They won't have actively been contacted by this counter-terrorism force at all. They'll have found some guidelines somewhere that says something loosely related to restricting access to venues outside of event times. They'll have found that by specifically looking for it as a retrospective way of justifying this silly gate. Exactly like they did with the Harvard Business Review farce. I'm fairly certain that the guidance won't say "prevent access from one particular route but leave all others open".
Inglis has been posting comments on the HDM article about it. It's clear he sees the Allams exactly the same way most of us do. "I wasn't involved in drawing up this lease, which occurred around 2000-2002 but I do know that the intention was to attempt to avoid direct subsidy from the Council's ongoing Revenues to run the Stadium, after paying the considerable cost of building it. In that regard the arrangement was successful but I wouldn't deny now that it seems deeply flawed if the Council cannot end it. However that point is by no means certain and we are now intending to end it as soon as a watertight legal avenue to do that is set out. This isn't a normal tenant and landlord relationship, given the profit sharing implication. For it to work properly there needed to be goodwill on both sides, which there was in the early years of Adam Pearson's stewardship. The deterioration to the point of breakdown has come since the Allam family took over." "The Walkway is the responsibility of the Council, is my understanding, its not part of the land leased to the SMC, which is why the SMC could not put a gate at the Argyle Street end of the walkway, which no doubt they would have done if they thought they had any chance of getting away with it. We are looking at options to bypass the gate from the walkway until the legal position on removing it becomes completely clear but be in no doubt that we wish and intend to remove it, it just needs to be done in a legally watertight fashion, so the Allams don't waste taxpayers money in the Courts. Talk about trashing your own reputation overnight, what good now all Assem Allam's philanthropic endeavours if his name in Hull becomes so despised." "As to the Allams, they are behaving like pirates. We never had any of this trouble with Adam Pearson and its clear that any trust or reasonable relationship between the SMC and the Council has broken down. Given it is a joint venture with profit-sharing built in, not that there;s been any profit since the Allams took over, and not simply a landlord and tenant relationship, its increasingly obvious that the SMC needs to have its tenure ended and the Council needs to take over direct control of its own asset, or rather the asset of the people of Hull which they hold in Trust. How anyone can expect us to do business now with the Allams, other than simply taking rent for their use of this public asset is beyond me." http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/row-escalates-smc-demands-cash-585198 Almost everyone who deals with them has this same view. The Allams will be remembered for this constant stream of petty disputes, forever in and out of court trying to get away with something blatantly wrong. I bet no one admits to apologising for them then.
The two clubs sharing the stadium are not equal in terms of turnover. If you are going to increase the rental income the biggest increase goes to the one with the biggest turnover. At the minute that is Hull City by a very considerable margin. Its not hair-splitting at all its simple commonsense.
Not a very nice phrase used there Happy. Show a little respect to those less fortunate than yourself. Oh hang on.... you are one of the Allam apologists aren't you..
You seem to be having some difficulty with this. The Fair starts today and the gates are locked and as things stand currently, they're remaining locked. Clear now?
I can guarantee that if the stadium reverts back to HCC control, the Allams will refuse to pay a penny in rent. We'll then eventually be faced with a 'lock-out' situation and the football club will play home games elsewhere. Maybe this is what the Allams ultimately want.
It'll be interesting to see if the Council are serious about cancelling the lease. If the SMC is truly a financial burden and drain on resources then the Allams have a chance to get out of it. What I'm uncomfortable with is the fact that although the stadium is a community asset, the SMC is a private company and it's transactions are opaque. We don't know if the Allams are charging big management fees that make sure the SMC makes a loss every year. In my opinion the leasholder (whoever it is) should be made to be fully accountable for every pound that the SMC spends and make it's books open for public inspection. Think this will run for some time and probably end up in the courts - IF the Council are serious about the lease.
Yeah I'm making it up because I have **** else to do, you either believe it or you don't. I doubt some of you would believe it if the directive arrived with your names on it and was delivered to your front doors.
I'm on the Safety Advisory Group for the KCOM Stadium and I believe it to be complete bollocks (and I've heard the justification for it, or more accurately, the lack of justification for it).
Well, they said it was on police advice. The police say it wasn't. Now we are doing it on the advice of the Home Office and anti terrorist people who consider the only stadium at risk is the KC, not Old Trafford or the Emirates on match days when casualties would be massive, but the KC on non match days and that the terrorists would only approach it from one direction and give up and go back home if one of the many ways of approachng the stadium was blocked by a fence of less than 6'.
The club's pay a rental and half of the revenue from attendances over 12,000 for City and 8,000 for FC, don't they? Papa Allams is lowering the difference between the twoseason by season. Only the fact we have 10 more home games prevents it becoming even less.
Go on then which bit have I made up? From someone who fails to read or understand the SMC statement post 157 page 8 of this thread your acting a bit too cocky. The rest of us who read what has been published and added a bit of common sense can see whats going on.
How much do you actually know about this and how much is an assumption on your part ? You've accused other people of making things up
It’s much more complicated than that. City’s registration as a football club and a league member is contingent on them having access to a stadium that meets all requirements of the league. If the Allams throw their toys and abandon the KCOM they will risk expulsion from the league, which will definitely affect their sale price for Hull City Tigers. I guess that contradicts what I said yesterday about the Allams wanting rid of the SMC lease. They’d like a new landlord that they can mess around, but they’d have to do that with care.
Not like the Stasi, really. They were there to keep people in and prevent them leaving not lock them out and prevent them getting in. Just as odious though.
