Dont think that was SMC. It was down to the fact that the premier league fixtures could not be confirmed or not for that date meaning it had to be kept free i believe. As they pay Hull City £30 million ish they get first choice of the dates.

So Duffen pleads.

But by this logic no event will ever be able to be planned ever if it falls during the football season.

We'd have no more concerts, other sporting events, festivals ever at the KC from August to June even though the stadium was built by the council for this sort of usage for the benefit of all Hull citizens....oh, hang on, when was there last such an event again?

Ah, well - Duffen's decision is final - we'll all just have to lump it.

Wasnt we offered a seat on the SMC?

Maybe the club needs an "in" on it.

We were, and turned it down. Bad mistake IMO.


If we ever get a chance it would be a good idea to take it. Doubt we will though.

Duffen spoke to the FA and they said they couldnt be flexible with regards to promising no football fixture at home that week. I guess if the internationals fall when we dont know the football fixtures and the FA wont budge they yes, we are going to struggle to get internationals.

Ive got no gripe with Duffen.

Maybe we thought there would be a conflict of interest?

Had more to do with not wanting/being able to afford the Directors Bond required IIRC.

So, rather than knowing their income over a given number of years, you'd rather the council said: "well you pay us £X amount of rent and if we feel we might need to use some of your space, we'll just take it off you because we own the joint"?

As opposed to: "you pay us £Y amount and if we feel it necessary to rent space from you, we'll come to an amicable arrangement"?

Do you understand how commerce works in the real world?

err no

the council always planned to have facilities at the ground for community work. It is absolute madness that they are paying to hire rooms they built! The rooms should have always been separate from the agreement with the SMC, and therefore free of charge for council use.

if they'd decided to take space off the SMC at a later date it would be a different matter, but as far as i'm aware they have always had this space at the KC, and it was planned before it was built.

I wonder how much he knew about the set-up when his consortium bought City and the SMC. I'm certain he thought the stadium was primarily a Hull City possesion.

FFS, he didn't even realise he was sharing the KC with us until he arrived - he'd never heard of Hull FC. Presumably this is because the previous owner of the SMC - Pearson - marketed the sale as the lease was his asset - the Council would have had no say in the new governance of the stadium.

Pearson, being there at the start, had more obligation to other events and concerts. Duffen, not realising he should have, hasn't. And therefore there have been no extra-City/FC events since he arrived.

So yes - I suppose we can't blame Duffen - but the Council who sold our asset in such a negligent way should be made accountable for this. Or we can all sit meekly by and wait to re-inherit the stadium in 20 odd years time when another shed-load of tax-payers money will be required to make good "our" white-elephant.

Isn't the lease 50 years? I got this reply from Carl Minns when I complained about the lack of an international at the KC:

Thank you for your letter regarding the KC Stadium and rugby internationals.

The Council were only made aware of the problems regarding international matches at a very late stage by the Rugby Football League. At this time the Council did try to broker a deal to enable international rugby to be played at the KC Stadium this year. Unfortunately we ran out of time before any agreement could be reached.

With regard to the 50 year lease, which was signed in 2001, it is a legal agreement and there is little, in law that the council can do to alter it. Please be assured that although the previous two organisations that have had the lease on the stadium were involved with Hull AFC, this will not always necessarily be the case.

I have spoken to Paul Duffen regarding to the use of the Community Stadium and he is aware of how upset fans are. Rest assured that the Council and the Rugby Football League will work together to bring international rugby to the stadium in the future.

Yes the lease is 50 years, cant argue with Minns reply either tbf.

You're right - it is 50 years - it's ours which is 25.

I also got the same reply from Minns blah-di-blah I trust him not. I also requested from him full minutes and related documents of all council meetings pertaining to the original stadium leases and clauses when control was first given to the SMC under the Freedom of Information Act. He assured me it had been passed to the legal department and I'd be hearing shortly.

5 months later....



Apparently a FOI request must be responded to within 4 weeks. Can I sue? And should I persue?

Only covers certain info if i recall. Terms of a lease may not be info that can be shared.

Still need to respond:

"Timescales

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the CC is required to respond to your request for information within 20 working days following the date on which your request was received. Furthermore, the Act makes a number of provisions for extra time to be taken in responding to a request, for example:

* The timescale is put on hold if, after initial consideration of your request, a fee is requested. When a request for payment is sent to you, the 20-day working deadline is put on hold and will start running again (from where it stopped, not back to the beginning of the 20 days) when the appropriate fee is received.
* If the information being sought has to be considered under an exemption to which the public interest test applies, then the timescale is extended by a “reasonable period”. The CC will, however, tell you within the 20-day period which exemption(s) it believes apply to the information requested, and give you its estimate of the date by which it expects to reach a decision regarding the application of this exemption."

Plus Minns acknowledged the request had been received and was to be acted upon.

I'm getting a bee in my bonnet about this and feel the need to worm a bit deeper.

You go, girl.

I'd hazard a guess the inner workings of the council are like the Circumlocution Office in Little Dorrit.

I've requested information from the council under this act before. And was "quite persistent" in ensuring the timescales were met as it related to an imminent school closure.

I kid you not, but at midnight on the 20th working day after the request was made (just as I was rubbing my hands together at the thought of the next steps) there was a knock on the door. A senior council official (who shall remain anonymous) stood there with a thick envelope containing the required info. ILMAO it was still warm from the photocopier.



At least they made the deadline. On this occasion, though...

Fantastic work.

Top post there the SMC should be an independant body from both football and rugby because as you now coorectly point out the Rugby fans of this city are now missing out on an International game. Also the concerts that used to be held at the ground are no more wonder why ?

An increasing number of City fans do.

I like that

Football club wins 3 out of 30 games and its fans have a gripe with the manager and chairmain. No sh*t sherlock!!



Ive got no gripe with Duffen the way he runs the SMC.

Can anyone answer this?

If the SMC go out of business, does this mean we can renegotiate the deal we have at the KC?

Thanks

It means that the deal we have to use the KC is null and void and technically we have no right to play there (unless there is some kind of back up deal in place with the council but I doubt it), however realistically the council would just negotiate a new one