When the SMC was set up, it had to be capitalised, this was at £2mill

Pearson, Wilkinson (the internet backer) and the Healey's were involved in the setup.

Divide and conquer, something I've witnessed first hand over the last 3 years or so.

I'll pay 300.00 so there pictures stay down, must have missed there concert too

As i got told,

Say in the last year at Boulevard the club made £70k over the bars.

SMC would give us £70k "from the bars take"

Now if the bars are not taking enough to cover this then its their fault for charging £3.70 for a can of beer.

Rich said every meeting "we will have "AT LEAST" the same income as Boulevard, is guaranteed, we might get more, but never less"

I knew about Pearson and Wilkinson but wasn't aware of the Healey link. Is this common knowledge.

I know the SMC has always been owned by the owners of city, I have stated many times how stupid this is. It has always left the possibility of a conflict of interest that the council should never allow to happen.


The point I made about city getting a less favorable deal was in relation to a point somebody made about Pearson agreeing with the council then finding out what FC had agreed afterwards and being very unhappy at the disparity. Once in place this has always been a contract that the SMC and city have had to abide by regardless of the owners.

We have only heard one side of the story and then the Allams are changing their statements day by day. We still have to hear APs side of the story, so i for one will reserve judgement.

Initially I would have agreed with you, however I am now not so sure.
The uproar started earlier in the week as people noticed that the pictures had been removed, I suspect hundreds of e-mails were sent all over the shop (and quite rightly so), however it now transpires AP knew about this last summer &ordered the pictures of our great legend to be taken down over a few hundred quid.

I wonder if the same level of anger will be directed at AP for this decision ? will he be bombarded with hundreds of e-mails questioning why this has happened ?, I very much doubt it tbh.
We may not actually be the victims or the innocent party in all this, which is a worry thought tbh.

We have only heard one side of the story and then the Allams are changing their statements day by day. We still have to hear APs side of the story, so i for one will reserve judgement.

Doesn't matter what he says, only FC fans will pay any attention to the fine detail. If you had a quick poll of 100 people in the city this morning you will probably find only the diehard FC fans among them will have any sympathy for us.

FC need to speak out, get game out the way tonight then its time to open up

I honestly don't believe we will hear form the club on this. They never started the argument, we the fans did. I reckon Pearson won't thank us one bit for any of this.

Bingo.

Just wondering why you're suddenly willing to take the Allams at their word?

At the moment we only have one side of the story remember. These things are rarely as cut-and-dried as they might appear.

Despite 108 pages of conspiracy theories about poor treatment of FC, gagging orders, corrupt businessmen and some rather unfortunate references to sand and the ayatollah, it seems 90% of everything posted was a complete nonsense.

The SMC is losing money, leaving it to lose money ongoing isn't a reasonable option, so the tenants both need to pay their way(particularly as the KC is now over ten years old, repair costs are increasing and due to lower attendances and the council closing all their offices, the revenues are dropping).

It's now clear that FC were made aware of the new charges well in advance of them being implemented and were given every opportunity to keep whatever pictures they wanted, but chose not to keep any of them, that's hardly the Allam's fault.

They've offered to hand the SMC back to the council, who will obviously not touch it with a barge pole, as it's losing money. There's an open invitation to discuss all terms included in the SMC agreements, so the gagging order defence is also a non-starter and the longer Adam says nothing, the worse things look.

I'm obviously a City fan, I've no real interest in rugby league, but as a Hull lad, I want all Hull teams to do well. I also appreciate the regard in which Johnny Whitely is held and his record does warrant recognition within the stadium, but it seems to me that this whole things has been completely blown out of proportion and was completely avoidable. You should really be looking at your own management for answers, rather than aiming unfounded accusations at a local businessman.

Especially as it now seems that this has been in the pipeline for some time and Pearson is now being portrayed to have said he isn't bothered.

He better have a good excuse as to why he ordered the picture of a true legend to be taken down! Christ they will be spending more than that for the hotel bill at Saints this afternoon.

We all jumped on the bandwagon and assumed Allams were the guilty party in all this, playing games etc...We need to know who is playing games here.

Before saying anything at all the club need to get a legally binding document lifting the confidentially clause. A comment by Ehab Allam in the local paper would be of approximately zero value if it came to litigation.

You don't ask for a subsidy, there is no physical money changing hands,
All it means is that they are providing a loss making service to FC at an annual loss of £70k, hence the subsidy.

I can't see the problem - Hull FC have been running their "business" at the KC based on a lease agreement drawn up many years ago.

How Allam can say that Hull FC "shortfalls" are paid for by City is amazing.
Maybe it's because all the other SMC income streams have dried up.

The so called details of the lease are being leaked and changed/misinterpreted on a daily basis. The HDM changes the story every few minutes.

The club could not and should not have responded. There were nothing to respond to.

I suspect a club statement won't now be too far off.

Charging £10800 a year to put up pictures is disgraceful. It was treated with the contempt it deserved.

I am taking a direct quote from the press, FC knew last summer about the pictures and AP ordered the pictures to be taken down, I want to know why he did that?
People were furious when they thought Allam had just done it, my fury has not subsided just because I have found out it is our chairman who ordered them to be taken down.

The point you are missing is Like Hull Fc, Hull City could have renegotiated the deal like Hull Fc have done if they where unhappy with it

But will you also acknowledge that the SMC being run by the Allam's raises questions about how fair and viable additional charges are to both parties, ie. FC and city, involved in the lease agreement. Do you recognise that a company owned by one party charging another company owned by the same party is just shuffling pennies around. whereas any charge made to FC is real and genuine income that has to be found from a revenue stream.

That makes a little more sense.

So basically they are opening the bar and concessions on FC matchdays, and because they make a loss on this trade they count it as a subsidy? Shouldn't they looking at why they make a loss?

Now that is a very good point Coddie - you really are Leslie Welsh at times