Just got in and don't know what I've missed reaction wise, need to get to St Helens, but it would seem that:
Shane and Kath played a blinder on the deal and its revisions
We've been misled about the terms being punitive. That said, I'd like to know what figure Huddersfield and Wigan pay.
The principle of introducing new charges for pictures is ridiculous, but in the context of the commercial strain FC place on the SMC, if this report is true, understandable in part.
There are still unasked questions about the SMC's accounts, cash balance and step change in profitability.
I think there should be a statement from FC to draw some sort of line in the sand.

I thought the principle of renting any thing was you payed the required amount,if the rent goes up you pay the new rent not the old one.If you refused to pay the increased rent you get warned that if you dont pay up the baliffs will move in and take your pictures down.Once you get the pictures took down you let your fans try to defend you,not knowing what has gone on,in the meantime you get banned from driving.
The landlord then explains how the situation really is while you have nothing to say to defend yourself because you know your guilty.
Bit similar to the situation when ap was sacked by the allams,the silence of adams defence was deafening.!!

Thanks for your input. Its nice to have a real expert's point of view, but unfortunately that's not you.

I have watched with interest in the growing mess that this has all become, it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

1) SMC informed FC about the removal of wall art if they did not pay the required amount for the dipslays to remain, FC declined to pay. SMC removed all the wall art slowly since last year and removed the JW stuff with the last couple of weeks. If and its a big if, SMC where legal in charging for the wall art fair enough and equally fair enough FC refusing to pay. Where SMC went wrong and where it upset most of us was the JW photo removal, that was bang out of order and they need to put that back ASAP or continue looking petty.

The Bon Jovi picture in the KC I presume who is paying for that ?

2) The stadium agreement was a good one for us and I am always defending any move to alter it. Now if SMC is having some problems clearly FC need to look at it but I need convincing that an operation that was operating at a small profit can go to losing thousnads in such a short space of time. Its not as if both clubs are suffering low gates or not using the food outlets. Something is clearly wrong and they need to address it. I suspect things went badly worng pre Mr Allams takeover and there is a burden built in now there was not there before. The rent was fixed and agreed when we moved in and if city are paying a Million and us £600k I would say that was about right given the number of matches we both play. We have stewerds payed for as part of the stadium, I understand city are required a set number of police officers which Humberside police set that is hardy our fault.

3) This has never been and should not be turned into a FC v City bun fight it does niether of us any good. We have genuine concerns about the way this has all been handled and I can see why the Tigers have roared in the defence of there saviour, its natural.

4) There could well be some sort of PR excercise going on and manourverings in regard to the ownership of the KC stadium, its operation and future. We shall see, but the way its stands at the moment puts this city in a poor light and that can not be good in difficult times.

Bit thick, aren't you? Go and read up on what's happening again. Maybe next time you post you can avoid embarrassing yourself.

Not yet it isn't. But then your head is so far up Allams backside all you can hear is your voice echoing around his colon.

Oh, look - another thicko.

I'd suggest you try to keep up, but it's well beyond you.

Obviously you don't know me, but I was one of Assem's biggest critics over the Barmby situation.

I'm always honest, I post my praise and my criticism in equal measure.

If you did know me, you wouldn't have posted that comment, one of us is blinkered and it's not me.

Would the blinkered one of us be the one claiming that the truth is out while only having heard one side of the story?

Possibly, ask me if anyone ever offers another side to the story.

Slight thread drift, are you a mate of Millsy ?

Thats a surprise you disagreeing,maybe I have got it wrong and paying what you owe isnt the right thing to do,still I dont support fc,so what would I know.?

When AP was 'sacked' his retort to the Allams was "See you in court" - he hasnt commented since,
I wonder why.





(confidentiality clause is a clue)



You dont support FC, That's a surprise! - I wonder who you do support

You seem to be very touchy today,anyone would have thought your beloved club is at fault but thats never the case is it.? You seem to be squirming on their behalf,still in adam you trust.! lol.!

Tell me who Millsy is and I'll tell you if he's my mate.

We have got a very important game on at the moment mate - why dont you go of now a practice your City songs for tomorrow - oh but !

I have a low tolerance for thickos.

And to be honest by calling you a thicko he, being a mod, has given carte blanche to anyone using derogatory comments and namecalling.
Just saying like. Kosh you thicko

Kosh is a thicko at maths

I'll only post on threads relating to topics that I think involve Hull City, I won't mess with any other threads.

Jesus wept.

Odd. Because this thread is about a disagreement between Hull FC, the SMC, and the Council. Not sure where the City involvement is TBH.

City fans are sticking up for their beloved leader. The one that they will inevitably turn on eventually, as sure as eggs are eggs.

But based on the revelations today , it does involve Hull City since it looks like any SMC losses in the past were covered by extra charges been put on Hull City and not FC . Hence why City fans such as Lambrettaman & GaryinCottingham are commenting on this thread .

The extra charges (if there were any) were made on City by the owners of City. In other words, a loss was moved from one company to another owned by the same people. Still not seeing the relevance to FC.

Oh - and garyincottingham is a Rovers fan.