They proposed a joint venture, which was obviously rejected. If someone wants to offer twenty odd million, they'll get the stadium and they can do what they like with it.
Interesting. How will they buy the stadium without the council's involvement? What about developing the infrastructure around the ground, car parking, etc without the help of the council? Don't you think the new owners would want some of the finance available to the council for developing the land? You should really have a look at the interview I posted on CI. The council is a cash cow that is waiting to be milked.
When I watched it, it took me ages as it kept freezing. I had to refresh and go to the place it froze. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/aaebef9d-81b0-4a51-ba09-2b7cd6ecb870 Public/private partnerships are nothing to be scared of, at least to Americans.
They'd obviously have to talk to them to buy it, but not to develop it, other than planning permission, which they'd get the nod on before the purchase anyway. Any clued up American investor would be less than ten minutes into a meeting with Hull City Council before they'd write off any sort of joint venture.
I thought the ipro stadium was excellent, subway, costa coffee etc.... Even the marquee beer tent,we need one of them with screens in showing the early kick off game or highlights from city's previous games.
What about Adam Pearson? He didn't walk away from a joint venture to run the SMC. I'd say he got more benefit out of the deal than the council did.
The running of the KC is a joint venture. The SMC may be a private company but the profits are split between the council and the SMC.
It made profits under Adam Pearson and made payments to the council. It even made profits under Bartlett. It doesn't have to be a joint venture company to be a joint venture.
That was a good interview, thanks. What struck me was that much of the argument for public/private partnership has been discussed and supported on here on numerous occasions, it is not something new or magical. The foundation of a good partnership is trust and honesty, it is this basic, but essential quality that the Allam family have skimped on in their dealings with both council and community alike. A new owner, a different agenda and style, and all things are possible; it just needs decent vision and business acumen.
And, given previous history, the chances of the Allams dropping their stupid ideas is? They need to **** off sharpish- the club will not unite around them, we will have another year or two of off-field battles and further withering away of the fan-base- they have gone too far. If even a year ago they had apologised, reversed the name change, and then not come out with a blatantly unfair membership scheme, they may still have had enough goodwill left to unite the club. Not now though; they don't even have support from within the club. Even Bruce has been putting his head above the parapet with his comments about bad PR, and I know many of those working for the club would love the Allams to go. As for Ehab, he is possibly even more unpopular than senior, so don't think Assem going is going to help mend relationships any.
Ehab has to follow his father's decisions. He could be totally different if he was making the decisions.
From that interview there is nothing to suggest that any new owner getting advice from Carey will not sit down with Geraghty or Brady to discuss the future of the KC and the surrounding area. In fact I'd say it was nailed on they would.
I think he would be worse. Arrogant without his father's business acumen. As is often the case when a father builds something up through their endeavours along comes a son enjoying the fruits of the father's labours and thinking that his father's success conveys some sort of status on him. It is seen again and again.
