And HCC copied that on the Guildhall, acting on the same anti terrorist report/guidelines issued by the Home Office that City had to abide by. It may not make sense but there are some things you just have to go along with.
Apologies for getting this thread back on track. I can maybe see now why others go off topic so much. At least we know the 'identity' of the potential buyer. I wonder if there will be an 'ultimatum' if it drags on much longer? I just want the Allams and their rotten 'legacy' gone asap, and before we suffer a 'trilogy' of relegations since our period of local (Yorkshire) 'supremacy' ended. Anyway, off for a walk now ...
You probably won’t hear much now until about the second week in November (assuming they take their time). That’s going to annoy a lot of people, but as HS2 said, we’re at the point where it’s with the buyers and they’ll make the final decision. If it’s a yes, they’ll sign off and it’ll come out the takeover is imminent. If it falls through, it’ll come out sooner.
Thinking there needs to be an ultimatum suggests you think a price hasn't been agreed.. what makes you think that?
How obstructive can HCC be in this "alleged" process going on? They still own the land and stadium do they not? Do they have a right to vet their potential future tenants?
The SMC claimed that they were acting under advice from Humberside Police, who in turn were advised by the Counter-Terrorism Unit. Only Hull City Council obtained copies of all the correspondence between the Police and SMC relating to security at the ground and absolutely nobody had said a word about the gate. They removed all the signs that mentioned the Council at the same time, that was nothing to do with a terrorist threat either. It was all just the usual game playing, the real reason for locking the gates, was the Allam Out graffiti that was being sprayed on the stadium on a night.
The Council can't be obstructive at all, if someone buys the business then they acquire the lease, the Council have no say in the matter. Not that they'd be obstructive anyway, they'd be more likely to bend over backwards to make it happen.
This is the sort of thing that gets posters wound up, The process is not a thing that starts at A and finishes at B. Just what makes you think the second week of November?
Isn't that what I've just posted ? That it was installed on advice of the Counter-Terrorism Unit ? Ignoring the advice had serious repercussions if anything did go wrong and it also effected the public liability cover. As for the graffiti, and it may have been a factor but what's stopping anyone simply walking up to the stadium from Anlaby Road or Walton Street and vandalising the stadium. I didn't mention the removal of all the signs mentioning the council either, you did.
Ok, thanks. I presume that the lease includes clauses that prevent the business from developing the "plant" in that case (other than basic maintenance thereof). Clearly the Allams failed to crack that nut when they moved in. Would potential takeover candidates possibly want to open those avenues again & check the lie of the land with HCC? Could scupper any deal?
TBF, it can be frustrating when you're ITK but no one wants to listen. I know I've said it before, but one day we will get bought and some twat on here will say 'Ha Ha' Kempton, I told you we were up for sale. To which I will respond with 'mate I've been right for ****ing years, you've been right for minutes' and now you think you're ITK?
There can't possibly have been such advice, simply because it made no sense whatsoever. How on earth could that ridiculous gate keep terrorists away from the stadium? ****ing hilarious that anyone could swallow that ****
Correct. Amazing how accurate an intercontinental ballistic missile can be these days. Where's that red button?
The lease will allow for the tenant to do pretty much whatever they want within the walls of the stadium during the term of the lease. It's standard in a lease to have a clause that states the property has to be returned at the end of the lease, in the same state as it was when the lease began, which in theory can force the tenant to reverse any works they've done, but that's not likely to be applied in the case of a stadium. I don't think anything the Council do will have any bearing on the sale of the club, it's a side issue.
Yes there was. I've seen the letter. Do you realise that you try to pick to pieces every thing I post ?