Paid in cash, no on going costs from building it. If Hull FC are paying too little rent to cover the costs of rugby league and Hull City are paying too much then the Council may redress the balance. If they don't want to charge Hull FC an economic rent then it would be them that subsidises the stadium not Hull City. Alternatively the excess rent could allow the new owner to get a mortgage on the freehold to increase the size of the stadium. Here's an article which explains it a bit more, including the following: HULL City owner Ehab Allam says he would consider handing control of the KC Stadium back to the city council if people are unhappy with how it is being run. http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Alla...wake-Hull-FC/story-18155255-detail/story.html
We moan about our council a lot, but I think everyone appreciates that they bought us a stadium, which was nice. You seem to want to have an argument that isn't there.
Not enough to cover the lessons in when to use an apostrophe. I thought education related matters came out of central funds? The money could be spent on capital projects but not on health or education. May be wrong though.
Who's arguing? I made a point, you've seemingly agreed with me i.e. that you've been fortunate with your stadium solution and moaning about the rent is therefore somewhat rich
I'm not moaning. I'm just pointing out how the Allams could get a better deal if they didn't own the SMC and came to an agreement about the rent.
Not sure that everyone appreciates what the HCC did ( they should ) Didn't think Tobes was looking for an argument, he seemed to turn up in a thread which is a rather complicated affair.
No one's moaning about the rent, there's various issues with our stadium and its ownership, but excessive rent isn't one of them.
But the person you claimed was moaning, whose post I accept was ambiguous, has clarified that he isn't moaning about the rent. Why don't you lecture us about something we actually are moaning about?
Only he was moaning about it, as he felt that you were somehow subsidising the egg chasers, his posts weren't ambiguous at all. The fact that he's subsequently denied that equated to moaning is neither here nor there.
I cant understand why someone's not crawling allover this, The SMC used to turn a small profit,Allam arrives and its now loss making,and the profit was when City weren't in the premiership drawing near capacity crowds, yet he would have us believe City are propping SMC up, also with the exception of the pitch, the rest of the fabric of the stadium appears to be suffering badly from lack of maintenance and investment, for one the PA system is appalling
My posts are not unambiguous as you point out. Neither is your right to think I'm moaning. I couldn't care less if we are subsidising Hull FC. The benefits of the arrangement took us from the bottom of the football league to the top. So nothing to moan about at all. The debate is about whether our owners have done a deal with the Hull City Council to hand back the KC to them, not how much rent we pay. I'm just pointing out why it makes sound business sense for them to do it. If they do a deal we could end up with a 35,000 seat stadium for not much more then you pay for your training ground. A good deal all round in my view. One that has likely been done. Some people on this board think I'm wrong, that's fine, we have a debate. If I'm wrong I end up looking stupid, not the end of the world, there's worse things in life.
Part of the argument I heard is that some of the works should have been subject to a warranty, and some maybe should have been done by the previous management.
Another good reason to hand it back to the Council. I understand from something Ehab said a while ago that the question of the state of the KC has been discussed with the Council.
There isnt a debate. There's not one single person agreeing with you or can see your point of view on this. Any changes would result in the council, taking one look at the PL windfall, increasing our rent exorbitantly while reducing FC's to **** all. An interesting view was on the link The Casual posted of the FC website. One bloke said the Allams dont realise how much influence we (FC) hold in the corridors of power at the council.
That is exactly my concern over this, which is why I don't understand why the Allams would willingly just hand it back to HCC. There again I don't see why we should be subsidising the egg chasing ****wits either, but we are. That FC , and their fellow RL ****wits have major power and influence in and on HCC is the most worrying bit. Without us the KC would be utterly ****ed, community asset or not. Without us, FC wouldn't be able to afford to play there. HCC aren't about to let FC end up without a ground, they can't afford a new one, they can't afford to develop the area, without our rent which seems to help it break even there is no KC. That's why I am confused about Obis suggestions tbh. Its certainly very interesting mind, and I hope this is sorted sooner rather than later.
Handing the lease back to Hull City Council allows the new leisure company owned by the Council to get a £30 or £40 million mortgage on the KC. The £2 million a year rent allows the Council to pay the mortgage. If you include a swimming pool, ice arena and other facilities on the West Park site then you get additional monies coming in. A few grants, income from the new sports facilities and any shops, maybe selling some land for housing will build up a tidy pot of money to expand the KC and the surrounding area. Hull City AFC as part of the deal may negotiate a rent reduction during the building work and end up with a 35,000 seat stadium. An additional source of income from supporters may help City stay in the Premier League for another 5 seasons and all that that brings to the City. The Allams are businessmen, this will be pure business. They rent a bigger ground and get rid of their responsibilities towards the stadium (the rusting East Stand) and pass them onto the Council, the owners of the freehold. Makes sense to me.
