And that just highlights the pettiness of the egotistical madman, 2nd hand basketball gear will be worth peanuts, surely the City's great philanthropist would have at least gifted the gear to the club he's evicted.

I'd say it was unbelievable, but really it's entirely to be expected. The volume of stuff going on and the fronts they're choosing to fight on is reaching mental proportions now.

I said this a while ago, but I just don't see what the end game is here now. As most sane people recognised early on, objective 1 was to get the stadium for nowt and borrow against it for a commercial development. When that door was shut my perception is that everyone then became a target for different reasons - the council for not gifting him a public asset for private company game, FC for sharing the tenancy, City's own fans for not buying a baseless marketing idea.. but what is the ultimate objective. City are currently a viable operation and need to remain so for him to protect his investment, but is peeing off the FA and City's fans the best way to continue? Or creating a storm in the press on a daily basis? What exactly is success now for Allam? I have absolutely no idea.

On one of the twitter pictures posted by Angus Young there's an awful lot of what looks like large tubs of adhesive.

Next line from Allam - "It's impossible to take the pitch up without causing £10s of thousands of damage" ?

It is baffling, you'd have thought all his attention would be keeping City up, with a bumper TV deal windfall that would pay him back his investment and also make them more attractive to a buyer if they do. But instead he's taking on Kingston Panthers!

Yep I think it was !

I thought so as well - we don't want subtle typos like that been made at this stage of the proceedings.

Talk about putting your energy into random acts of destruction! Nuts!

Quote ="ccs"I thought so as well - we don't want subtle typos like that been made at this stage of the proceedings.'" Indeed. Disappointing. www.theguardian.com/football/dav ... ett-tigers

Quote ="ccs"I thought so as well - we don't want subtle typos like that been made at this stage of the proceedings.'" Indeed. Disappointing. www.theguardian.com/football/dav ... ett-tigers

A lot of MD's / CEO's are driven and intelligent. But, they are in come cases genetically predisposed for meglomania (one gene away from serial killers if you read certain scientific papers). Clearly he feels slighted, and this is purely about hell bent revenge and control. He will have his way or else. Hopefully we don't let him but he seems to be getting somewhere will the name change, and this, well, the council needs the busfare to go through with this and sort him

I read the same, 4% of CEOs are psychopaths compared to 1% in the general population. Typical traits include egocentricity & grandiose sense of self-worth, untruthfulness/insincerity, lack of empathy, failure to take responsibility for own actions.

Just a question on the council putting in an application on the dome pitch. Who's paying for it? (the pitch that is, not the planning application).

Assuming it's city, another question: Who owns the dome pitch when city's lease expires (assuming it's built at the KC)?

It's a great way of saying to Allam who's the prat now .
Think Allam will have to pay for it .

It's a great way of saying to Allam who's the prat now .
Think Allam will have to pay for it .
Only will hockey team miss out?

Been reading not 606 eh?



Even the city fans think the councils doing it as a way of placating Allams argument about not being able to erect the bubble pitch so he has no come back when he says he had to do Airco as there was no other alternative.

I seriously dont understand your point in all of this. You just love an argument but have no cohesion in what your saying. I never remembered you being so vociforous about anything Allam has done previously yet the council are now standing up to him and you are now questioning them. Are you on Allams side as its almost how your coming across or again do you just love arguing?

But their principle is not spending money building an extension on someone else's house. This is similar, surely?

I think this will be the end of the Allams, the council can not back down now its a fight to the end. The simple fact is that when Bartlett took over SMC the then Lib/Dem council allowed a lot tog o through on the nod and the present Labour council are trying to pick there way through the mess. The Allams have now provided enough conditions which would IMHO where a council legal challenge would prove successful over time. Now I fear an attack on FC at some point anytime now, clearly he will try and ramp up the anti and using FC is an ideal way. I for one will stick an objection in to any "bubble pitch" being put up that will in effect evict of the hockey teams, they have a right to be there as well. Kicking them out to let the other back into the Airco makes no sense to me and in some ways is even worse.


I think he is about to depart soon for pastures new, leaving a legacy here would appeal to his sense of fun lets not give him the chance ..........

