Hyde United Approach The Gallows

Ian

Ian began writing Twohundredpercent in May 2006. He lives in Brighton. He has also written for, amongst others, Pitch Invasion, FC Business Magazine, The Score, When Saturday Comes, Stand Against Modern Football and The Football Supporter. Ian was the first winner of the Socrates Award For Not Being Dead Yet at the 2010 NOPA awards for football bloggers.

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Rob Bernard says:

    A very sad tale but on the other hand, why should clubs who are properly structured and pay their debts be at a disadvantage to clubs who decline to pay and spend the money on the pitch instead?

    Many more may follow before chairmen and fans get their heads out of the clouds and live within their means, even if it means a bit less “success”.

    A legacy of Thatcher’s Britain I’m afraid.

  2. Gav says:

    It would be good if you contacted someone at the club or the supporters to explain the situation in some clarity.

    In a nutshell, Hyde had big money backers who accumulated tax debts by paying contracted players large wages, and liabilities in the form of the contracts. They are actually a pretty well run club and with the expiry of the contracted, big money players a lot more solvent in cashflow terms than they might be.

    The backers suddenly pulled out leaving the current horrible mess that’s there at the moment.

    It’s a real shame – the fans are some of the funniest people I’ve ever met, and a really passionate bunch.

    Hyde United is dead – long live FC Hyde!

  3. Jertzee says:

    “A legacy of Thatcher’s Britain I’m afraid.” wtf?? Amazing that Maggie is being blamed for football clubs overspending, like it never existed before she got into power.

    Nowt to do with her, or the Tories. Greed was around a lot well before them.

  4. Phil of Bath says:

    “In a nutshell, Hyde had big money backers who accumulated tax debts by paying contracted players large wages, and liabilities in the form of the contracts.” Well then, they were not ‘backers’, were they? They were leeches. On the Kempster Forum, I coined the expression ‘poison daddy’ to replace the usual ‘sugar daddy’. These people do not use their own money, just promises and borrowings, and leave perfectly decent clubs in the lurch when they leave (usually to go off and ‘save’ another club). Btw, absolutely nothing to do with Thatcher (and I have never voted Conservative in my life and never will)

  5. mick says:

    Agree with most of the comments above.

    However it does seem a little unjust when you see how Farsley (4 promotions in 5 seasons on taxpayers money)have dodged their responsibilities and those parasitic serial offenders Northwich Victoria (still full time owing £400k+)have got away with it once again.

    The FA must fix this overspend culture. It’s simple Admin = Relegation 2 divisions. Look at Salisbury, overcome the 10 points already, but with such an expensive assembled squad is it any wonder

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>