HCST Name Change Statement

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Sir Cheshire Ben said:
AA
"We are willing to do the whole scheme but we need a significant contribution from the council. If they can't generate their own funds to make a contribution, then give us the freehold of the stadium as their contribution. I accept there's a benefit to the club but it safeguards the football club and the stadium. We would pay them for the stadium, if they paid back a percentage of that to help fund the sports village. We're talking tens of millions so for him to say that we wanted it for nothing would just be untrue at all, totally false. In effect you could argue that we were prepared to pay £120m for the Sports Village. To say we wanted it for nothing is an insult."

TG
It was an amicable, laid-back meeting which lasted three hours. At the end of it, we all shook hands, agreed to continue working together on a few ideas and Mr Allam even invited me to visit his factory. The next thing I know, he's calling me dishonest and criticising the council for not agreeing to what he wants. I have got no axe to grind with him and he can call me what he likes because I have always told the truth. I have no reason to lie about anything – I'm too long in the tooth for that sort of thing. He wanted us to give him the Stadium freehold That was something we were not prepared to do for a number of very good reasons. The main one was that he could not give any guarantees on the stadium's future. It was built and opened without any debt, but his proposal was to borrow against the freehold and that would create a debt. Anything with a debt carries a risk and, as a council, we are not prepared to have a situation like that. No one wants a repeat of what happened at Boothferry Park when the club got locked out of the ground because of financial problems. His proposals for developing a sports complex on Walton Street were vague & unclear. He said he would raise £120 million by borrowing on the stadium and getting £25 million from the Sports Council. I know for a fact the Sports Council hasn't got that sort of money to hand out. When we said there was a perfectly good ice arena already in the city and Albert Avenue baths just around the corner, he said the ice arena and the swimming pool they had been talking about could be dropped. He wasn't even prepared to show us his plans. He said they had cost him £3,000 and they belonged to him.You can't really work in partnership with someone if they are not prepared to share basic information like that. We've had nothing in writing from him at all, no offer to buy the stadium or anything like that. We had offered to work with Hull City's owners to relocate training pitches at Cottingham & Ideal Standard to land next to the KC Stadium, he seemed happy about that. We also offered to help locate a squash centre as part of that development, but then he got talking about shops and boutiques. Now, he's even talking about having a supermarket on the site. Either he wants a sports village or a shopping centre. He has his own style and his own way of going about things, but I think he wants his own way and nothing else.I certainly don't think he understands the workings of local government. I'm committed to sport in the city but Mr Allam and his son appeared unaware of other existing facilities in the city. We suggested Costello as a place to put the football training pitches and they said it was too small, which is just nonsense. I mentioned we have got 23 different big sporting events lined up in Hull next year and they did not seem to know anything about them. All they were interested in was getting the stadium freehold. They kept coming back to it time and time again."

"They effectively said we will give you £20 million, but that £20 million must go into our scheme. It might be their way of doing business, but local government doesn't work like that."

There all as bad as each other.
Click to expand...
No they're not ben. The council have a duty to create jobs business etc for the city and its residents. They should be bending over backwards for any businessman but they are highly suspicious of big business and TG etc cant stand the thought of profit.

We needed Mandelson etc to get Siemens in. Can you imagine Siemens trying to get their heads round TG Brady and Bayes.

As I say fine Allams gone. So what now for the area? What are they actively doing? If its nothing why is it nothing.
 
TG wasnt bothered about Duffen borrowing money against the lease was he?

Why would anyone believe a word that comes out of his mouth?
 
Happy Tiger said:
TG wasnt bothered about Duffen borrowing money against the lease was he?

Why would anyone believe a word that comes out of his mouth?
Click to expand...

It was the Liberals who agreed the changes to the lease which allowed Duffen to borrow the money not Labour. So TG wouldn't have had any say in whether Duffen could borrow the money secured on the lease.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fez
Sir Cheshire Ben said:
AA
"We are willing to do the whole scheme but we need a significant contribution from the council. If they can't generate their own funds to make a contribution, then give us the freehold of the stadium as their contribution. I accept there's a benefit to the club but it safeguards the football club and the stadium. We would pay them for the stadium, if they paid back a percentage of that to help fund the sports village. We're talking tens of millions so for him to say that we wanted it for nothing would just be untrue at all, totally false. In effect you could argue that we were prepared to pay £120m for the Sports Village. To say we wanted it for nothing is an insult."

