There is a confidentiality clause in their lease which if over stepped could see then in breach of their contract and liable for chucking out. Its not as simple as that of course but you get the idea but when I asked the question it is certainly down to their confidentiality clause. I guess that Mr Allam has tried to charge them an additional fee for something that has been there all the time they have decided quite rightly that they are not paying for it and its the folks who beniffited from the service that was already provided that are now complaining and quite rightly.


AND before any smart Cityites come on here and say "we are paying whats your problem" I am sick of their inability to grasp a simple situation. Try this guys, anyone can charge themselves anything! I charged myself a million quid this morning for making my breakfast. My 'company' that provides breakfast' is £1m up my 'company' that consumes Breakfast is £1m down, Me, well I aint out of pocket at all really! So its not been a bad days trading

I note you didn't have the hash browns, well over priced at £35,000 each, good choice!

Brilliant!!!

You would be £200,000 out of pocket once you settled your corporation tax.

The Squash championships that will be with us later this year sponsored by Allam will these guys need to pay for signage, images that are used around the stadium?

Also who is paying for the Andy Dawson Testimonial adverts that are all over the stadium? Hull City and is this within the £20k or is Dr Allam charging a player who is celebrating his testimonial money for these posters?

Well done Pony, £200k increase in corporation tax for one company and a decrease of £200k for the other

Both Hull FC and Hull City are tennants at the KC Stadium. "Dr" Allam does not own The KC Stadium, He owns Hull City Football Club. His Son runs SMC which is the Stadia Management Company, who ultimately should pay all monies from both tennats to Hull City Council for the use and maintainance of the KC Stadium.

I personally think that the SMC should be run by someone or a consortium not associated to either party (Hull FC or Hull City) so that impartial decisions regarding the likes of the hanging of memorabilia in aptly named suites are made in the interest of the people of Hull, and not charged for the privilege!

How does that work if both companies are loss making?

£1.2m in the bank at the SMC

are your Tonys Textiles diddlums up to date?

If we are looking at SMC and Hull City corporation tax is only paid on a companies profits so the £200k would not be relevant, a little like your post!

I think the fans of Hull City should be equally worried. The man is obviously not rational and I wouldn't be surprised to see him walk away, especially if they don't get into the premiership this season.

Quote ="Mild mannered Janitor"I understand that you have stated you will not comment further, but I can't help but thinking that you will keep an eye on this thread. Firstly, as has been pointed out, to the Allams The KC Stadium is not [itheir[/i property. Something a lot of City fans find hard to grasp. Secondly your comment of "Neither Hull City nor Hull FC have any right to to put pictures up." is difficult to verify. Despite not having read the lease agreement (something I doubt you will have either). I am confident there is nothing in the agreement between the tenants and SMC about hanging pictures on walls. I am also confident there is nothing in the agreement which states that either club CANNOT hang pictures on the walls. This leads to the main issue of implied terms of contracts. For the first 10 years of usage of the stadium there has been nothing preventing the showing of this memorabilia. Therefore it becomes implied that it is not a problem and its something which will not be challenged. Finally, and connected to the second point. The SMC cannot change the terms of a contract (written or implied) without the consent of both parties. Now that's the legals out of the way. If you cannot see the substance of what is happening, then you really do have a bigger issue to address.'" It seems city 1904 reckons he only came on here to wind us all up. . I just read a few of the threads on not 606.com, and talk about the hatred towards our club. Do most forums have a AUP?, because if they have, every rule in the book has been broken and thats just the City forum on there. Read here.www.not606.com/showthread.php/19 ... y-!/page13

Quote ="Mild mannered Janitor"I understand that you have stated you will not comment further, but I can't help but thinking that you will keep an eye on this thread. Firstly, as has been pointed out, to the Allams The KC Stadium is not [itheir[/i property. Something a lot of City fans find hard to grasp. Secondly your comment of "Neither Hull City nor Hull FC have any right to to put pictures up." is difficult to verify. Despite not having read the lease agreement (something I doubt you will have either). I am confident there is nothing in the agreement between the tenants and SMC about hanging pictures on walls. I am also confident there is nothing in the agreement which states that either club CANNOT hang pictures on the walls. This leads to the main issue of implied terms of contracts. For the first 10 years of usage of the stadium there has been nothing preventing the showing of this memorabilia. Therefore it becomes implied that it is not a problem and its something which will not be challenged. Finally, and connected to the second point. The SMC cannot change the terms of a contract (written or implied) without the consent of both parties. Now that's the legals out of the way. If you cannot see the substance of what is happening, then you really do have a bigger issue to address.'" It seems city 1904 reckons he only came on here to wind us all up. . I just read a few of the threads on not 606.com, and talk about the hatred towards our club. Do most forums have a AUP?, because if they have, every rule in the book has been broken and thats just the City forum on there. Read here.www.not606.com/showthread.php/19 ... y-!/page13

And as a City fan you probably dont know who Raich Carter or Ken Wagstaff are let alone where Bopthferry Park was - Bandwaggoner

The city fans were livid re Pearson and Barmby gate. I agree they need to be worried, this man has no real interest in anything other than feathering his own nest, IMO.

