Try selling an asset that has zero value. The freehold should not be sold to any incubent club owner. it should form an element of a partnership between HCC, the comunity and the two sports clubs. HCC would have to gift the freehold to any development partnership otherwise, there is no point in doing anything on the site, now or in the future. Do I think that Assem Allam was told that the freehold would not cost him, yes, I have no doubt about it.
That’s not even what you said in this single post! Giving the freehold to Allam or to a development partnership are very different things
Plans were already drawn up to develop the existing site, generating much more income than was required to make the SMC profitable. Those plans were based on using the existing site only and didn’t require the sale of the freehold, merely an extension of the lease. An arrangement that’s already been very successfully actioned, on a much grander scale, in Manchester.
Actually I would have expected the question to have been "surely with all the interest payments and other money taken out of the club, nice yacht by the way, you've made your money back, haven't you?".
It really didn’t matter how the question was phrased, he quite obviously wasn’t going to answer it, even when they leave they’ll spin it as them only getting their money back, while ignoring the £20-30m in interest and tax benefits.
Im fascinated by this developing the site business. Who by? But what site? There is no way they'll hop down all those trees. There's the football all weather pitches and without the car park... where is the site??
You might well be right, chances are he is unable to read a balance sheet, so probably doesn't know what the level of debt is.
I was under the impression that the loan against the stadium lease was taken without any referring to the council at all. As usual, I could be wrong.
Allam claimed the council sanctioned the mortgage, the council said they were entitled to atrange it and it didn’t require their permission.
A Hull city councillor says there needs be a "full and frank review" of the KC Stadium lease. please log in to view this image Conservative group leader Councillor John Fareham spoke out after criticism of the council over its role in a mortgage deal arranged on the lease by former Hull City owner Russell Bartlett. The latest annual accounts published by the Stadium Management Company (SMC) have detailed how Mr Bartlett set up a holding company to own the SMC, which then provided guarantees on the stadium lease to secure two loans from the Royal Bank of Scotland used to help fund his takeover of the Tigers in 2007. Current City owner Assem Allam and his son Ehab, who are also the only directors of the SMC, claim the mortgage deal should not have been sanctioned by the city council, which owns the KC Stadium. They face having to spend £4.5m to clear outstanding loan repayments from the deal inherited after taking over Hull City and the SMC in late 2010. In the accounts, the Allams also claim that by failing to intervene, the council "lost control" over any future transfer of the SMC's ownership as any buyer could purchase the holding company. Now Cllr Fareham has called for a review into the issue. He said: "I have been advised by our officers there was no obligation within the lease for us to sign off anything because the loans were being secured through a responsible financial institution, namely RBS. "While some might argue that subsequent events elsewhere showed RBS were anything but responsible, at the time it was seen to be a responsible institution as defined in the lease. "However, I do think it is time we had a full and frank review into the SMC and the terms of the deal when it was originally set up to operate the stadium lease. "In the past, this has been pushed into the long grass but with national newspapers now taking an interest it can no longer be viewed as a little local difficulty." He said he would be urging a panel of councillors currently examining the council's relationship with the private sector to pay special attention to the SMC deal. The 50-year lease agreement with the SMC was struck shortly before the council-funded stadium opened in 2002. It handed day-to-day responsibility for the development, including all operating and maintenance costs, to the SMC. In exchange, the council was meant to receive a share of any profits if they exceeded agreed targets. However, no profit share income has ever been paid to the council and the latest SMC figures show the company recorded a £5m loss in the financial year ending in June. Cllr Fareham said: "I am getting a little bit sick of hearing certain Labour councillors blaming the Liberal Democrats for signing off the lease deal. "It's true the Lib Dems were in charge in 2002, but everyone knows they simply used the same agreed terms endorsed by the previous Labour administration." While the SMC accounts claimed an unnamed "senior executive" at the Guildhall sanctioned the mortgage, the council has denied any involvement. Cllr Fareham said: "My understanding is that the individual referred to by the Allams has left the council but that isn't a reason why we shouldn't have a review. "There are other questions that need answering, not least concerning one particular senior officer who worked closely on the stadium project and then was allowed to walk straight into a job with the SMC. "If I lost my seat I would have to wait a year before I could even apply for a job as a cleaner at the Guildhall. "There does seem to be one rule for officers and another for councillors in this context." SMC's 50-year KC deal OWNED initially by Adam Pearson, the SMC was given the job of operating the KC Stadium under a 50-year lease agreement with the city council. The deal included a profit-sharing element aimed at providing financial returns for the council to improve public services elsewhere. Before the stadium opened it was estimated the stadium complex, including the adjacent indoor arena, would cost up to £2m a year to run and that it would break even within three years.
Allam ****s up again shocker - the guy really is a putz - does he ever check anything before he dives in
That refers to the bloke who arranged the original stadium build walking into a job at the SMC, almost twenty years ago, it has nothing to do with the mortgage (which the council say they had no involvement in).
So, Adam Pearson gave a job to the person who arranged the stadium build and now he is the one preventing the terms and conditions of the lease from being released into the public domain?
How can Pearson prevent the lease being made public? The lease is between the SMC and HCC, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with AP.
Once again I may have misunderstood, I was under the impression that as owner of the egg chasing club he had veto rights. The Allams have asked for the full details to be placed in the public domain on more than one occasion. If the only people able to veto publication are HCC and they are doing so, it begs the question. Why are they?