TG
It was an amicable, laid-back meeting which lasted three hours. At the end of it, we all shook hands, agreed to continue working together on a few ideas and Mr Allam even invited me to visit his factory. The next thing I know, he's calling me dishonest and criticising the council for not agreeing to what he wants. I have got no axe to grind with him and he can call me what he likes because I have always told the truth. I have no reason to lie about anything – I'm too long in the tooth for that sort of thing. He wanted us to give him the Stadium freehold That was something we were not prepared to do for a number of very good reasons. The main one was that he could not give any guarantees on the stadium's future. It was built and opened without any debt, but his proposal was to borrow against the freehold and that would create a debt. Anything with a debt carries a risk and, as a council, we are not prepared to have a situation like that. No one wants a repeat of what happened at Boothferry Park when the club got locked out of the ground because of financial problems. His proposals for developing a sports complex on Walton Street were vague & unclear. He said he would raise £120 million by borrowing on the stadium and getting £25 million from the Sports Council. I know for a fact the Sports Council hasn't got that sort of money to hand out. When we said there was a perfectly good ice arena already in the city and Albert Avenue baths just around the corner, he said the ice arena and the swimming pool they had been talking about could be dropped. He wasn't even prepared to show us his plans. He said they had cost him £3,000 and they belonged to him.You can't really work in partnership with someone if they are not prepared to share basic information like that. We've had nothing in writing from him at all, no offer to buy the stadium or anything like that. We had offered to work with Hull City's owners to relocate training pitches at Cottingham & Ideal Standard to land next to the KC Stadium, he seemed happy about that. We also offered to help locate a squash centre as part of that development, but then he got talking about shops and boutiques. Now, he's even talking about having a supermarket on the site. Either he wants a sports village or a shopping centre. He has his own style and his own way of going about things, but I think he wants his own way and nothing else.I certainly don't think he understands the workings of local government. I'm committed to sport in the city but Mr Allam and his son appeared unaware of other existing facilities in the city. We suggested Costello as a place to put the football training pitches and they said it was too small, which is just nonsense. I mentioned we have got 23 different big sporting events lined up in Hull next year and they did not seem to know anything about them. All they were interested in was getting the stadium freehold. They kept coming back to it time and time again."

"They effectively said we will give you £20 million, but that £20 million must go into our scheme. It might be their way of doing business, but local government doesn't work like that."

There all as bad as each other.
Click to expand...

The main one was that he could not give any guarantees on the stadium's future. It was built and opened without any debt, but his proposal was to borrow against the freehold and that would create a debt. Anything with a debt carries a risk and, as a council, we are not prepared to have a situation like that.

I may have misunderstood the part I pulled out an copied above from what TG said, but isn't this tantamount to what the council actually did by allowing Barlett to borrow against the lease?
 
John Ex Aberdeen now E.R. said:
The main one was that he could not give any guarantees on the stadium's future. It was built and opened without any debt, but his proposal was to borrow against the freehold and that would create a debt. Anything with a debt carries a risk and, as a council, we are not prepared to have a situation like that.

I may have misunderstood the part I pulled out an copied above from what TG said, but isn't this tantamount to what the council actually did by allowing Barlett to borrow against the lease?
Click to expand...

No, the Duffen debt was secured on the lease and not the freehold. All the bank could have done was sell the lease to another company or put in a receiver and collect the rent. The new company would be bound by the terms of the lease and it would remain a football stadium. If you own the freehold you could turn it into an housing estate if you wanted. Yes they may be covenants added to the freehold to stop that but they could be challenged.
 
Obadiah said:
No, the Duffen debt was secured on the lease and not the freehold. All the bank could have done was sell the lease to another company or put in a receiver and collect the rent. The new company would be bound by the terms of the lease and it would remain a football stadium. If you own the freehold you could turn it into an housing estate if you wanted. Yes they may be covenants added to the freehold to stop that but they could be challenged.
Click to expand...
John said tantamount to it. So yes it is really in what John said.
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
John said tantamount to it. So yes it is really in what John said.
Click to expand...

