Nonsense.

I realise that you can't see the big picture and that's OK. It seems you would rather Hull had paid the fee without issue - fair enough it's a view but not one I share. You gave up today on Hull FC which again is your prerogative but thankfully most are standing behind the club.

You really have shown your true colours on this thread, you have abused people who may have opposite opinions to you (and they are only opinions because you know as little as any-one else!!), you threaten posters with bans yet believe you can just start to call people thickos! you really are an embarrassment.

When you are at the KC next for the Warrington ( ? ) game , have a look up at a lot of the paintwork as an example on the steelwork inside the stadium , a lot of paintwork is peeling quite badly . Though that might be the pigeons fault !

Any building after 10 years will need repairs & maintenance and certainly more than it did after 4 years for example .

Oh well. Guess I'll just have to learn to live without your approval.

Agreed

If you buy a company you do something called "Due diligence". That throws up issues both current and potential future problems. Didn't the SMC's owners do this ? Why not ?

I gave up on Hull FC ?

are you drinking ?

I reserve judgement on whether they should have paid the bill or not, I want to know why they have chosen not to, which has resulted in a picture of a legend in this city being removed from its rightful home. If Hull FC believe the cost was an unreasonable request I want them to explain why they consider this to be the case.
Blind faith is not always the way as we have learnt in the past!

I recommend writing an email to Pearson. I'm sure he'll give it the consideration it deserves.

I'll give you credit for stamina but you have as much vision as a fifth choice half back. No need to fall out further we disagree but respect you as a fan.

Best change her name to Sally Seymour

I am fully aware of Due Diligence , thank you very much . Any Due Diligence could still throw up surprises once a takeover has happened and I dare say whoever they used would have been a highly professional auditing firm . The repair costs increase may well have been expected to kick in later in the life of the building and so the SMC would have the choice to begin charging upfront to build up reserves ready for this or it may have taken the policy of commencing extra charges when the extra expenses occurred .

It looks like the revenues could be fixed for a number of years and costs could well be going up and so it is easy to get into a loss situation then .

Interestingly the potential £500k claim on the council seems to be do with missing warranties which probably means repairs still have to be done but no paperwork exists to be able claim under the warranty . Whether these were forthcoming at Due Diligence , only a few people would know this .

Simple everyone thought that the pictures in the JW suite were not included due to the fact that the council put them there as a tribute to JW.

Well said,the rules kosh goes by are if you disagree with him you are a thicko,wonder what he wants to be when he grows up.? Maybe a moderator.!!

Maybe the paint wasn't peeling the day that the due dligence guys turned up. Who knows ? The due diligence guys would either have insisted on seeing these spurious warranties or else they were never really in play. As you say who knows but what is for certain is that it's nowt to do with either tenant.

It's also easy to register a loss when you leave £1.2m and ~£800k 'cash in hand' in the bank at the end of the financial year. Coincidentally around twice the posted loss in each case.


If I've read correctly the repairs have already been made and the claim is retrospective to cover costs already incurred. This is quite an odd situation as warranty certs are rarely needed on a building like the KC where it's easy to prove who provided what and when.

There are no statements that suggest that is true, it is just people on here who claim to be in the know saying it.Having read the first thread on this topic there are a lot of things which people claimed to know which now appears to be quite far off the mark.

Well they say you can tell the measure of a man by the quality of his enemies.

Have to say I'm a tad disappointed.

Kosh - you on your period? If so I understand some of your comments tonight.
.

Just based on what Ehab Allam said in the HDM?

Apparently it's gospel now.

Just out of patience with numpties.

Also helps to blow off steam during a tense game.

Having spent a year as as a moderator on a very busy message board, I'd say the most important thing is to go unnoticed and just tidy up in the background.

Slagging off fellow posters rarely goes down well.

Which is probably why I'm no longer a moderator.

No, however the failure of FC to put a statement out about the Whitley pictures will always leave a bitter taste that there maybe an element of truth in what Allam has said, in which case I would be disappointed that our memorabilia was not respected. I want to know why FC will not pay the fee if as reported it is only a few hundred quid or is it down to principle that they do not agree with it, and if so are they going to challenge the new cost.

Cash & Profit are two different things and it is not improbable to have a loss but money in the bank , accruals could have been taken for work done but not paid yet and so the cash is still in the bank . It is often why businesses do not pay near their year end to maximise their cash balance at the year end .