium and the surrounding area which would have returned him several times his "investment". he's a risk taker which is why he's rolling in money and you and I aren't. allam marine was making about £40m a year net from what I saw previously

He's also a generous benefactor and despite what you think of him as an individual he's give away many £millions to good causes