The leases to Hull City AFC and Hull FC would remain valid so they would continue playing at the stadium until their leases were renewed, so the answer is no. Hull City Council had no control over the day to day running of the stadium under Adam Pearson, that continued under Bartlett and is the same for Assem Allam.

There may even be a clause in the lease which says Hull City AFC and Hull FC can play there for the duration, but that is me guessing.
 
Obadiah said:
Strovolos Tiger, I was out of order yesterday. Please accept my public apology.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely nothing to apologise for. I always enjoy reading your posts and enjoy debating points with you. If you are apologising for what you said or the style of what you said, then God only knows how many Hail Mary's I would have to say!! <whistle>
 
Obadiah said:
The leases to Hull City AFC and Hull FC would remain valid so they would continue playing at the stadium until their leases were renewed, so the answer is no. Hull City Council had no control over the day to day running of the stadium under Adam Pearson, that continued under Bartlett and is the same for Assem Allam.

There may even be a clause in the lease which says Hull City AFC and Hull FC can play there for the duration, but that is me guessing.
Click to expand...

Then what is the security for the bank, in this case RBS, if the borrower couldn't pay back the loan he had taken out on the lease?
 
originallambrettaman said:
I was always confused about that, I assume it was secured against future SMC earnings(ie the Premier Club).
Click to expand...

Tks I was wondering where the security came from. However having had dealing with RBS that seems a very flimsy security, someone must have had friends in high places to get that one passed them.

EDIT, Just saw Mel's comment, obviously he did.
 
John Ex Aberdeen now E.R. said:
Then what is the security for the bank, in this case RBS, if the borrower couldn't pay back the loan he had taken out on the lease?
Click to expand...

The bank could appoint a Law of Property Act Receiver. In reality what that means is the Receiver collects the rent from Hull City AFC and Hull FC and pays it directly to the bank. When the debt is paid the lease goes back to the SMC.

The bank could try and sell the lease but its value would be determined by the amount of rent received and whether the clauses could be renegotiated. In this case that may be very difficult given the experience of Boothferry park.

Without seeing the lease details I would say the bank would most likely appoint a Receiver to collect the rents and pay the mortgage.

I've tried to make something complicated fairly straightforward to understand. Let me know if you have any more questions.
 
StrovolosTiger said:
You have absolutely nothing to apologise for. I always enjoy reading your posts and enjoy debating points with you. If you are apologising for what you said or the style of what you said, then God only knows how many Hail Mary's I would have to say!! <whistle>
Click to expand...

Thanks, its appreciated.
 
Obadiah said:
The bank could appoint a Law of Property Act Receiver. In reality what that means is the Receiver collects the rent from Hull City AFC and Hull FC and pays it directly to the bank. When the debt is paid the lease goes back to the SMC.

The bank could try and sell the lease but its value would be determined by the amount of rent received and whether the clauses could be renegotiated. In this case that may be very difficult given the experience of Boothferry park.

Without seeing the lease details I would say the bank would most likely appoint a Receiver to collect the rents and pay the mortgage.

I've tried to make something complicated fairly straightforward to understand. Let me know if you have any more questions.
Click to expand...

The SMC has never been profitable, there is not nearly enough security for that deal to be done under normal circumstances, I suspect that it only happened due to Bartlett's dodgy mate at RBS in Essex.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fez
Obadiah said:
The bank could appoint a Law of Property Act Receiver. In reality what that means is the Receiver collects the rent from Hull City AFC and Hull FC and pays it directly to the bank. When the debt is paid the lease goes back to the SMC.

The bank could try and sell the lease but its value would be determined by the amount of rent received and whether the clauses could be renegotiated. In this case that may be very difficult given the experience of Boothferry park.

Without seeing the lease details I would say the bank would most likely appoint a Receiver to collect the rents and pay the mortgage.

I've tried to make something complicated fairly straightforward to understand. Let me know if you have any more questions.
Click to expand...

Tks for this, and OLM for his input. If I remember correctly in reality SMS have actually paid very little rent, a figure of £50k seems to come to mind during the 10 years SMC have leased the ground, as from memory it was based on what profits SMC made. This being the case, and one would assume the bank would want evidence what rent would be coming in, how could they lend the money they did, which on the face of it very little rent actually coming in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back