That's a quite stupid argument. Apart from that never being a likely scenario, we'd just get our own ground, possibly in Melton, which I'd be fine with. Extremely unlikely scenario you're painting though. Moving one set of kids who enjoy a bit of bouncing to another hall to continue to enjoy their bouncing means it is you missing the point. Why aren't you more annoyed that someone from the ER feels obliged to travel all the way to Hull to enjoy some bouncing? An hour in the car, for a 4 year old. To bounce. That was the best heart tugging story we read about this. Why aren't better facilities provided outside of Hull for people? Why aren't you barracking ERCC? Bottom line is, like most council owned things, it had spent years being badly managed, and were it not for the SMC and its subsidising of it for years, it would have shut down donkeys ago. Could it all have been handled better? Sure. Does it matter? No. Not to me. We needed a better facility in a city run by a council who do not support football, do not understand the benefits of it and who would struggle to run a ****ing bath. Any other city, even the hated MK, realise the benefits of a successful and well supported local football club can bring. HCC do not. We've needed a much better youth facility and the ability to attract and nurture youngsters from the local community for as long as anyone can remember. Thanks to our owners, we have that now. If anyone else had done this, the whiners wouldn't have batted an eyelid. Here's another question for you (or anyone who might know) then seeing no one seems able to show how this was the apocalypse predicted for the local community: How many young footballers will be using the new facility?
The put it into the hands of a management company because they couldn't run it themselves and wanted to distance themselves from the obvious financial disaster it would end up as. Then they could say "it wasn't us". The fact its actually stayed afloat so long is testament more to the SMC being subsidised by the other areas than owt else. There's no way that could continue.
Opinion mostly, based on stuff I've heard or seen that I trust. Like most of the "facts" spouted from the Anti Allams in this and similar threads. I didn't add FACT on the end for that reason!
If it was subsidised then that's the choice of the owners, and might do long term good actually in improving fitness Which has no bearing whatsoever Unless of course you think that if you rent a room for a party and think it's too cheap it means you have the right to cancel everyone else's booking, ban them from booking again... and change the carpet
It was set up that way. Hull City and Hull FC would pay enough in rent to the SMC to pay for the upkeep and subsidise the Airco Arena. In return they SMC would pay next to nothing in rent unless it made a profit. Hull City Council paid for the stadium, charged Hull City and Hull FC no rent and rented a library and office accommodation for close to £100,000 a year from the SMC and you say they did nothing for football. Really? You think it was all for the benefit of Hull FC?
The fact that this is how you perceive the situation tells me all I need to know, its not even worth having a conversation on the subject with you.
He might have had a buyer for Hull City lined up, but only if the freehold came with it. When the Council said no the buyer melted away like summer snow.
Pretty much. Theres a reason Pearson wont touch the SMC with a barge pole. What is it? HCC paid for the stadium out of our money.
Have the Allams got the £100 million it would cost to move to Melton? They would still be responsible for the upkeep of the KC as well. Would Parnaby support building a 30,000 seat stadium in Melton plus the commercial premises to go with it? Hull City Council built the stadium and gave Pearson, and then Barlett, nearly £100,000 a year to help run it. The SMC paid next to nothing in rent. A blinkered view on Hull City Council support of football in this City if I may say. In return they collected a few thousand pounds rent. We have the Academy until the court case is decided, or Hull City Council give up their legal action. No basis for the development of a long term facility. The world still hasn't ended.
If the Allam's were not happy with the deal to use the council owned KC for effectively only the maintainance costs there was an al Edit Don't know what happened but thats only a bit of what i typed. Doesn't matter Obadiah has made the same point.
The SMC is toxic thanks to Bartlett. Pearson didn't always think that way and was able to sell it for a profit to Bartlett. I suspect Pearson wouldn't like to be Assem Allam's landlord either. Only if you bought shares in the KC. Kingston Communications was profitable and prior to its sale didn't cost the rate payers a penny. In fact it helped keep our bills down slightly. But I get what your saying. Hull City benefited by having a 25,000 seat stadium. If it had been built solely for Hull FC what do you think the capacity would have been?
