Re: Wes Naiqama to London? : Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:30 am  

mickyb1234 wrote:

So come on font of all knowledge the club have told the rfl what exactly

That the owners of the hive don't want year 2 of the agreement they were bribed to take this ywar

Re: Wes Naiqama to London? : Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:04 pm  

Where is yr evidence, what bribe?

Re: Wes Naiqama to London? : Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:06 pm  

mickyb1234 wrote:

Where is yr evidence, what bribe?

The RFL gave the HIve's owner a marketing budget. They have not given the owners of the other 13 SL club stadiums any money........but at the "everything is going to be OK fans forum" back in February, AK freely admitted he'd been given a budget by the RFL. Are you saying it wasn't a deal sweetener?
As for the 2015 rental arrangement, my source is the same one who furnished me with the clubs financials under Hughes as well as countless other accurate information.
Believe what makes you happy Michael.......

Re: Wes Naiqama to London? : Sun Aug 31, 2014 9:26 pm  

gutterfax wrote: The RFL gave the HIve's owner a marketing budget. They have not given the owners of the other 13 SL club stadiums any money........but at the "everything is going to be OK fans forum" back in February, AK freely admitted he'd been given a budget by the RFL. Are you saying it wasn't a deal sweetener? As for the 2015 rental arrangement, my source is the same one who furnished me with the clubs financials under Hughes ... Wow! He must have spent a few quid at Companies House: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails Company No. 05322378 http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcprodorder?ft=1

gutterfax wrote: The RFL gave the HIve's owner a marketing budget. They have not given the owners of the other 13 SL club stadiums any money........but at the "everything is going to be OK fans forum" back in February, AK freely admitted he'd been given a budget by the RFL. Are you saying it wasn't a deal sweetener? As for the 2015 rental arrangement, my source is the same one who furnished me with the clubs financials under Hughes ... Wow! He must have spent a few quid at Companies House: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails Company No. 05322378 http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcprodorder?ft=1

Re: Wes Naiqama to London? : Sun Aug 31, 2014 9:33 pm  

So a commercial deal with an option for a second year. A deal that solves a dilemma for the RFL. A bribe tends to suggest an illegal hidden payment. Where was it hidden?

Re: Wes Naiqama to London? : Sun Aug 31, 2014 9:38 pm  

BroncOnIon wrote: Wow! He must have spent a few quid at Companies House: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails Company No. 05322378 http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcprodorder?ft=1 Nope.....I have a breakdown of where every penny was wasted at the club. How little was spent on Marketing....how much we received each year from the RFL, the incredible amount spent on "administration". I can assure you, the arrangement that Blake Solly thrashed out with AK to get us to fulfil our 2014 fixtures in SL was sweetened with a "marketing budget" and if you look carefully at the releases at the time, was rolled out as a 1 year deal with a 2nd year option....the option has not been taken by AK/The Hive and therefore the club is having to re-negotiate the deal. I admitted that my "homeless" comment in the thread about this earlier in the year was a "worst case" scenario, but chances are if we stay at the Hive we will be paying the same rent (or more) than we did at The Stoop. A bribe/an incentive/a sweetner......call it what you want SR. The fact is it was used to get us into a home for 13 more games before the licence expired.

BroncOnIon wrote: Wow! He must have spent a few quid at Companies House: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails Company No. 05322378 http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcprodorder?ft=1 Nope.....I have a breakdown of where every penny was wasted at the club. How little was spent on Marketing....how much we received each year from the RFL, the incredible amount spent on "administration". I can assure you, the arrangement that Blake Solly thrashed out with AK to get us to fulfil our 2014 fixtures in SL was sweetened with a "marketing budget" and if you look carefully at the releases at the time, was rolled out as a 1 year deal with a 2nd year option....the option has not been taken by AK/The Hive and therefore the club is having to re-negotiate the deal. I admitted that my "homeless" comment in the thread about this earlier in the year was a "worst case" scenario, but chances are if we stay at the Hive we will be paying the same rent (or more) than we did at The Stoop. A bribe/an incentive/a sweetner......call it what you want SR. The fact is it was used to get us into a home for 13 more games before the licence expired.

Re: Wes Naiqama to London? : Sun Aug 31, 2014 9:43 pm  

If TK freely admitted to receiving a marketing budget then he didn't do a very good job of keeping the bribe a secret. Unless of cause it wasn't a bribe but a marketing budget.
The question is where is your evidence that this marketing budget is the reason for a possible renegotiation of Broncos stay because so far I've seen nothing to back this up. Don't you think poor attendances and relegation might have more to do with the relationship between Hive and Broncos?

Re: Wes Naiqama to London? : Sun Aug 31, 2014 9:58 pm  

meliferra wrote:

If TK freely admitted to receiving a marketing budget then he didn't do a very good job of keeping the bribe a secret. Unless of cause it wasn't a bribe but a marketing budget.

Yep...because the other 13 stadiums owners all received the same "marketing budget" didn't they?
The Marketing Budget/sweetener/bribe/incentive...call it whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy.....this PAYMENT was used to get the deal across the line.......

meliferra wrote:

The question is where is your evidence that this marketing budget is the reason for a possible renegotiation of Broncos stay because so far I've seen nothing to back this up. Don't you think poor attendances and relegation might have more to do with the relationship between Hive and Broncos?

I never said it was the reason for the renegotiation. I simply said AK/The Hive weren't happy to continue with 2014's arrangement into 2015. Relegation and poop crowds were bolted on when the first deal was done by the way....that's why the deal was for ONE YEAR.

The calls for "proof/evidence" are pointless BTW. I have (on my own and with information leaked to me) been pretty much spot on at every stage of the deconstruction of the club since 2010....believe what makes you sleep better.....a 1,250 average paying at the gate with his bars/cafes etc making the residuals hasn't floated AK's boat in 2014......2015's attendances will be half that and he wants more than this year has delivered.....you don't need a calculator to figure out that somebody will be paying more money next year....and it won't be AK!

Re: Wes Naiqama to London? : Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:20 pm  

Strangely enough it was a commercoal deal, one year with a second year option. The property world is littered with 20 year deals with breaks at 5 years. Strangely your security is only 5 years depending on how things go for landlord and tenant. Same.here and not.sure anyone on this site was unaware that might be the case. How many player deals are announced as 2 years when actually 1 plus an option. I have not seen any evidence the terms of the deal have been broken and your informant has not suggested this.

Not sure why the calls for proof are pointless. Make a statement and someone is quite entitled to ask for the evidence. Say there's no need and suddenly people get suspicious you don't have any actual evidence.

Re: Wes Naiqama to London? : Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:43 pm  

GF can only claim to be spot on through sheer volume of crap meaning some of the poop has to stick.

I think he has Broncos moving and stayng covered. He had Brincos. finishing this year and also has them finishing next year.

I believe he claimed Broncos lease for their old training facilities continued for another year but this was shown to be false. There is plenty of assumption and misinformation in GFs posts based on a lack of fact if we can be bothered to go through the thousands of posts.
The reason GF does not like the call for evidence is because he has none so repeatedly comes back with interpretation of hearsay until actually believes his own stories.
The claim that TK is after more money next year than he received this is just another imaginary fact that GF has evolved.