Quote ="F.C. Aces"It seems city 1904 reckons he only came on here to wind us all up. . I just read a few of the threads on not 606.com, and talk about the hatred towards our club. Do most forums have a AUP?, because if they have, every rule in the book has been broken and thats just the City forum on there. Read here.www.not606.com/showthread.php/19 ... y-!/page13'" I know its unrelated but can someone tell me how many cups City have won in their illustrious history? I wasn't sure if I should laugh or cry at that forum thread.

Quote ="F.C. Aces"It seems city 1904 reckons he only came on here to wind us all up. . I just read a few of the threads on not 606.com, and talk about the hatred towards our club. Do most forums have a AUP?, because if they have, every rule in the book has been broken and thats just the City forum on there. Read here.www.not606.com/showthread.php/19 ... y-!/page13'" I know its unrelated but can someone tell me how many cups City have won in their illustrious history? I wasn't sure if I should laugh or cry at that forum thread.

I think to be fair at first they were livid with how the Allams treated Barmby but when they got in Bruce they saw they got the better man to try and take them up

Bruce isn't a better man than Barmby, he's a yes man

They are happy for now, but will be riled again soon enough.

Each pro club in this city has a glut of fickle fans.

It was a city fan that told me that unless they go up to increase their income next year, they will breach the new Fifa financial rules (the 2009 ones IIRC)
I have not read into it in any detail, as I couldn't care less to be honest (not a dig at City by the way)

Finally, I think we as a collective, need to get some more sensible city fans on our side. There are people that support both teams.

Main requirement for the Allams.

Kinell, id said that tongue in cheek, but he really does take the dont he

Main requirement for Allam the son is the biggest yes man

Meetings all day at the Guildhall but no news so far I wouldn't be surprised if after what Webbo said last night they are looking for a get out for both sides to keep some faith, like a peppercorn fee of a few hundred quid to reinstate everything. Still talking so I'm still hopeful hopeful of a resolution keep the pressure on!.

But this would never be over the aim I beleave to to get a public reaction over this breaking a clause on the agreement Thus throwing us (Fc) out of the kc . It is a planed attack on our club

I was a season ticket holder at Boothferry Park, however as i am 21 it was hard for me to known them two or watch them, i apologies for being born recently.

Also in reply to the WUM'ing i wasn't at first but the lack of any common sense annoyed me so much in the end i did end up WUM'ing apologies. However if you read more on not606 you would probably realise i am normally an decent poster, at times.

Not many Hull fans like FC fans as you don't like us, its a two way street. I know FC fans who are United fans, however one of my friends supports FC and he is as bigger City fan as me, so we don't all hate you. Your a Hull club and if your successful, how is that a bad thing for me? It isn't and i would love you to get to Wembley again, and i would hope you want us to get to Wembley.

No i am not a glory supporter, and of course i see your point of view, however i am not very materialistic (sp.), so i don't see your view at all. I work in finance, so clearly i am going to take the side whose has is right legally and the side who makes most sense financially. Which is the Allams, whether that is morally right or not, i have no idea, from my view it is, from yours it isnt'.

Also to the individual who said the Allams can't do it due to implied terms of contract i very much doubt thats correct. Obviously neither of us have access to the agreement, yet i doubt your arguement, as if it had any legs to stand on, i am pretty sure this wouldn't have even reached the press never mind become a 61 page thread on a forum on it.

Do you know what? I'm tiring of this now.



I like Hull FC.

I like Hull City.

I get bored rigid of FC and City fans arguing the toss.







I also think that taking down all our pictures, and making the KC look like it is occupied solely by Hull City, is disrespectful to our club. I suspect it's deliberate, but you would never be able to prove that.

So. Neither party should have to pay to put up some pictures. Put them back up, immediate problem solved. Refund whatever City paid.

Then. Sort out the SMC. Put someone in charge who isn't a football or rugby representative. Put a neutral in charge. Even better, ensure that both clubs are equally represented on the board of directors. This must happen, because if not, then every time anyone repaints one of the East stand toilets amber, it'll kick off again.

Tell Allam, clearly, that he can't have the stadium. It's the property of Kingston upon Hull and it's residents. If he wants to pay off City's debt, he'll have to find something else to remortgage.

Problem solved. Then we can move on.

The only other way this gets solved is if someone comes up with £40million quid and builds Hull FC a new ground, with some terracing. That's not going to happen, unless I win the Euromillions jackpot in a week or two. Then Allam can do what the hell he likes.

Either way, I'll still want both teams to do well.