Ha so that's why the SMC lose money from Hull FC I would imagine the peppercorn rent doesn't cover the cost of the overheads. A fairer system would to bill each club for the actual cost of putting the game on and some sort of profit share for anything made over and above.
How the **** is us paying more fair? If our gates went down, given the money the place is currently losing, it would go bankrupt. We absolutely should not be ****ing subsidising those arseholes. If they can't pay an equal rent because they can't afford it, they should move somewhere they can afford. This was a joint, equally shared community asset. Not a free ride for FC while we pay for it. When were these contract negotiations?
The costs of using the KC have to be in proportion to the use. FC paying less per game is not a problem. Nor is City paying more.
Why would you expect a club with a13 game home season to pay the same rent as one with a 19 or 23 one?
you're not very bright are you - just imagine Hull Marina and there are two boats using it- one is Abramovitch's super yacht, Luna and the other is a small rowing boal. called Saucy Sal - you think they should pay the same berthing fees because they both use the same Marina - Happy is a thickie!!
Your obvious anger about this issue needs to be directed towards the owners of the SMC. It is they who have agreed to the terms. Complaints & concerns can be sent directly to the person in charge:- Dr A. Allam Stadium Management Company Ltd The KC Stadium West Park, Hull, HU3 6HU. Do it in a constructive way, I've heard he can be a little tetchy when his business decisions are questioned. Great CV though.
City pay a similar rent to FC with us paying a 50/50 split on gates over 12,000. These were based on the attendances before we moved into the KC. (Manchester City have a similar arrangement). It does make you wonder where all the money goes when you read of the SMC losing money. It also shows how deluded FC fans are thinking that they could manage as the only team playing in the KC. City have over 3 times as many going through the turnstiles paying higher prices.
In whose opinion? I am a fan of FC but I totally fail to see how their gates are relevant to their rent. I don't know if security is factored separately, but it should be, as that is determined by headcount; catering is another separate matter that should look after itself - if it has been dealt with properly. The stadium as a property (which includes it's maintenance and improvement - due to legislation of government or sports associations) is a stand-alone cost that must be rented out on a basis of proportion of use - how many events in best case scenario - the amount of folk who walk in and pay to do so is nothing more than a result of the events success and the way it is marketed and promoted; to do otherwise might (sic) encourage some to play with figures. I am not concerned about FC paying less as long as it is not City that are paying more to accommodate it - they should get a grant, support from the RL in-bred council or simply find somewhere more suited to their needs.
Simple answers please Fuz. If you do not use all of the stadium, should you pay as much as someone who does? If it costs you less per occupied seat to manage should you pay as much as someone who has to have higher levels of security and stewardship? If your sport requires better facilities, such as lighting, should you have to share the cost of making changes that you do not need? But don't bother posting a reply, because you as you say, you don't know and it would only be an opinion.
I don't know the precise details of what the respective clubs actually pay, but I think the assumption that City pay a load of cash subsiding FC is wrong. It certainly used to be the case that City had an arrangement with the Premier Club, that saw a significant amount of corporate membership money going to FC, but as far as I'm aware the Allam's scrapped this and FC now get none of this money.
They practically use it for free, the council have helped them out more than they've ever helped Hull City or Hull FC.
The fact that City handover on average 50% of the money from 12,000 tickets for 19 games, 114,000, compared to FC 50% of 3,000 for 13 games, 19,500 and with higher prices means that City contribute far more and this makes the point about security and stewardship irrelevant. Not to mention that whilst City pay for policing FC don't and the SMC covered the cost. Also, as far as stewards are concerned, all the vomitories have to covered so it basically makes no difference if there are 10,000, 12,000 or 20,000 in the stadium as far as numbers required go. The only difference being when West Upper isn't opened for rugby games.
Isn't the gate per game a simplification? It can't be 100% right or FC would be paying out to the SMC when they dole out free and reduced tickets. There's also the question of the demographics, obviously 10,000 children would pay less than 10,000 adults for example. I suspect it's an annual fee that's been equated to rough figures we'd understand. It was based on our attendances at our former homes.
So essentially each team is paying roughly the same when scaled with their attendance and the number of games they play? Seems pretty fair to me.
I am not sure the premier club arrangement was scrapped. Allam and pearson would both have to agree to this in the lease. Why would pearson agree to it .
Probably the most disappointing response I have seen, I'm surprised at you. If you wish to take the piss with the name (Fuz - it's available, as Fez and Fev have gone ) that's fine, but to ask pointed questions and then to decline the answers, you started by asking for, is simply lary. You seem to think you have the answers and I don't believe you do, so a response is appropriate. I believe the stadium rent should be standard (Hull FC don't use half of the pitch) and it is the services that should be a measured cost (this answers your second question) - this is not an everyday venue like a conference centre where different size rooms are available - you hire the stadium surrounding the pitch, the level of services required will vary, the size of the stands will not. Improved lighting, etc. is an enhancement to the facility and could be charged as a service when required - if someone does not require that level of facility they don't pay or, if they do and they cannot afford it, then they should seek assistance from somewhere, but, surely, it is not another customer of that facility they should seek assistance from - why should another business who is in direct competition for paying customers subsidise them? Your business acumen leaves much to be desired. Feel free to respond to you heart's content.
The KC and surrounding development was built as a community asset and an investment of public money which both teams pay handsomely to use. This is quite different to the council bailing out Rovers by buying their ground, then renting it back to them for practically peanuts.
This is essentially the case anyway with both teams paying a set rate and then an additional cut of ticket sales over a certain threshold to account for additional costs.
