You over-complicate the situation. I would have thought it obvious to most that Allam is a media whore and loves all the attention he gets from it. Notice it was him who initiated all of those interviews, and again did it during international break.... I'm pretty sure he did that last time round as well. The point is that yet again he successfully got the club being talked about across the internet, and got the name "Hull Tigers" out there. This is free advertising on a global scale. That is worth far more than a few hundred disgruntled locals.
No the best option for Hull City AFC is for the stadium to remain a publicly owned asset with no debt against it. Only if the stadium remains in the ownership of the council can the tenure of City & FC be guaranteed
Yet this weekend Hull City AFC have been paid handsomely to be broadcast in 212 territories to 643 million homes and a potential TV audience of 4.7 billion people. Better than free advertising on a global scale whilst also keeping an entire fan base onside Just saying.
I'll look it up, but who said the tenant wasn't paying? I was working on: SMC - own the stadium, mortgaged to develop, can't pay the bills so control taken by creditors. HCAFC - tenant paying rent no problem HFC - tenant paying rent vs HCAFC - owner, mortgaged it to develop, ****ed and can't pay mortgage HFC - tenant paying rent on time I was saying in the first one I'd expect the football club to be given a bit more sympathy by the banks than in the second. It's more a case of them not wanting to be seen to destroy the innocent parties in it than anything else.
In either case if the rent being paid does not cover the interest on the £120 million mortgage (which it couldn't possibly) then why shouldn't a creditor just lock the doors & thus reduce it's operating costs of the stadium to zero, as the ongoing costs of stewarding, policing etc probably wipe out the rent paid by the tenants
Same reason more clubs haven't been tipped over the edge. PR as a bank shutting down an innocent well run football club because of something someone else did, even if that someone else is owned by the same person as the club. Plus you'd be better off as the creditor breaking even and waiving the interest for a few months so you can sell the stadium with two well run teams in it rather than one. You don't have that option as readily if the club is what's been badly run and has been given points penalties amongst other things.
Because a building that is a community asset is protected. It can be used to secure investment, but can only be sold back to the council. So if things go wrong the community doesn't lose an asset. Creditors are aware of this but will still lend against it.
BUT the best option for the clubs is to ensure that situation is never allowed to become a possibility in the first place by not allowing it to be mortgaged
But that restricts development. Development attracts investment and investment can lead to security. A community has a library that the council cannot fund. In order for it to be saved the community buy it from the council. But it needs an extension added to include a much needed crèche and nursery group. Investment is secured against the building and the development is added The profits from the crèche and nursery group fund the library. If the project fails, the building returns back to the council. The reason it works is simply that the community group has to be "not for profit" so investment comes from funds set aside just for those types of projects. Could this work for us?
Right, here's me showing my ignorance. Something I don't quite understand, if the aim of owning the KC and surrounding land is to use it as security against a loan, how much would it raise? As far as I understand it, the building itself isn't worth much in relative terms, so wouldn't the money seemingly available to buy it, be of the same value? I think we tend to mix up the KC, the Stadium complex and the 'other' land being discussed.
You are right, DMD. There are three possibilities. KC West Park KC and West Park A terrace house in Hull starts at 30k In Southampton 80k The market sets the value. However without the KC you cannot attract investment. If you own the KC and West Park the fact that you can build say a hotel increases the value. The amount that the KC is worth doesn't matter as the investment is based on the development and not what already exists. The attraction of the KC as a development tool is that it has upto 25k people going to it on a regular basis. This increases the projected levels of income. The focal point is the KC and that has intrinsic value. If you build a hotel and retail units, they in turn provide employment, this feeds in to the needs of the community and that attracts investment. If you just keep the KC as a council owned stadium it will fall part lose value and lose opportunities for the future.
Isn't Walton Street car park in any of the options? I guess the other question is, why don't the current owners do something along the lines of what Mr Allam's proposing? I've seen your reply below, and I get the gist of what you mean. Cheers.
I haven't explained it well I know but if, you buy a house and convert it into a costa coffee shop, it doesn't matter how much the house is worth, it's the fact that it can be converted into a costa coffee shop that attracts investment.
Surely not West Park itself, Mel? I can see the Fairground, the triangle (bordered by the 2 rail lines and the KC itself) and extra bits - but, surely, the Park would be excluded from any deal? There may even be covenants.
Have a walk around West Park there are large areas that are available. The car park and land up to the bowling greens on Walton Street, that triangle of land that is behind the arena and includes the astro pitches and the south stand car park.
