"Exclusive" could also mean for instance that whilst the academy is using it. the public cannot have access and other teams from the club cannot use it.
I do not think that any side comes out of this well.
The club, has admitted it said and did things as part of a PR exercise. Its whole handling of the situation is and was poor.
The FA should not give cat2 status to clubs who only have plans for a covered all weather pitch.
HCC, for its show boating, plans to expand the ice rink and build a new swimming pool and for abdicating their responsibilities to the sports and leisure users in Hull generally.
In my opinion, the lease is not specific enough in its make up. HCC do not and have not insisted on applying the terms of the lease, until now.
I also believe that the council adopted a mindset that considered the arena as someone else's problem, when it did not make a profit. It appears to me that it was pro active in promoting events in the ice rink and guildhall. Rather than seeing the arena as an asset for the use of the public of Hull, it saw it as a privately run business and failed to support its use.
As for not building a bubble pitch, I have to say that I find the argument weak at the least. The move to Bishops Burton was to build at least a cat 2 Academy and surely in the plans an indoor 3g pitch would have been a priority. I cannot believe that any business would complete such a wholesale move, without ensuring that the facilities provided would at some point meet the requirements of the Academy.
I think that the injunction will fail, but that both sides will be criticised for failing to consider the needs of the public and users of the arena whilst they argue.
The costs will be interesting. I believe that strong messages are given when costs are awarded (or not) in judgements.
