They don't want much do they. The salary is nowhere near enough for this JD. Stick another 20k on it and they might get the calibre of person capable of this actually interested.

Adam was never implicated as i've already pointed out, I made a mistake, I had a figure in my head that Adam got for the SMC and confused it with Russell Bartlett's loan, I hope that puts it to bed now, what is more relevant was the point you made in the edit which is spot on.

If only there was someone in Hull with a track record of managing the SMC to make a profit

And a £50k / £60k job and they've used the "If you haven't heard from us within 2 weeks please assume you were unsuccessful" line.

They must be expecting a flood of applicants to not be able to afford a stamp for the "thanks but no thanks" letter.

hopefully after the weekend I hope to be in a position to answer most of those questions.

That's John North job that is advertised and I see the facility Managers job (the next level down) is also being advertised as well. Knowing John North as I do from a past life I don't think he will have been pushed, he knows the job inside out, he built to blooming place, so one can only assume that these current post holders have had enough.

As for Webbo's input on here I think that whatever his sporting affiliations its good that a someone in such authority comes on here and tries to explain the situation even if he did get one fact woefully wrong, thanks for that and I'll look forward to those answers should they be forthcoming! (Come on you Bulls

)

I've been pondering this scenario:

Allam wants to sell City. It's a difficult market and few are interested and the SMC is a further ball and chain which future buyers don't want. He can't spell City without the SMC as he would be left holding that putrid baby - the SMC is completely unattractive as a lone company.

He has to get rid of the SMC whilst retaining what he's owed from it (anything between £4-£6M if estimates are correct). He offers to sell it to the council for a pound. Refused.

So he creates a situation where the council are forced to intervene. I think he hoped the council would step in and take over the SMC debt and all. I don't think he's expecting they can terminate the lease - he seems from the letters we've seen to believe he has adhered to the terms and is legally compliant. We all know his pig-headedness and self belief even when confronted with all evidence to the contrary. He probable has top-class lawyers who he believes can make this stick.

It's up to the council to prove a breach. If he can get away with it the council cannot terminate the lease and cast him adrift owing himself money. But they would be pressured by the furore to seize ownership, thus undertaking the debt too. Allam is remains a massive creditor in this situation and it's a win-win for him.

It's a crazy bet, but is this the way he's thinking? Like Mrs B, I can't see what his strategy is in all this if not something along these lines.

I personally am really beginning to wonder if he actually wants to sell City. A premiership football club is not an unattractive proposition. The billions of pounds sterling that are flooding into the game makes even a "modest" purchase of £60 - £70m recoup able. That pays off Allams loan to the club and he disappears. The SMC and a relatively small debt (in the circumstances of prem football income) could easily be added to the cost of buying City and a nominal fee of £1 buys the SMC by the council or even Adam. Hell I'd buy it for a quid debt free.
The mad doctor gets his cash, sails off down the Nile and we and all sports fans in the East Riding get on with enjoying our clubs on field activities.

I maybe looking at this in a very simplistic way, but I'd guess buyers are queuing up ordinarily to buy Premiership clubs. Even when they are relegated next month

they will still be a very attractive proposition.
That's what makes me genuinely feel he has no real desire to flog city.

Wasn't it John north that was employed by the Council when the agreement with the SMC was drawn up, and then jumped across not long afterwards?

He was in the paper this week bleating on about the floodlights.

That's how I see it. The council are in a difficult position. Having Allam sued could just leave the CC holding the baby. Allam gets rid of the SMC and also gets new lights for free.
The CC cannot be left in control of the SMC and is debt once the dust has settled.

No one will pay top dollar for a premier league club who don't have control over their own stadium so allam doesn't want to lose this. The SMC debt is small change to the allams and only about 10% of what the football club owe him. There is no big plan here. He is a bully who thinks he can do what he wants because he's rich. If the council do take action it will be against the smc and the ultimate sanction will be that the lease agreement could be cancelled. I don't think the smc has any debts secured on the lease any more so this complication is gone but I don't see the council having any interest in taking back control

If you own an insolvent company you don't have to put your own money into it to pay its debts. You can put it into liquidation and the creditors are paid out of the assets - if any. The council could take control of the SMC, terminate the lease and wind up the company. If Allam was the only or major creditor and had to whistle for his money would anyone care?

Interesting scenario. And no.

If this is indeed the case, then building up debt in the SMC might not be the most sensible thing to do.

THANKS FOR THE REMINDER WILF

It's not that simple. The SMC owns a lease which has a commercial value so any owner of the company can't just liquidate it and walk away from any debts.

My understanding of the agreement is that City and FC are the major users and the agreement is with the council. It was for twenty five years, with an additional twenty five to follow with some safeguards, such as rent/charges linked to other stadiums like Halton , Huddesfield and will be independent of any SMC control. If SMC changes or goes bust this has no effect on the agreement on the major users, I know the Lib Dems did there very best to mess it all up but I do not think they can have altered these main planks of the agreement.

Now clearly if there is a change of the way the stadium is run and it indeed it goes to the city council then we may have to look at costs etc. I for the life of me can not see why we are suddenly a drain on the economics of the stadium unless of course its part of the plan. I know when Adam Pearson heard about FCs deal when he was citys boss he was not impressed one bit as I do think Richo got us a good deal overall. Now what the little Pharaoh is really up to is beyond me, but he has managed to alienate just about everyone in the UK with Liverpool supporters now boycotting the KC because he wants to charge them £48.

Cheers Phil for the council input, not a bad lad really shame he comes from the dark side

If the council terminates the lease the company has no value whatsoever.

Not only that, what would the value of the lease be exactly? Since the SMC loses money (now, suddenly, despite previously turning a profit on lower utilisation) it can't be ascribed a value as there's no projected future earning potential attached to it.

Quite. You could value the lease on the projected rental income to the end of the term less anticipated costs. However Allam would have us believe that the rental income doesn't cover the running costs so there is no profit. Even if the lease was not terminated by the council a liquidator of the SMC could disclaim it as being onerous.

Interesting, Diogenes.

So is this the answer? The council take control and liquidate, owing the creditors, RBS and Allam, millions?

Would a local authority legally be able to buy/obtain a company:

a) knowing the amount of debt to be millions, and

b) with the intention to purchase in order to liquidate.

Is it legal for the council to obtain the SMC under these conditions?