Why would they do that with a public asset ? Perhaps the council could equally step in & keep the club going if the Allams went bust with it ? Why should the council pick up the pieces if Allam overspends ? Why should the council subsidise a private company ? We are not going to see that happen with the ill feeling between the council & the Allams, just look at the Lokeren game when the council made it clear they would not do anything for the away fans when it is the club which benefited from the game (memories of no promotion open top tour & civic reception) The KC was not built for Hull City AFC, it was also built for Hull FC & they have as much right to use it as we do. Thinking of the population of Hull & our regular attendance, any deal over the KC would only benefit a small proportion of the population
The onus would fall entirely on the Allam's, it's all their money/debt guarantees, that's why they're spending so much to try and make sure it doesn't happen. The council wouldn't get involved whatever happened, it's a private company and FC would be unaffected anyway.
I don't for one minute say they would or should, but in your scenario, they could end up between the devil and the deep blue sea. Work with the Allams or lose a football and a rugby club.
They could, but it's largely irrelevant, as we wouldn't go bust whatever happens, Allam would just take a hit.
Why ? If the Allams go under the stadium & SMC would return to Hull City Council who could allow FC to use it if they wished.
Looking at the Allamhouse books, with assets vs liabilities I doubt the company could take a £100 million hit !!
They would not lose either ! They may lose a Premiership football club but someone would pick up a bargain even if we ended up back in League 2, the Allams going under would have no impact on FC
If, and its a big if, we were to be relegated, then suspect that most if not all current player contracts have relegation clauses so immediately the wage bill would go down. That in it self would lead to some players leaving further reducing the overall wage bill whilst we also get parachute payments for two seasons, assuming we are not promoted back after one season. The financial exposure rests with Allamhouse so would anticipate that they would manage the risk down without puling the plug otherwise they stand to lose not only their investment, but their ability to mitigate corporation tax against their core marine generator business.
They wouldn't take a £100m hit, our income would just drop, it wouldn't disappear. We'd have to flog a few expensive players and get the wage bill down, I'm sure they have calculated what relegation would cost us and though it would hurt us badly, it wouldn't kill us.
Allamhouse is just a vehicle for the Allams. They have put all the money in and will suffer any loss - ie won't get their loans repaid. I would guess that our turnover will be £80m or maybe £90m if we do well on the pitch. We will spend as much as we can now and if we get relegated we will pay the outstanding staged payments from player sales and parachute payments. It's all a bit hit and miss and hoping I bet.
Back to the original question where the money is coming from, the answer is not as simple as it seems. The money we are spending is actually being borrowed by Allamhouse & then loaned to City. A time is going to come when the creditors of Allamhouse will start to see that the exposure to Allamhouse of Hull City is too great for them to continue to lend to Allamhouse. To me that is a greater threat to City then even relegation
the money is coming from sky tv money and from players we have sold we shall only have a net spend of 20 to 25 mill the income last year was well over 70 mill ... the club broke even last year and i suspect we will not lose money this season.. they will not need to any more loans to the club.. Also apart from dawson all players have a good sell on fee and plenty of youngsters been brought in. Im sure the Allams have a plan in place
What was in Allamhouses last annual accounts regarding loans and/or debentures? That will provide an insight into whether the funds have been loaned in whole or part, or whether the Allams themselves are loaning funds from their personal wealth to Allamhouse. If personal funds are being used it would potentially show up in the directors loans account. If the funds are from Allamhouse, and those funds have been borrowed other than from the Allams personally, that would need to be stated within the accounts with reference to terms
FC need subsidising now, so they couldn't afford the upkeep on their own. If they were to stay there without City, thye'd need Council, or other external help. I'm not sure they could move as they're bound in to a contract. I guess being sole tenants could affect the existing contract.
That's another bit I'm unclear on. How much would that hit be in reality, and how much of any money laid out (if in fact any has) has been collected in interest?
City aren't subsiding FC any more, the Allam's changed the arrangements with the SMC to get out of those obligations.
