I bet he looked at the lease and couldn't believe how good the terms were for Hull FC
Their only problem is the stadium is too big for them
Their only problem is the stadium is too big for them
MKM development update…
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Good terms now, but the clock is ticking.
The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Odd that Pearson and the Fc lot always said the terms of the current lease was stacked against them?
Does' continue to work with the Tigers' mean actually chipping in with any cash?
‘It’s a reasonable lease at the moment; it’s fine.’
Hardly a ringing endorsement is it?
They’d be more likely to chip in some cash if any part of the deal was actually beneficial to them.
Last edited:
Qatartiger Cambridgetiger
Well-Known Member
I don't think FC where fussed about the pitch being changed.
Acun "Adam, we're having a new pitch laid in the summer, any chance of a contribution?"
Adam " nah mate, I'm not fussed about the pitch, we can play on a ploughed field, did you ever see the Boulevard? But I'll tell you what, I've got 10kg of grass seed in my garage, I'll drop it in tomorrow"
Acun "I don't think that will be any good Adam, I'm getting a team of professionals in"
Adam " oh it's top quality stuff cost me £70"
Acun "right, but the pitch is costing in the region of £1.5m"
Adam "ungrateful bastard "
The total rent paid by both clubs last year was £1,540,506.00, so they paid 45% of it.
There's attendance commission, catering commission, ticketing commission etc charged on top, so it's not a total number, but the pitch was paid for by the SMC not City (even though the SMC is obviously owned by City)
Which seems fair. So why was Adam Pearson constantly arranging meetings with the council to get a better deal for Hull Fc?
The SMC has a fifty year lease, there's nothing the Council can do, Hull FC have to agree terms with the SMC.
You've got selective memory. He was forever whinging about the terms of the Fc lease to the council and claiming it was unfair.
Would it be correct to say the SMC is owned by the same owner as Hull City rather than the SMC is owned by Hull City.
It's nothing to do with memory, the stadium is leased to the SMC for fifty years, they effectively own the stadium for the term of the lease, the Council can't change the terms until the lease expires or the SMC change it voluntarily (which seems unlikely considering it's currently rent free).
Also worth pointing out they were only responsible for 22% of the footfall through the stadium last year, 142K fans versus 506K for City.
So they’re actually covering more than their fair share of the maintenance costs given how much they actually use it.
The food and beer sales made up the shortfall.
Which would then be offset by the additional staffing and maintenance costs.
You believe what you like, its all history now anyhow because Adam Pearson has off loaded the club but believe me he was was under the illusion that Fc were being short changed over what costs they occurred by playing at the stadium. He was forever going cap in hand to the council, or anyone for that fact, who might be able to swing things a bit more in their favour. My point was the two new fellas who have bought them, on seeing the lease, thought it was a fair one.
Will Fc now start using the stadiums lounges for their player of the year wards and other fund raising nights or will they continue to hold them anywhere but because they didn't like the SMC taking any profits from the bar takings?
I've stated facts, not an opinion.
The Hull FC end of season awards were held on Nov 24th at the stadium, so it looks like the answer to your question is yes.