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.

The council can't (wouldn't want to anyway) take control of the smc which is a private ltd co owned by the allams. ?They do have the option of taking legal action to effectively cancel the lease agreement but I can't ever see them going down that route personally

If they don't then it's carte blanche as far as the Allams are concerned. Their tentacles would be free to extend in all directions with tenacious grip and poison.

It would be the beginning of the end for us, I truly believe.

I doubt they have the balls to fight allam over the lease as a whole, only challenging isolated breaches. We could always lease caravan park 14 times a year

What's all this? Were the terms of the agreement changed when Bartlett bought City, or what?

What changes were made?

Ill ask him next time i see him. I do beleive hes on 'our' side bit is careful in what he says

We may have to!

I don't think the council have had the stomach for this so far, either. There's the cost issue and we have no idea what the "new" SMC lease terms are. Legally unsurmountable? Plus they probably have pressure from the central Labour party who are grateful to the benefactor and don't want him rattled (played a blinder there, did ultra-conservative Assam).

But most importantly, until the Allams breached the lease agreement, the only course of action open to the council was to take over the SMC, debts and all. Obviously a non-starter.

With the actual laying of the pitch the lease terms have been broken. It is only now the council can follow the second path of termination of the contract and casting the SMC adrift complete with their own debts. I hope the council realise it's now or never. And it will be "never" for us and a lot of others under the Allam influence if they don't. They may not want to, but they now have to.

Don't get me wrong, I like and trust Mr Brady. I just hope he isn't letting himself be constrained by legal costs which are really of little consequence given the scale of the situation now. It will cost far far more if he lets this little concern prevent action. Like not wanting spend money on the reel of cotton that prevents the stitch turning into nine. Or in this case a massive gaping rent that can never be repaired.

Surely if the Planning is put in place any NEW owner would then use it. Council don't have to build anything (as a house with planning in place for extension)

Just remember there was a very BIG caveat to Allam's offer of £500k extra support. It was only offered if Labour walked away from trades union support. So what would you do: accept a promise of a "gift" from a certifiable loon but walk away from £8m+ funding from grass-roots supporters, or stick with the status quo?

The extra offer is in addition to the extra £200,000 and the extra £300,000 donations he has already made, though. He is already a significant Labour party benefactor.

You're right that the additional £500k is a no-brainer and won't happen, though.

You're a card you are, How you can equate my comments to being self congratulatory is bizarre in the extreme, All I can think is that after the council had responded making you look quite foolish, you just went looking for another front to throw insults, I am a director of the Humber Sports Partnership that fund a lot of the clubs that use the Arena, and I make a comment about "being on their side" and you liken it to "Do you hear the people sing" from Les Miserables, it seems the only person on here shouting "Look at me" is you". You really need to take Kosh's advice and leave out the personnal attacks.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Indeed. Disappointing. www.theguardian.com/football/dav ... ett-tigers'" The article you quote doest spell out the fact Bartlett mortgaged Hull City AFC's user agreement with the SMC, not the stadium lease. So nothing to do with FC Dont forget he also sold 3 years season tickets to ticketmaster

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Indeed. Disappointing. www.theguardian.com/football/dav ... ett-tigers'" The article you quote doest spell out the fact Bartlett mortgaged Hull City AFC's user agreement with the SMC, not the stadium lease. So nothing to do with FC Dont forget he also sold 3 years season tickets to ticketmaster

Odd as i recall in one of Allams public rantings that he personally paid off the morgages on the SMC user agreement in qestion in order to save the club blah blah.

So as i undertsand, there are no morgages. CBA to drag up an article, its just too early in the morning

Do you reckon he allows Trade Unionism in his chugger factory?

I've already said I'm really pleased the council are doing their job. This is the third time I think.

Just to clarify your earlier comment, how many millions did Adam Pearson borrow against the SMC? The Guardian link posted referenced Bartlett.

Just read Stephen Brady was on Burnsy's show this morning. Any new insight?

He aint happy. The Allams are liars. Legal action going ahead for the breach of the terms of the lease.