Oh my word



What exactly is it then ?

Unfortunately one party breaking a clause doesn't necessarily allow others to do the same. And that's assuming that the SMC is covered by the exact same clause, which is unlikely.

I was only guessing, it's the only way I can see that SMC would end up in a situation where the concourse kiosks operator could end up getting subsidised for anything.

Just out of interest, where is the Johnny Whitely Suite? Is it one of the suites just inside the west stand entrance, that's presumably only called the Johnny Whitely Suite when there's an FC game on?

No I think Bet is being more open minded that all the blame may not lay at the Allams door as first thought by most on this board (including myself) and would like AP to inform us of what has happened in relation to the removal of Johnny's pictures, in order to gain some insight into what exactly has gone on & why it has gone on.

Quote ="clubfoot fc"you mean a company like this? www.spotless.com/uk/Food/venues/KC-Stadium.htm'" Quite. Which takes me back to the point of what sort of contract was negotiated, until there is a full disclosure by SMC we will not know the terms of individual contracts, and the council will only see abridged accounts.

Quote ="clubfoot fc"you mean a company like this? www.spotless.com/uk/Food/venues/KC-Stadium.htm'" Quite. Which takes me back to the point of what sort of contract was negotiated, until there is a full disclosure by SMC we will not know the terms of individual contracts, and the council will only see abridged accounts.

Any alterations to the contract would have been with the agreement of the SMC.


If indeed. There may well be no outright falsehoods in the press statements but we've seen already that it's full of spin and misdirection. Only a fool would believe 100% of it without some independent corroboration.

My view is that I am not bothered about the pictures. The whitely suite should have images of the man displayed.

Selling wall space doesn't balance the books. More users of the other facilities does, but the relatively high cost to everyday members of the community means an income stream is being lost. This is maybe down to increased costs, but also down to people having less cash in their pockets - the SMC, Hull Fc and Hull City are not immune to this.

What is happening on the forum is that the divide and conquer approach is being used and as fans we should back our club - this isn't about moral high ground. Our club has made whatever decision for whatever reason (we don't know and i would argue do we need to know??) and we should back them.

The business side should be left with those entrusted with the club who have invested their own cash. If they feel they dont wish to market our club through photos that only a limited group of people see, then so be it.

We should focus on supporting our club and the injustice is only the removal of images of JW for the JW suite.

The rest is for business folk to sort.

We'd never have known

AP has refused to pay for the display of pictures etc presumably because he disagrees with a charge for something that was previously part of the tenancy agreement.

The SMC take said pictures down.

You can't see the difference between that and the far more emotive statement that AP ordered the removal of said pictures? Really? You'll be buying a flying carpet next.

Considering the fact that Ehab Allam in his latest statement to the Hull Daily mail has asked the Hull Fc to waive the Confidentiality clause makes me believe that the SMC are bound by it as well.

Confidentiality agreements are usually signed by people who are outgoing from a company, so when Adam handed over the SMC, he may then be bound by it, but not the Allams.

All I see is that it has resulted in the same outcome, the pictures have been taken down without any fans being aware of why this has happened.

This thread has been[i full of emotive comments by FC fans all week[/i verbalizing their disgust about the pictures of a legend being removed. AP will now be more than aware about the emotive comments expressed by the fans and the outrage this has caused, maybe he should be making a comment and defending his decision about paying this bill. Or maybe he will choose to jump on my flying carpet with me.

You could of said that in the first place.

The Allams have definitely opened a can of worms, from what was started as picturegate.

Quote ="phil webbo"Confidentiality agreements are usually signed by people who are outgoing from a company, so when Adam handed over the SMC, he may then be bound by it, but not the Allams.'" https://web5.hullcc.gov.uk/akshull/user ... =56&arc=71 Check the bottom of the meetings minutes,

Quote ="phil webbo"Confidentiality agreements are usually signed by people who are outgoing from a company, so when Adam handed over the SMC, he may then be bound by it, but not the Allams.'" https://web5.hullcc.gov.uk/akshull/user ... =56&arc=71 Check the bottom of the meetings minutes,

One minute councillors are getting involved, the next minute it's nothing to do with them...

"That could, and should, have been handled much better," said Cllr Brady. "As it is, the council appears to be getting a kicking, which is unfair when it's really something between the SMC and Hull FC."

Brady and Geraghty are a pair of imbeciles, football/rugby rivalries aside, it's astounding that this pair are in positions of power in this great city of ours.

where is our ring leader standee, he was urging everyone to bring all this to the front, now what?

Well that is the thing, who has opened the can of worms ?

I would suggest it is us the fans, because evidence so far would suggest that AP knew the picutres would be taken down last summer if he never paid the bill, and he appears not to have raised this with any fans nor has he commented on it, maybe it was not an issue for him, who knows.

I think this can of worms may turn into a can of huge snakes

From what I have read it seems the removal of the pictures in the JW suite only came to light on friday night and even the club where unaware of the removal of the pictures

Are the words 'confidentiality clause' invisible to you?

I'm afraid this shows that the council really have little appetite to get involved in this. I actually include what to do with the stadium long term if it continues to be loss making. What a complete mess this is.

Cllr Brady seems to have more than a touch of resentment in that quote for being embroiled in this, can't help but think this hasn't been helped by FC sitting on this for months if this turns out to be true.

Interesting, in which case they never knew last summer ? or they were calling SMC bluff that they would not remove the pictures if the bill was not paid ?

The problem is every-one hears different things from different sources (rumors thread), hopefully AP will give us some facts and clarify our position.

I think the story from FC voices about FC agreeing to the pictures coming down rather than paying for them are to do with other pictures. I don't think the JW pictures were part of that decision, they were put there by the council and I would imagine deemed to be part of the suite.

I doubt a statement along the lines of, "FC pictures have been removed from the stadium due to a new charge being brought in by the stadium management which Hull FC do not consider is in their interests to pay" is breaking any confidentiality clauses.

Plus we never seemed bothered about any confidentiality clauses when we all assumed it was all down to the Allams, we wanted answers, audits, councillors on board, every possible media outlet involved.. etc etc

That's how I see it. Which means were the pictures in the JW suite taken down by accident as there was no understanding that they were included, or a cynical person would argue that this misunderstanding has been used to its full potential and hence why we are here now.

You 'doubt', do you? Based on some massive experience with commercial leaseholds and confidentiality clauses?


Deary me. You don't understand at all, do you?