So where would Hull FC stand in all this? I presume it would mean that whatever agreement they had with the SMC would have to be renogotiated? Could they object to any potential sale?
Geraghty at the meeting offered Assem Allam a joint venture to build the sports village. The offer was refused. The Stadium Management Company could still develop the land but as Assem Allam said, why extend a council house? Until the lease expires the council cannot develop the land either, unless it builds on Walton Street or the Park.
It all depends which view you take of 'nationality'. Financial? Domicile? Culture? Upbringing? Heritage? Genetic? He is an Egyptian man who has lived in the UK for many decades. When people say 'foreign-owned' , they usually mean 'money belonging to people who reside overseas and want an expensive toy to play with'. He lives here and has done for decades, so doesn't fit the stereotype. (Is David Coulthard a Monegasque? Is Ruby Wax British?)
In the context of the initial point, he's a British Citizen using British money. Deeper issues of race and nationality are for other threads, if not other boards.
I'm confused. So would Hull City benefit directly, enough to be self sufficient from either a joint venture or an Allam only venture? Does the existence of the SMC complicate things to such an extent that Hull City football club would never directly own the stadium?
I would have thought it would be business as usual for FC. The Council would quite correctly refuse to sell the stadium if the deals in place with the clubs weren't honoured. We'd obviously be free to renegotiate our own arrangements as it would be a mutual agreement between Allam and himself to do things the most efficient way.
The existance of the SMC does nothing to stop the club owning the ground. If the SMC owned the ground, and the club owned the SMC, then the club would effectively own the ground. The reason you'd do it that way is that for FFP purposes all the SMC profit can be used in the calculations (and losses wouldn't need to be included). At the same time, it being a separate company owned by the club means that if the £120M development went tits up and left a huge debt then it could be liquidated and it wouldn't harm the club with points penalties or anything.
Hull City could have become self-sufficient from a joint venture if the terms of the agreement were right.
Allam has no interest in Hull City owning the KC, his interest is in him owning the KC, in the same way there is no chance of Hull City owning the SMC as the Allams would wish to be the primary beneficiaries not the club
I understand there were informal talks, but as reported the Allams wanted the stadium to be able to borrow against it, and as such there would have been no financial contribution toward taking over ownership
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull...tadium-Angus/story-20084385-detail/story.html In the wake of Assem Allam's statement about the Hull City rebrand, Mail columnist Angus Young asks why there is no obvious oversight of the publicly owned KC Stadium. Imagine spending about £40m to build and fit out your dream house. Then you fork out another £13m on landscaping the gardens and driveways. After that, you decide you don't want to live there. Instead, you rent it out under a rather generous lease and walk away. Does this make you an absent landlord? While not a des res, the curious case of the KC Stadium makes me think Hull City Council currently fits that description to a tee. Earlier this week, Hull City owner Assem Allam reignited the debate over the stadium's ownership. In a nutshell, he blamed the council's refused to let him acquire the stadium freehold as the reason he is now seeking new forms of income generation by rebranding the club as Hull Tigers as a way of opening up commercial deals around the world. I'm not going into the rights and wrongs of the Tigers rebrand here. Nor is there any real point in stating the obvious – that any future reconciliation between Dr Allam and the council appears to be as likely as the prospect of lasting peace in the Middle East. But I do wonder how the council has ended up taking its eye off the ball over the stadium. To the best of my knowledge, there is no regular scrutiny or monitoring – at least in public – of the stadium itself as a council asset or the performance of the Stadium Management Company, which is required to do what it says on the tin as part of the operating lease. This lack of transparent oversight, either politically or within the council's service structure, is best summed up in a recently published two-year business plan covering the authority's arts and leisure team. "The team takes a lead in delivering the city's aspirations for developing Hull through sports, leisure and heritage," says an introduction to the 22-page document. There follows a list of council-owned leisure venues, as well as a raft of information about visitor numbers, customer satisfaction levels, subsidy costs and income. Yet nowhere is there any mention of a certain 25,404-capacity, council-owned sports stadium nestling in the corner of West Park. Nor is there any reference to the adjacent council-owned multi-use sports arena, built at the same time as the stadium as part of the same publicly funded project. Good article Mr Young.
I would have snapped his hand off sfter following the team since 1965 , most of the time in the lower leagues and thinking we would never be a top league club. Im not that bothered about the name change...enjoying this season loads....
It's the same thing. He wants his businesses to be as successful as possible and be worth as much as possible to him. The way to do that is to have the stadium income going through the club so that the club is best placed to push on and be more successful within the FFP rules. There are no outside shareholders taking a cut of the money from him remember, so it's all about juggling things around for maximum benefit.
My answer to your question is I would definitely changed our official name for the success we have had.I will always say to my missus I am off to watch City and demand to know where I have misplaced my pass(even thou gh it is now called a season card or ticket or banana).I like inter fan banter and do not mind if your fans tease us about our name change.I am a bit of a weakling but I can tolerate a bit of a wind up. I would definitely not gone to watch us ever again if we had employed a manager with Di Canios political leanings/or players such as Marlon KIng.This is not a wind up.Some things are more important. WE can always change our name back when I own the club-I will be incredibly popular for a week until it is discovered I am stupid and have no money to spend
Thanks for your honesty mate and the other lads. At Sunderland, the old timers like me call the stands by the Roker Park names, drink in the same pubs despite a longer walk and never ever say 'The Stadium of Light' in conversation. In my opinion, the supporters are the club and the marketing men can ponce around with 'entrance music', gimmicks and cheerleaders until they're sacked and replaced. The supporters are there for life and all these things are just piss & wind. If the marketing men at Sunderland promised me the FA Cup, top 6 and Europe, before I die, they could change our name to the Wearside Warriors ....... ........... it's still a football team that plays in Sunderland for Sunderland people.
