Which begs the question of why they've left it so late to do it. From the articles I've read, the club seem to have been asked by several parties what their plans are.
I suspect because they're going to make some token gesture, giving away some left over stock at the last few games and then issue a statement that tries to hide the fact that they actually spent all the money on stand alterations and none of it on encouraging fans to travel, which is obviously it's purpose.
Is their any indication of what the premier league would make of this? I ask, and I'm trying to avoid the obvious implications of me asking this, because I raised the question of the cost of the stand move several times, and not once was there any indication it was ASI funded. Then again, there was no real answer to the question at all.
I have a rough idea of what the Premier League agreed with the clubs, but not a specific list of what does and doesn't qualify and we've not yet had a response from the Premier League(understandably, I don't expect them to come back to us until they've spoken to the club and I'm not entirely sure such a list exists anyway). The aim of the fund was to encourage more away fans, the club would be trying to justify funding stand alterations as a benefit to away fans, which they may be able to do, but it's quite obviously not in the spirit of thing and is certainly not what it was intended to be used for. Either way, not giving Hull City fans anything from the fund, when all other clubs have done, is disgraceful(even if some other clubs have used small amounts to improve the lot of visiting fans).
Could they argue that, as Tiger Travel was seemingly run for no club profit, they subsidised away travel? I know Stoke don't seem to, but do other clubs make a profit from travel? I know this is all effectively guesswork, and these things should have been public some time back.
As they're charging the same as they were before the ASI was introduced, they can't claim that the fans are benefitting in any way, so I can't see that being entertained.
If they claim to have spent it on anything which wasn't advertised as an incentive to come to matches at the time, I don't see they can argue it helped 'encourage away support' which is what the fund is for.
I take your point, and I'm playing devils advocate, but could they claim they were going to make a profit, or put the price up to reflect cost of fuel increases, but chose to buffer that with ASI money? I think PLT is right, and they'd need to announce it at the time, but I'm trying to second guess their possible justification. The only reason I can think they can offer for not announcing anything yet, if that they could argue that they're waiting to see if they can spend it elsewhere if the opportunity arises. There's some gaping and obvious holes in that guess though.
They'll make Spurs free travel and let us all think that's 200k spent. I'd hate if they did as I've travelled to as many games as I could this season and am away that weekend with work so wouldn't be able to go.
Okay, but we all seem to have missed it. Do you have a link? As for an excuse, I think that is very generous. But let's move on.
Wouldn't that be down to the SMC? Hull City Tigers Limited would have to show they were invoiced separately for the work done by the SMC to be able to claim the money.
I can see your point, I have no idea how it works. Would the SMC be able to fund it without consulting FC?
I think it depends on how the SMC is funded. Hull FC and Hull City have a contract with the SMC and from snippets on here and CI the amount paid depends upon attendance figures and other bits and pieces. I would have thought there is nothing wrong in either club saying we want x, y and z and we'll pay for it. Whether that happens in reality is another matter. They may both just pay what the contract says. In which case the changes to the North East corner will have come out of the rent paid by City and Hull FC. I don't think City could say the £200,000 was spent on that.
Isn't that missing the point? The ASI is a commitment made by the football club / company, the improvements / repairs are the responsibility of the SMC, a totally different company.
You know far more about these things than I do. I can't help thinking that the joint ownership of each could be a factor. Then again, it could all be irelavent anyway if they don't claim it as ASI funding. Maybe there'll be another clear the air speech, that usually clarifies things.
Hull City Desperate for points should have made it free travel for supporters at Palace and Spurs plus cheap tickets in an attempt to get as many supporters to these away games as possible to get good vocal support behind the team and drive them on to victory ( or draw ) Especially when the Allams lose so much if the club get relegated... It makes no sense to do **** all. Grrrr
I think Spurs would've sold out without putting on free travel. What with it being the last away match of the season, and it being a big fixture people will have gone down anyway. They should've spent it on Southampton, Swansea or Palace away.