I guess the word principle is the fundamental problem.
If I owned a leased house and needed a garage, I would build one if I could afford it.
Mr Allam lives in a different world, and, as you said in an earlier post, it's impossible to second guess what his motives really are.

That makes sense.


WTF? I called out the hypocrisy of the "Sporting Village Gift" nonsense when our local media halfwits took it at face value.



I'm really delighted the council are "considering action" at last. My points are just two:
1 As it stands, the action at the moment is just a letter. Which based on previous experience won't influence the Allams unduly. Let's see how legal process goes.
2 The councillor's post on here seemed a bit self-congratulatory with shouts about "white flags" and "not taking it lying down", "on the side of small clubs" "padlocks on the gates". A bit "Do You Hear the People Sing?" from Les Miserables. I was pointing out that with what appears to be a clear breach of contract, it's just basic compliance, not heroism, utterly utterly welcome though it is.

I do enjoy an argument though, for sure.

That is one thing that's guaranteed. We must be the only club in the city not to have been directly targeted this week. Yet. Probably waiting until the eve of our next home game.

Now where did David Lloyd put those padlocks?

Wouldn't any monies in taking up the new pitch and any other accrued costs, legal or otherwise(from the Allam's) just be piled on top of the existing SMC debts. IF the conclusion is removal of the SMC from the Allam's then the debt/losses are still there, if there has being creative accounting going on (likely) then wresting control of the SMC would only just be the start.
However this pans out money is being lost that could be spent elsewhere and the prime cause of that is the greed of the Allam family and lack of strong leadership at the council.
The only acceptable situation should be to wrest control of the SMC back and IF they have being bleeding the SMC and/or deliberately employing tactics to ensure losses then the council must take things further to make them pay for the debts accrued.
It's almost scandalous that the council leaders at the time agreed to release control of the stadium, even more sickening that they ended up paying £72.5K/year to use their own building. Even taking into account the 'salaries' of the owners of the SMC and other 'management' costs it must have made at least £1M in profit up to the point a profit was being reported, the potential was always there, the narrow mindedness & weak-kneed attitude is just another failure of a LA whom should have being doing so much more with their asset instead of washing their hands of it and now trying to fight fires far far too late.

Thanks for this and your other posts today.

It's as we thought then, the situation with the SMC and it's debts. I understand that if the council seize control of the SMC they would also inherit the debt (about £6M I believe, of which £2M is the mortgage Duffen took out against the KC and is owed to the bank, and the other £4M is owed to the Allams themselves) - a similar situation to buying it for a quid.

However, if the council can legally terminate the contract with the SMC instead then the SMC will be cut adrift with the debt intact and still liable for it. I.e., the Allams will still owe themselves about £4M and the bank £2M. The council would then be left with the much more palatable problem of simply finding someone else to run the stadium.The new leisure company perhaps?

So the case for severance is of paramount importance and must be watertight. Likely?

Completely agree. In addition, as a rate payer in Hull I expect the council to protect our assets and services. The cost of legal action is small change compared to the value of the assets we stand to lose. Not only would I be happy for the council to fund such legal action on our behalf, I expect it. To do nothing now I would consider a negligent act by the council and would certainly be making noises and challenging at whatever level necessary.

I really hope Brady does not seriously consider any legal bill to be an obstacle and was merely expressing apprehension as to a possible reaction from some citizens of Hull out of empathy for the hard times we're in.

No one. The planned dome pitch won't happen, this is just more hot air from Allam using the fact that time taken in obtaining the planning permission and the building of a new pitch would take them out of the timescales for the audit as "set by the PL". Now that "deadline" has been exposed as the nonsense it is the council are, in my opinion, merely ensuring the permission is in place should the same issue arise at a future date.

The council are covering their bets by applying for the permission. If building ever happens then that's up to Allam to cough up. But I honestly think the whole dome pitch speculation was merely a straw man. The apparent impossibility of it's timely realisation being used as the justification for the Allam's appalling behaviour this week. The Allams never meant to build it, but there's nothing to stop them using a similar straw man in future arguments as things develop. So the council are pre-empting this by applying for the planning themselves to ensure it's in place for "Round 2".

Just my thoughts.