whoever is responsible or who has what level of responsibility thats what people want to know where ever your club allegiance is someone or more have disrespected a local hero

It was £300 per picture, it's not a grey area at all.

There is an easy way round this loss, tender out the services to a catering company say for £100k pa and the SMC's financial position improves £170k overnight (Rovers use this model)

If it is losing what he 'says' it is then no I doubt he would.

a lack of actual dates in the hdm article of when convicted it only mentions last year.

is it coincidence this story came out on the same day hdm has an exclusive with the allams??

be interested to know when Pearson actually got his ban.

Considering the fact that it was the council who placed the picture's in Johnny's suite, have you actually considered the point that (even if AP did say take the pictures down as he was unwilling to start paying for something that they have never paid for before) he didn't know that the SMC where including the picture's in Johnny's suite considering the fact that the council had actually dedicated that suite to Johnny and where the one's who had placed the picture's in the suite.

They do already, the corporate catering is done by EMC Limited and the concourse kiosks are handled by someone else, neither the SMC, nor either of the clubs handle any of the catering directly. Presumably, there's a clause in there to cover any losses made by the concourse operator to prevent them from not opening at events that are not actually viable for them and that's where the shortfall comes from.

Well it must be a grey area as it was £500 a picture a couple of days ago. Regardless of the cost, is this really a sustainable and efficient way of making up the shortfall, bearing in mind all the negative publicity and feeling it has caused. It will only generate a few thousand a year in revenue. I assume REM and Bon Jovi have been billed as well.

This is how I see it

Allam: we want x amount of money for your pictures
AP: We're not paying it
Allam: If you don't pay we will take the pictures down
AP: We're still not paying it.

Result: Allam takes down pictures and is now saying AP ordered the pictures down.

Only my take on it from snippets I've heard about the situation.

Quote ="phil webbo"There is an easy way round this loss, tender out the services to a catering company say for £100k pa and the SMC's financial position improves £170k overnight (Rovers use this model)'" you mean a company like this? www.spotless.com/uk/Food/venues/KC-Stadium.htm

Quote ="phil webbo"There is an easy way round this loss, tender out the services to a catering company say for £100k pa and the SMC's financial position improves £170k overnight (Rovers use this model)'" you mean a company like this? www.spotless.com/uk/Food/venues/KC-Stadium.htm

Please can I just say that before an FC fan possibly jumps on the Rovers fans for suddenly having more of a say that for me it is more to do with the fact that Allam is now suggesting that the City council coffers pick up the tab for the possible losses. This suddenly becomes greater than just an FC conversation IMHO obviously

Use some common sense then. The pictures have always been there free of charge. The SMC now demand a sum of money to keep the pictures in place. AP refuses to pay it. Why on earth would he "order" the pictures taken down? It's upto the SMC to take them down if we don't want to pay for them.

And you know that for a fact how?

BTW I'm not saying that he did or he didn't - just that we don't know it for a fact but you seem to be 100% convinced.

Are you having a laugh

...His refusal to pay the bill amounts to the same thing! If I don't pay my morgate it will ultimately end with me being evicted, I am sure a business man like AP is aware of cause & effect.

On the subject of common sense, if AP has refused to pay the bill he should have informed the fans of this decision and why he feels it is in the best interest of the club, if he had common sense he would have intervened and made a statement when this started kicking off earlier in the week.

Then the problem here is with the catering operator and/or the contract between them and the SMC. Nothing to do with Hull FC at all, and certainly not a subsidy. More spin.

Evidence presented so far (direct quote in the press), suggests this to be the case.

And suddenly you've forgotten all about the confidentially clause.

Fair point, however you would have hoped that AP would have put us right about this earlier in the week ?

The same clause that Ehab Allam continually continues to break in all his statements to the Hull Daily Mail

Refusing to pay for something that was previously free is the same as "ordering" their removal? Have a word with yourself.

FC Voices made every-one aware that the pictures had been taken down and Hull FC had agreed to this by refusing to budge on a price which was just to much for any sane person to agree to pay. Its decoration for Gods sake. The Johnny Whitely issue was totally separate because it has been done recently and as we all agreed an insult. We should not now be saying but we have fallen into a trap this was and still is about Gentleman John as far as I am concerned. The finance well lets all and I include Hull City in this remember we have been down this road before and I am sure we will go down it again - 10 years ago we were all proud to be at this Stadium - City did not even have a ground - at least we did. Now perhaps we can all concentrate on big games that are coming up and some-one remind Mr Allam and Son that we all know were they will be in 10 years certainly not sunning a football club I bet . We all know were we will be hopefully

I just had a horrid thought. Bet now seems to believe the statement from the Allams in the mail. Is this a ploy from the Allams to get our fan base to turn our attention on AP for all this mess so that he walks away?. They have definitely turned the heat up.

I think AP is sticking to the Confidentiality clause and the fact that Allam's are continually breaking it could eventually work in our favour

You say presumably, so you're guessing really.
You do not give contracts out and offer to cover losses that's just madness, and what events are put on that lose money on catering and bars, in the last year there have been no concerts.
The contract will be match days and private functions, if they are losing money on private functions then their costings are all wrong, and if, and it's a big if that you are right with this guarantee, then it is poor management and someone needs their head knocking at the SMC.

The long standing contract has already been altered twice in Hull FCs favour.
Does this mean that the Allams are well within their rights to have Hull FCs and Hull City’s contract re negotiated in the near future?
It wasn’t that long back that Adam Pearson wanted another contract re negotiation.
If what is in the press is true, what exactly would he have asked for?