Whilst the money does go up city still owe around £18m even if they stay up, If there was any truth in this story surely bbc sky etc would have picked up on it

You'd imagine they would.

They owe 18mill. The sky money goes up by about 20mill i think so it would easily finance taking more debt on.

the premier league cant just kick city out of the premier league like that its not like they have franchise systems anyway, we dont need to worry as city will be going down, like someone said we have a 100 year lease with it looked at after 25 years so were in it for another 17 years. all i can say is the premier league and city can go and f&ck off

Can you really see Bartlett spending that money on satdium when the team has struggled to avoid relegation for two seasons (and thats assuming they survive in the top flight, which I see no signs of just yet)

There are very few football fans in the Hull City Council cabinet.

As it stands at the minute the Pearson has said that they have to borrow each month to pay wages, they plan to build a new training ground near goole if they stay up,

I'l be amazed if city have the funds or can get the finance bearing inmind what the accounts have said in their last 2 reports.

how very forward thinking.

Does anyone really think that FC or City could AFFORD to be sole tenant in the KC?

they going down anyway

The point here though is city will find the funds if the ultimatum is given to them by the premier league. An agreement would be found between FC and City via the SMC and i'm pretty sure we would move out to a new ground through hefty compensation. (it is likely to never happen but if the premier league did instruct City that they had to be sole occupants)

They would have to give at least 3 years notice, and in those three years City would probably get relegated anyway, meaning it was an expenisve and pointless exercise.

Buying the stadium, land (including Walton Street) etc. would be at least £80m, FC would want at least £250k compensation for every year of the lease left remaining (the full lease, not just the period until the next negotiation), so at 85 years around £20m (to pay for the new stadium).

Then there would be the inevitable legal challenges, the fact that the FA could no longer be seen to allow Man U use Old Trafford for Rugby, or Wembley for anything other than football.

More chance of getting DoDo burgers at Catalans away.

As you say, it's highly unlikely but not impossible.

To be honest, it must be a slow news day or something, well, at least for sports writers!

1) The stadium can not be sold the council tied it up very well

2) There are two joint main users Hull city and Hull FC, they are protected by the user agreement from each other and anyone else.

Its someones attempt at stirring

1) They'll find a way if they need to.

2) Yes they are protected which is why we've been discussing compensation for one of the users.

If City do stay up and it’s a big if one obstacle to finding someone to buy them is the fact the KC doesn’t belong to them. If the City Council did agree to the sale of the stadium this could make the purchase of the club an attractive proposition. Would the Council then upgrade the Boulevard with a portion of the proceeds?

There is a point at which the probability of something happening so closely approaches zero that to all intents and purposes it can be considered to be impossible.

This is getting into that territory.

Is it? Why?


Again, why? City have lost money hand over fist without the cost of a single-use stadium hanging round their necks. If anything outright ownership of an expensive stadium that can only be used for soccer would make the club significantly [iless[/i attractive.


If the council sold the stadium we wouldn't [ineed[/i an upgraded Boulevard - we could afford to build our own stadium if we so wished.

KC Groundman has already stated that its the Football that causes most damage to the pitch, not the rugby.

The fact that Hull City hasn’t any assets is an obstacle for any prospective buyer.
The present owner of the club stated in the past that he needed to develop the stadium to make it a more viable proposition.

Wouldnt stop the premier league throwing it's weight around.

Agree

Nothing story in a rubbish newspaper, with one not very interesting quote. Wouldn't lose any sleep over it.



Purely hypothetical, but could you really? You'd be looking at maybe £20m. I doubt you'd get anything like that as compensation.

A stadium is only an asset if it brings in more cash than it costs. The KC would not do that as a single occupancy stadium.


A more viable proposition how? If he was talking about getting more punters in he would need a team capable of competing. And he'd need a pretty big crowd increase to match the income from having FC play there.

But if/when City go to the wall, we will be sole occupiers of the KC!

(unless grimsby move in

)

Nobody is. It's quite good fun stringing the poor Rovers troll along though.




Take a look at Standee's calculation, and bear in mind that we would be in rather a strong negotiating position. A figure in that order would be quite possible, which is one of the reasons why a sale would be so unlikely to happen.

25 year lease for hull fc

50 years for wigan warriors.

SIMPLES.

if they dont want teams sharing then city and latics have worring times.