I'm hoping this means only the academy are moving and not first team training as the footprint now appears far too small, hard to comment further but it's a good thing dialogue continues unlike with those bogus Allam plans and childish spats with HCC and fan pressure should remain in place with the petitions etc, however I'd like a statement on a revision being the first team training ground will now be in the suburbs.
The whole point is to bring the Academy and club training together. Not doing so seems rather pointless.
I thought that was interesting and a tad confusing, it also mentions using parts of West Park, which is protected and would be even more problematic than the fair site.
Who said west park is protected? The council has built on other public parks in the city so why is west park a special case?
For any development to be allowed on a small public park, like West Park, you'd need permission from the Secretary of State and a very good reason.
I Iearn't a long time ago that nothing in this life is free. Even you must realise that this whole issue is shrouded in mystery. We are now hearing just a small part of Walton Street and the Fair is protected by Royal Charter, a charter I posted about earlier in the week. The charter is the cities right to hold a fair, same as it has to hold a market. I don't believe for one moment it HAS to be held on walton Street because when the charter was granted Walton Street was still farmland and a suburb of the city, Beetstonville? The council have already built on west park, so it cannot be protected, as they have built on other parks in the city. As for the SMC, originally the council wanted both clubs to own it with a £1m bond payable by each club. Fc wouldn't/couldn't pay so Pearson took on the responsibility. I don't think for one moment that the idea was for it to run up millions of pounds of debt and not pay any rent to the council, even if it was a 'peppercorn' one, which I doubt very much. Perhaps the whole SMC arrangement needs looking at again, 22 years down the line and more repsponsibility placed on both clubs to maintain the stadium they both share? Facts are there is a £21m loss down to Hull City (SMC) playing from a stadium two clubs share. That cannot be a healthy realationship. We need strong leadership from the council and from the clubs, and honesty, not dodging the issue and soundbites to get certain parties through until the next election. .
Like knocking down a listed building like the old cricket paviliion and building a stadium on one? Its already happened.
I read it as being only a small part of the Hull Fair land that is covered by a covenant? ie building on the Fair is open for discussion, but it is hampered by a small part of it having a covenant?
There's another 28 years to run on the current SMC lease, so the Council can do nothing about the terms until that expires.
The cricket pavilion wasn't in West Park, Hull Cricket Club bought that land from North-East Railways, it's just next door to West Park.
I think your splitting hairs here to prove a point. Where was the stadium and the access road built then, not to mention the all weather pitches ( which are unusuable) and the Bonus Arena? Because the last time I looked I could have sworn they were on the 'protected' West Park.
I don’t understand why you’re arguing with OLM, he didn’t draw up the lease agreement. It was accepted by all parties at the time, the fact that it hasn’t aged well is something that I’m sure the current owners are trying to deal with. Perhaps you should be sending all your issues to them.
I'm arguing with him? So he isn't arguing with me? I have no issues and I see things for what they are, not what someone tells me they are. The lease agreement was written up on our behalf by Adam Pearson and he quickly realised it wasn't all what he had signed up for because his plans for a hotel/casino on the site were thwarted by the council. Surely you must remember him selling the club because he claimed he couldn't take us any further ? The Allams put foward a very similar plan to the one proposed by Kesler, the only differance was, the Allams plan was costed. Of course the haters will dispute that. When the stadium was built City were in the bottom league following on from nearly 30 years of being there. No-one ( on the council anyhow) seriously saw us as a potential Premier League club. I said at the time and I still say the public should have got behind the Allams bid when the going was good for us instead of taking the council side. Who know's it may have happened? We shall never know because no-one gave it a chance. I do not understand when the club post a £21m loss, under a regime that has only been here a little over twelve months, and we have a stadium with a sub standard pitch and infrustructure that clearly needs maintenace, that all the costs of that have to come down to the SMC, which we all know is Hull City, so out of our budget, when we play from a shared stadium. At the same time it is public knowledge that Pearson is cap in hand to council asking for even more favourable terms for his club using the stadium. The whole charade needs looking at again. Pearson clearly thinks so, he thinks his club is badly done by. Because, IF we do get promoted, (and its a huge IF) these issues will needs sorting out. This club cannot maintain a Premeir League status for long operating as it is today. And I'm sure the club are well aware if this without your suggestions that I should send my issues to them.
