We had to reapply due to an issue with the plan we'd submitted, by which time we'd switched to being Hull City Supporters Trust, hence that being the name on the current application. It's not a burning issue, it's just standard practice for trusts, so that they have to be informed of any potential change in ownership of the stadium. We announced the ACV application on our website, there's been no attempt to hide anything and as already stated, it's standard practice for trusts. Your obsession with the delay in the website domain switch is very sad.
I don't have an obsession with it, I just think that it all looks and feels too linked to CTWD. Which for many people is a problem. I support the ACV btw, its a good idea. I just can't help thinking it feels like CTWD applied for it initially, then HCST will take it over.
Pretty sure that's exactly what's happened Happy, what's wrong with it? CTWD no longer exist to go through with the application, but the trust are doing. Yet again there's absolutely no controversy here, but a few sad individuals are yet again desperately scratching around for some sort of scandal or conspiracy surrounding a bloody fans group.
Most stadiums are in private hands, so ACV prevent them being sold off for development. The KC is a community asset already, but not listed on the government scheme. Once on the scheme any community group that meets the criteria can make a bid to purchase. So is it a good idea, Who knows?
It wouldnt affect these owners or any new as they would just have the option to build there own stadium elsewhere
And that's where there could be a problem. The KC was built using public funds to ensure that there would be a first class stadium for Hull City and Hull FC. It has a fair degree of protection as it is. I just believe that this is a complex arrangement. I have concerns that this is a hasty application and may take away protections already in place.
It's a meaningless tag unless the supporters group has a tangible plan as to how it could fund any potential purchase, should the ground ever hit the market. Otherwise it's akin to the millionaire down the round giving you first dibs at market rate if he ever decides to sell his mansion, with the snag being you're on benefits, ergo completely futile.
Except the idea isn't to buy it, it's just about transparency. The council would have to notify the fans if they do intend to sell it. A good thing all round, no drawbacks.
As I see things and I may be wrong. At the moment the KC has little value as a building. Commercial property values are generally determined by the amount of income they can attract. The freehold land has more value than the building on it. In order to develop the land around the KC money would have to be borrowed against the freehold, building and possibly the leases. What will be used for security? The land and stadium? If it all goes wrong the KC could be in the control of the lenders. I just fail to see how this situation could be considered to be better than what we have at present. An asset owned by the people of Hull in the form of the Council, that has low rent. Talk of partnerships to build and develop the area, are fine. What is the difference between a community group wanting to develop the area, in partnership and Assem Allams plans? As far as I can see there is none only another link in the chain. Assem Allam would have borrowed the funds to develop and so would any Community Group. The risk of losing the stadium is virtually the same. I am not saying that I am against any group applying for the ACV, just that it needs more thought, before going ahead. Unless there are sustainable plans going forward, why take the first step now?
The ACV doesn't change any of the terms currently in place, it simply means that we have to be kept informed if anything was to happen with regard to the ownership of the stadium, it would not prevent future development of the stadium or the area around it.
So the intention is to ensure that you have fractional advance knowledge of their intentions, so what? I don't see what this brings you at all in terms of an actual tangible benefit. I decide to sell my house, I tell you the day before I formally go to market, a buyer comes forward the next day and buys it. What have you gained from the prior knowledge?
That is not what the press release said. So you are saying that they get the chance to put a bid in but wouldn't?
The freehold without the lease has very little value, therefore HCST could easily afford to buy the freehold. When the current lease expires HCST, if they bought the freehold would be responsible for negotiating the new lease and would collect the rent, but that's decades away.
if you do not have any plans to bid, what is the point? The Council will not sell the KC, it wants a partner to develop the area. The whole thing is back to front. A scheme to stop stadiums falling into private hands, being used to enable it? If Assem Allam builds at Melton and moves the club, having the KC as a community-asset does nothing to stop that. It on,y prevent privately owned stadium being sold off for development and being moved out of town, without giving the community a chance to save the stadium.
Mark Gretton, chairman at Hull City Supporters Trust, said: "There needs to be a voice for the fans in football and that is why we have made this application. There is more to Hull City and the KC Stadium than the owners. "This will gives us, the fans, more understanding of what goes on behind the scenes at Hull City. "There will be more transparency and that has not always been the case in the past with our club. "In terms of going on to own the stadium, that is unrealistic as things stand now. But you never know. It is not our intention at this stage." http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull...tory-25855910-detail/story.html#ixzz3OydSBXSh
What operational club is going to surrender 40years of the sort of lease they have. Ehab is willing to sell the SMC to anyone daft enough to take it on.
