Used to go to school with a lad called Floppy Flanders (due to his flexibility). You can guess the rest!
No one. It's a sort of contribution to the SMC for upkeep. Like paying yer mam 20 quid a week from your first ****ty job when still living at home.
Under AP the SMC made a profit, even under Bartlett it made a small profit, but under the Allams it made a loss every year, running up cumulative losses of £19.5m over their ten year(odd} tenure. Acun has continued in the same manner and has added a couple more million to those cumulative losses this year. All of this is a matter of public record, anyone can read these numbers… https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04179402/filing-history
In the first years there was no upkeep to lay out for, so it should make a profit especially if, as alleged, some of the routine maintenance wasn't done, leaving it to become a bigger expense later. Also, as I understand it the way the deal was structured meant less 'profit' reduced the payments overall.
That’s true, the stadium costs were always going to increase as the stadium got older and it would have run into loss whoever was in charge. There’s also benefits in running it at a loss, firstly because it means that no rent had to be paid to the council and also any losses could be used to reduce tax on profits made in other parts of the group (which was particularly useful for the Allams, as the group included Allam Marine). I don’t really understand why the SMC doesn’t impact FFP, but it seems it’s not included in the calculations.
I know all of this but don't you think a point was being made, but no-one was listening, that the leases etc were weighted in favour of the RL club, hence the SMC having to take up the slack, hence the debt mounting up?
As the lease was drawn up by HCC in partnership with Adam Pearson, at the time the owner of Hull City, no I don't think it was weighted in favour of the RL club. In fact, many of the costs run up by the SMC were due to Premier League stadium requirements, that were charged to the SMC, but were entirely football costs. I know you hate FC, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. The only benefit FC got from the original lease terms, were on the corporate ticket sales and this was only set up a safeguard in case one club was doing much better than the other and that was binned by the Allams years ago anyway.
I remember reading when AP was City’s chair and so in charge of the SMC, he set the rent FC would pay. It was based on an annual figure, regardless of use. During one of the Covid seasons, he was complaining that FC only played half a dozen games, but still had to,pay the same rent!
I don't hate anyone. There are far more anomalys then you know about regarding who pays for what at the stadium and Pearson set most of them up. The current rent Fc pay does not even cover match days costs, even you agreed with that, and the SMC pick up the slack, which is why the debt had been mounting for a number of years, to highlight that point,but no-one is listening, in fact Pearson is expecting even more favourable terms, meaning paying less. So the terms are weighted towards the RL club. In my eyes when something is shared it is exactly that, the costs are shared, or shared accordingly to usage but it doesnt seem to be the case at the stadium. Biggest example is the cost of a new pitch, £1.5m plus £700k maintenance costs according to Kesler. As both clubs play on it, isn't it reasonable to expect both clubs to share the costs?
If you have a council house, do you pay for a new roof, or does the council? The SMC should foot the bill for the pitch. The pitch is impeccable at the end of the RL season, and then awful when they start again. Plus, FC have to play all away games for 5 weeks (from memory) to enable a new pitch to be laid.
Newcastle, Man City, and several others have put new roofs on their council house. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Was the pitch done entirely correct to start with ? The stadium was built in a very quick timescale so it may not have been
If the sub base has become more compacted over the 20 odd years of use then it's not going to drain as freely as when it was first laid.
