Part of the reason it's a loss maker, is that it makes financial sense to arrange the books that way to keep the costs down.
For this big announcement at 13:00, can I come back and translate it into French?...it will sound exotic and brings me back into the limelight.
I sort of get that there's money shifting around in businesses,sometimes to avoid taxes etc?,but is the SMC ever going to be a genuine going concern that turns over a decent yield? I plead my ignorance when it comes to how businesses operate.
On paper, that's unlikely, as it also affects what the club pay for the use of the ground, but it's still more cost effective than owning it.
first of all the contract is between the council and the Allams - second Acun isn't a party to that contract until it is finalised and completed - next, the Allams would have needed to get the Council's permission to show the contract to Acun, under confidentiality provisions, as part of the sale process but they would be under no obligation to discuss it with Acun as he is not a party to the contract - next, any relationship between the council and Acun is set out in the contract so in many ways there is no need for the council to discuss or even meet with someone about said contract before completion - so, unless Acun wanted to fundamentally renegotiate that contract then he wouldn't need to speak to the council anyway and as completion appears to be close according to Acun, presumably he doesn't want to renegotiate otherwise it would be a sticking point in the negotiations, which there is no indication that is the case
Defending them ? I saw the 'Airco Arena' episode from both sides. The SMC were picking up the £300k a year shortfall on the running costs of it. Meaning those using it were not paying enough rent to meet the running costs. Allegedly, I say that because I am not the accountant for the then Airco, but it was £300k in the red every year. Someone had to pick up that bill. I believe the argument at the time from the Allams was that HCC should be providing facilities for these groups and it was not down to the SMC to subsidise them. James Mooney worked tirelessly to find all those groups displaced alternative accommodation and I believe the club offered to meet any removal costs. There was a dispute over the ownership of the trampolines. I'm not privvy to the facts but the group using them also claimed them as there own. I have visited the arena recently since the club took it over and to a Hull City supporter it is a sight for sore eyes. Scores of youngsters all wearing black and amber being coached football skills on an all weather pitch and watched by their proud parents. Isn't that also grass roots ?
If the new owner had spoken to Council officers it would likely be a conversation subject to a non disclosure agreement. So the Council would stay silent when asked about it.
I notice the Rugby Player Done for Drink Driving over New Year has been banished to a small back page story
Maybe... the Council's rep has said they've had no contact because Acun has asked them to say that to help the takeover go through and prevent Assem from having a hissy fit?
I’m not convinced by this….surely they would say no comment or we are unable to confirm / deny any meeting. To come out & directly say we’ve had no contact would break the NDA you infer about
I wasn’t fully aware of all of the arguments about the Airco issue, but wasnt the problem that the Allams assumed control of a building that in all intents and purposes was there to fulfil a wider community role than helping our academy? I genuinely don’t know the answer to this but did the SMC/City discuss with the clubs that the arena was losing money and they’d have to increase rent or shut it down?
Just tried doing a search to see if Acun's plane is on route, But looks like the owner has blocked public seeing the flight paths. Wonder if he is on his way , would be nice getting it signed and sealed today
As a football club owner it would be bad enough not owning the stadium but owning the SMC, to own the club with the Allams or anyone else for that matter holding the SMC would be a nightmare.
That’s not quite what Young’s tweet and report says though. It’s something he’s been told. Who told him? Who did he speak to? If he spoke to someone who the new owners never contacted, let’s say a random councillor who didn’t want to be named, his information is meaningless.
I thought the contract was out in public. Can't see any harm in a potential owner contacting the HCC to sound out views and ideas, the big problem is that the council is run by committees so contact with anyone is unlikely to get a full and clear picture.
You could always phone the Gilson Hotel and ask if they've got any celebrity bookings over the weekend?
There you go One councillor, who did not wish to be named, said: "There is no obligation to speak with the council regarding the SMC but you would have thought it might have happened by now. It all seems a bit odd
