"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.
It's more than just the charity, there's 5/6 a side on there most evenings amongst other stuff in daytime/evening time.
Leisure Leagues run at least two leagues on there on seperate evenings, maybe they rent via the charity maybe not. Still, the point stands, it's rented out a lot.
One of the consequences of this court case is all that may stop. The Premier League may have to enforce its own rules or change them.
Does that mean the council and the Allams know but its not official? Surprised there have been no leaks if so.
According to Angus Young's tweets the court will have told the club and the council the result. Any leak is a contempt of court and could result in a heavy fine or imprisonment or both.
Would the decision have been made before our home game v Huddersfield ? A verdict against the club might have been the last straw for the Allams and moulded their decision not to attend games.
I think the court case was after that. Personally I think the non-attendance has more to do with having to entertain the FA's officials in the chairman's lounge.
Let's hope it supports the folk of Hull who have a sport ethic and have been treated very shabbily in all of this. I agree with TOM that no one comes out of this well, but there was a catalyst for events that could have been avoided had the club been more forward thinking. I mean, look at his CV, it is the least we could expect, isn't it? Or should we judge him by his previous actions and believe him to be a self-centered, manipulating bastard. Make your own minds up.