One question which needs to be answered is why did the Council sign off Adam Pearson’s sale of the SMC to Russell Bartlett for £6m when they had given it to Pearson for free just a few years earlier? When the KC was built back in 2002, the 50-year lease with the SMC was seen as being the main element which was key to its long-term success. This agreement allowed the Council to retain outright ownership of the stadium and nearby indoor arena, whilst the day-to-day responsibility for all operating and maintenance costs fell to the SMC. Pearson, the company’s then owner, was not allowed to sell the SMC in the first 12 years of its operation unless the Council signed a document to agree to it. This did eventually happen on 4 June 2007, when Pearson received the £6m fee and the Council got nothing. So, how much due diligence was done by the Council before they signed the deal off? In documents recently published for the first time by the Council, it shows they initially objected to the transfer of shares because “insufficient information” had been provided about the proposed deal. On Wednesday 30 May 2007, the Council received additional information to help it come to a decision. Approval was subsequently given on Monday 4 June 2007 in a decision record signed by then deputy chief executive Jan Ormondroyd. That means the Council took four working days before coming to a decision on the future of its £43.5m asset. Having been permitted to spend 30 days assessing the documentation, questions could be asked about why such a decision was reached so quickly. Why did the Council allow the SMC to be sold to an off-the-shelf company? When Bartlett did gain control from Pearson, he did so via Superstadium Holdings Limited (SHL). This was a private limited company with no income, no published accounts and no trading history. The recently-released Council documents have no mention of this and refer instead to R3 Investments, another company Bartlett owned, suggesting they did not know the complexities of the deal. Documents show SHL had been registered by Bartlett on 23 March 2007, meaning sales negotiations with Pearson had already been going on for months before the Council were asked to sign off the deal. So, what documentation did the Council see on May 30 which convinced it to reverse its decision not to approve the transaction? That’s something only this week’s meeting can reveal. Did the Council know it was approving the introduction of debt to SMC when it agreed to its sale? Having received Council permission to take over from Pearson, the SHL company which Bartlett formed to buy him out of SMC borrowed £3.5m from the Royal Bank of Scotland to do so. This mortgage was secured against the SMC lease by Bartlett, introducing heavy debt to a previously debt-free company. Knowing that the SMC had only generated around £45,000 income during its first few years of operation, the Council could have checked it would be able to generate enough money to finance that mortgage. Were any written guarantees requested by the Council when Bartlett took control of the SMC? At the time they approved the takeover, the Council had the chance to write new warranties into the deal which could have ensured his ownership was conditional and in their best operating interests too. Had they done so, the Council could have regained control of the SMC if he had failed to fulfil his obligations at any stage. This would have safeguarded the running of a stadium they own and paid £43.5m to build. So, what does this mean for SMC in the future? Having signed off the deal to allow SHL to take over the running of the SMC, the Council has effectively handed over all control for the remaining 38 years of the lease. It now has no say whatsoever in the running of the KC and will not until 2052, when the current lease ends. During that time, the stadium will continue to depreciate in value. It also requires constant maintenance, which the SMC has to foot the bill for, meaning even if a profit were possible, it would make sense to plough it back in to this area rather than hand a percentage over to the Council. The company can also now be traded without any Council involvement or approval, as was the case when the Allams bought it from Bartlett by acquiring SHL for a nominal £1 fee.
Chazz, the Council's control over the KC and Airco is the lease. It sets out the terms under which the SMC runs the land and buildings. That didn't change. I've no idea why the Liberal Council agreed to Pearson selling Hull City and the SMC to Bartlett. Maybe because he could sell coals to Newcastle. After 12 years Pearson could have sold the SMC to anyone. They may have just thought why keep him here when he wants to sell. Bartlett and Duffen may also have sold coals in Newcastle. If the SMC abides by the terms of the lease then it doesn't matter to the Council who owns it. If they don't abide by the terms of the lease they can revoke the lease. Not perfect but that's the consequence of the deal done in 2002. The officers said the Council couldn't say no to the mortgage. I agree with much of the rest of it. For me the best thing is for the Council to revoke the lease and start again. Where that would leave the Allams and the SMC's creditors is another matter. Whether Brady has the balls to do that is of course up in the air as well.
Ignoring the error, of course people wouldn't be as bothered since its at least theirs to close. It's not Allam's to close or to convert into something else. He's taken it by force. It's indefensible.
