Usually a confidentiality clause is binding to all parties, That's why the Allam's using the SMC to actually make this statement has surprised me.

The fact that they are giving out figures relating to Hull Fc and the Council has to be in breach of any clause if Hull Fc can not make a response as to why they refuse to pay for for any pictures being put up in the stadium

The SMC made a modest profit for the years up until the Allams took it on, FACT, the SMC had £1.2m in the bank at the last set of accounts, but still posted a loss, FACT.

There's something odd about the situation.

Lots of management speak nonsense in that statement which is basically designed to pull the wool over the eyes of stupid people. So they've 'benchmarked' the cost of hanging up pictures, in my experience 'benchmarking' is always used as an excuse to hide behind dubious decisions. And as for the change in accounting practices I nearly died laughing at that one.

Seems to me that the last sentence appears to be an add on, just appears like.
The Judge, for whatever reason posted that `******** only understand one thing that is a ******tap to the forehead`. Now that was neither promoting, contradicting or condoning said act, merely a statement of what he considered to be a fact.
Anyway, the Allams have upped the tempo somewhat by blaming the HCC for inadequacies in the SMC`s financial viability. Surely they perused previous years accounts and digested the financial implications of such accounts.
As for the pitches needing relaying at a cost of 1.5 million then that is just pie in the sky, the pitch when we hand it over is always immaculate so where do they conjure these figures from.

I am pretty sure neither Huddersfield nor Wigan pay extra, but then, their stadia are managed by independent bodies.

lets face it, this whole issue is finished, most will believe the HDM article, the club can't say anything.

Anyone still want to say the SMC user agreement is not a mill stone round the clubs neck?

That would be why it was seperated from the one before.


Wrong. On a number of levels. You carry on though and see where it gets you.

Especially when you factor in Hull City's accounts prior to the Allam takeover showed a net worth of minus £30m, their July 2012 accounts show a net worth of minus £50m.

Also, he's blaming others for hidden costs etc. whatever happened to caveat emptor?

Totally agree.

If and I'm assuming they are in breach of any clauses, Surely the Council can terminate the agreement they have with the Allam's

Game over. This is exactly what 180,000 people in this area that have no interest in FC will think. This is going to prove a very difficult fight to win.

For me the alot of the information in the SMC statement should have remained behind closed doors. All this statement does whether factual or not is paint both Hull FC and HCC as the wrong doers as it was intended and all the people with no real interest will only see it one way.

There are holes in all the PR releases, statements the Allams release and seem to be adjusting their story and figures to suit as they go along.

There is only one aim here and it is so plain to see, they are trying to force the Council to give up the Stadium by stripping all income streams to it and leaving both the Stadium & HCC isolated with no other option.
For a some one who claims to be man of his word why hasn't he started building the ASSET STRIPPING ALLAM Stadium at Melton yet??? Surely a man so wealthy shouldnt have a problem funding it himself....... oh hang on a minute.

Looking at it purely as a maths problem, that part is [iplausible[/i. Because of City's bigger crowds, it could be that each City game with roughly an extra ~4k in attendance (above the 'goes free' threshold), generates an extra £30k or so for the SMC. If that gets the event to or close to breakeven, then it could be that each Hull FC game is losing the SMC £15k. But, of course, numbers can be lined up in different ways to tell different stories, and how compelling they seem mostly depends on your POV. The Johnny Whitely issue is nice and straight forward - this looks like a can of worms for somebody, and it isn't clear who yet.

With a local press that seems unable or unwilling to ask all the difficult questions to try and fill in the gaps it leaves Allam to peddle his one eyed view of the situation.

Di I read correctly ? a Mortgage on the Stadium for £3.2 million was it ? who took that out , the Council ?

Can we start putting houses/hotel on the site like in Monopoly to raise revenue ? ...oh hang on a minute

just been to the stadium for St helens tickets and just just been passed the skateboard park back of the arena and its now a dump ( who looks after that) and also some one in a earlier post comment about hull city player andy Dawson posters been up on the outside of the stadium they aint any but was and now just hull city poster offering cheap hull city shirts

It's given me a great business idea has this,i'll start charging my employees £2 for every cup of tea and coffee they have,if they argue i'll say it's fair and i'll put £2 in the tin for every one i have,you can't say fairer than that.

I do recall Bartlett obtaining a mortgage against Citys user agreement with Barclays for c£3.5 mill

might had been Paul duffen so he could give Jimmy bullard his wages

Some form of (peaceful) protest needs to made at the Saints game to keep this at the front of people's minds. It will be on the radio so some clean chanting ("One Johnny Whiteley" ? etc) might be a good idea.

Just because we have a game, we shouldn't forget about this. Support the team and raise awareness of how petty the SMC are being

So in other words this cost was part of buying City and nothing to do with the stadium whatsoever?

If only some responsible journalist had bothered to investigate the claims made in the press release instead of just printing it without challenge.

Indeed, but then HDM don't "do" journalism, they just do fellation and onanism.

couple of things

Why don't Allams just return the smc to the council if its losing so much money?
suing the council wont solve anything

How could Bartlett take a loan out against the kc? they only rent it. obviously I must be missing something

That statement by Allem puts Hull City AFC in a very good light as he states that they have coughed up everything requested by the SMC without any objection.

If the SMC was run by an independant would he be so obliging??

If another person was owner of Hull City and Allems had the SMC, would the Hull City owners be willing to pay up on the 'accountancy changes' without protest?

The problem for us is that he's painting us as the bad guy in the eyes of the public....a very dangerous man indeed. The HCC need to get a hold of those accounts asap.

If it is losing money in fact as well as on paper, and at least some of the SMC press release is an accurate reflection, then the council won't want it. There's a general assumption that taking the stadium back is a threat and offers leverage, but there is a possiblity that it works in the other direction. [uIf he's behaving rationally[/u, then Allam must, IMO, think that is the case. Otherwise, if it is potentially a little gold mine or even simply doesn't carry much risk, the council could 'generously' offer to unburden him.

the Council don't have a pair of gonads between them, gravy train, simple as that.