To add clarity here, the council own the stadium. The council granted a 50 year lease with very clear terms and conditions of the agreement. The SMC own the lease having bought it from the previous SMC. Therefore the council does have a voice in the management of the stadium in this instance which are the actual terms of the agreement. They dont have a day to day voice in the running of the stadium as thats something they gave up by leasing the stadium out.

At set review periods as laid down in any lease agreement the council can agree to terminate the leasehold, they can choose to terminate the leasehold if the SMC were in breach, they would also take up the running of the stadium as an interim measure if the SMC went bankrupt before a new SMC / buyer were found for the lease.

Now you're being silly.

I certainly haven't claimed I'd want to or could





Just think it should be competent independent people to either of the two tenants.

Anyway, think Bartlett and co view it as an integral part of their business complex, so can't imagine it's for sale

It isn't, get over it.

He is allowed his opinion......Fwiw i think it should be indepentantdly ran as well....how much was the place on the SMC up for when we was offerd it.

Not sure where it was stated officially that we were ever offered that seat. Ive heard from an official source that we were never offered it.

Fwiw i think the council should have just ran the stadium themselves and took any profits themselves. People connected with the original deal are also baffled as to why they leased the stadium to an SMC anyway.

Thanks for that sensible response. I truly don't know what the original set-up was when lease was drawn up. Is there a link to the original agreement?

What do you want to know with regards to the original agreement? I know bits of what it included.

It was a deliberate ploy to remove the stadium from political control and the temptation to flog it off if times got hard or the makeup of the council changed radically.

Essentially the current arrangement makes it more likely that the stadium will remain an asset of the council and in public ownership over the long term.

I appreciate that, the arguement for me is why didnt they set their own SMC up as a seperate legal entity which would have acheived the same thing. (sorry wasnt clear with that in my earlier post)

Surely the would flog the KC telephone shares 1st......oh hang on

Indeed, and it is managed as an asset, people need to stop believing what they want to be true and accept what the realities are.

Whilst City remain in the Premiership they are the most important tenants, it's just the way it is.

Is that wrote into the lease then?

Why should they be "important" as you put it.

100% correct. Doesnt mean that the SMC shouldnt be 100% independant i guess though.

Because they pay the biggest rent.

Ahhh...thats why they are fooked then.

Because the Premier League rules are so strict, and because they pay more than anyone else towards the upkeep and running of the ground.

I don't think it would have been that easy to do and make the arrangement watertight legally. There would probably have been wriggle room in any such device that would have allowed the stadium to be sold off if someone really wanted to.

There is also the question of how the SMC would have been capitalised without using a large chunk of taxpayers cash. And it would have to have capital if it was going to be truly independent of the council.

The current arrangement is much cleaner.

So one of Bartlett's companies pays the bigger rent to another of Bartlett's companies, that makes them more important?

Private Eye reckon SMC revenue is actually half from City, half from us:

"Superstadium Holdings owns Superstadium Management, which runs Hull City's KC Stadium. But as the club provides half the revenues for the management companies - the rugby league club provides the other half - both these Bartlett companies are also subject to the same "material uncertainty". Hull City pays rent to Management £1m while Holdings owed Management more than £1.2m.

This network of interlocking shareholdings and inter-company loans all going back to Bartlett, who bought Hull City off the back of the now vanished property boom, looks like a classic case of football hubris funded by rickety financial engineering."

He is passing money from his right hand to his left. I guess as the only outside contributory body providing net new money to the SMC part of Bartlett's conglomerate, Hull FC is an equally important tenant.

Average City crowd when Duffen took over:- 14-15,000

Current average crowd:- 22-23,000

Next!

hope the bandwaggoners enjoy championship next season




oh sorry they would of jumped off to support liverpool or man utd


or even worse newcastle utd

Standee stand down you have lost the plot go away and relax then come back with some sence

just goes to show that 'our' council have pooped out again,by letting one man/association have to much individual reign regarding,what is meant to be a council(hull taxpayers) owned stadium.the smc,should be run by an organization,which has no ties whatsoever to either clubs,giving both clubs,equal opportunity-(international rl fixtures for a start.duffen claimed it was because he was waiting for the football fixtures to come out.if this was true,why did dave whealan at wigan,not say the same??)

Think it is clear why Duffen has had to stand down, their wage bill is around £40m. www.sporthull.co.uk/hullcity/new ... ticle.html

Think it is clear why Duffen has had to stand down, their wage bill is around £40m. www.sporthull.co.uk/hullcity/new ... ticle.html

You mean the same council that can cock everything else up almost single handedly

there is a reason people work for the council, cos they cant get proper jobs in the real world