A leaseholder has rights but also has additional responsibilities. If the council can lawfully terminate the lease it can make whatever future arrangements it wants for the future running of the stadium. This may or may not involve granting a new lease to someone else or running it through an arms length company.

Anyone can bring a legal case. Bringing one successfully is something else entirely.

Interesting that the video is by Les Mutrie, I assume the same Les Mutrie who used to grace the team.

Meeting tomorrow, Phil.

From your earlier post I guess the "FM" contract (Financial Management?) is a sub-contract within the SMC one? A bit like a tenant renting a bedroom to another tenant?

But in this case the bedroom in question forms the pillars that hold up the building - i.e., the FM contract is the critical financial key that allows access to the rest of the SMC obligations. Take the FM contract away and it's like leaving a set of lungs stagnant with no air - the FM contract is the breath?

Adam looked bronzed and happy at Bramall Lane today.

Sleep well and speak well tomorrow.

Sir, I am indebted to you - thank you for your comprehensive and exhausting reply

. There's a lot in there that I - and I'm sure a lot on here - haven't realised before.

Salient points for me - looks like the lease is breached (slammed ball into the council's court - don't flinch, Brady!) and if the lawyers are a bit pants then he really must be a delusional megalomaniac.

Tomorrow's council meetings may chuck out further clues.

Unless the Council told the Allams they would be putting the SMC into liquidation to get the lease back it would be a potential offence under Section 2 (1) of the Fraud Act 2006. Section 12 covers companies and their directors.

Its possible that the Hull City Tigers Limited's loans are perfectly legitimate. Assem Allam gets his money from the interest Allamhouse charges Hull City, and its more than £3 million a year.

As I've said I believe the SMC has breached the terms of the lease and the lease can be terminated. Once the lease is terminated the Council have control of the KC and the Arena. Unless they already have a new leaseholder in place they will be solely responsible for running the KC. What will they do about the Arena, removing the 3g pitch and repairing any damage costs money? The SMC has no income so the costs cannot be recoverable. What about the rent Hull FC and Hull City AFC pay. If they pay in advance they will be creditors of the SMC and the Council doesn't have to honour the SMC's contracts. The council has a further problem given all the complaints about the original deal being so poor in terms of returns to the council. Finally they have decide whether they give control away again with a new lease or just employ a "letting agent" to manage the property.

Facilities Management I'd guess. They'd cover everything from the fabric of the building (electrics, walls, ceilings, floors, plumbing etc, to the cleaning & grounds maintenance.

Had the meeting this morning with Steve, He is adamant that they (SMC) have 10 days to return the Arena to its former state (7 days left) or action will DEFINATELY be taken regardless of cost, he said "the only way that the 3G pitch stays down is if a court rules against us" so it looks like the battle lines have been draw no if buts or maybe's, He does however go on to say that he will work with them to get the academy upgrade still, personally I think it's to late to offer olive branches to them as they have a long history now of deception, as is proven on the Allam out web page, where he clearly says, re- the name change "if the FA allow it but the fans don't want it, it wont change" so much for the ballot of fans that went against him.

Sounds promising - can I ask a couple of questions on the council's mood?
Is success now defined as getting the pitch removed then "as you were", or to change the SMC set-up altogether given the repeated antagonism to the world and his dog of the current operators? Kind of feels like the Allams backing down on the pitch would be a battle won, but leave them with the artillery to win the war. Put another way, if they do nothing, will the action be to send in contractors to remove the pitch or to remove the SMC as operators?

What sort of support will be offered on the academy upgrade, do we know yet?

The long history of deception started with the lies about a Sporting Village Gift which he said specifically wasn't about financial benefit, followed up by talk of a supermarket and boutiques for wives to shop in whilst men went to the game, ending up with a name change being imperative because they were relying on cash from their private development of the stadium area to fund Hull City, a private limited company. Good luck with getting the local media (Angus Young apart) to call any of this out. They seem to be in his pocket.

I dont know a great deal of this Allam individual and avoid anything to do with the Tigers to be honest but cutting through all the technical admin in depth on here is it simple to say he is a very devious individual with more twists and turns than a pack of Torchio
How on earth did the council ever let this fellow be involved

It would be a battle won, but not a small one if you take into account the Councils relationship with said individuals, The aim of this action is not to bring down the SMC but to ensure that the sports that were to all intent and purpose evicted, given their access back, The Council not only needs to be seen to be taking the moral highground but also acting in a resposible manner, but there is a feeling within cabinet that should any possible court action open up other possibilities we would be remiss to not explore any and all options, An earlier post mentioned the council wouldn't want to touch this but would want to pass the FM on is quite right, That said we have now set up an arms length sports and arts company which could act in a transitional manner until other arrangements could be made,
People need to remember that we put this contract out not to eaarn money but to stop it cost money as the stadium ages.

As for help and support for the academy, The FA have always listened to representations from the council and we could offer officer help with the manner of the planning application.

I don't expect any help from the media, I'm sure people will remember when Burnsy made some criticism of the club he was banned from the ground on matchday, so I can't see the BBC being vocal anytime soon, even Levy who ALWAYS plays the Devils advocate took it easy with him, strange that the criticism of Terry Geraghty's handling of the meetings in the early days had people calling him and saying he must go, makes you think now!

I think everyone has to wait to see what the SMC's response to the Councils ultimatum is, as soon as I know you will.

Great news..

I for one ,would like to convey my support to the Council on this matter.

Good that an alternative operator could assume the SMC role straightaway.


Most people with an ounce of sense can appreciate this.


Makes sense. Just unsure that the Allams want to be seen as relying on your assistance.


Burnsy's gone further than that and said he thought a deal should have been done for Allam to have the stadium. Feel embarrassed for him now as the recent performance so completely vindicates the decision not to do business with Allam (if there were ever a deal on the table). If he'd been given West Park and so on you could well imagine the breaches of Planning restrictions left, right and centre, given the actions as a lessee of the arena! The HDM aren't much better. It's pretty disappointing that the integrity to report in a balanced way on the SMC and custodianship point is compromised to ensure the inside track on the football. Cheers for this information, look forward to the updates.

Burnsy went one step further... He stated that the Council should initiate the negotiations again, so much for a 'balanced' journalist eh?

Burnsy is apprehensive of losing media coverage from Hull City & exclusive interviews from the Allam's as the BBC are only too aware, of the sensationalist ramblings and controversial outbursts, which mean one thing.. listener's ratings.

Lost all credibility when at a Press Conference Allam said to him "David, you know I'm a man of my word. When have I ever not done what I said I would do?" and there was a tumbleweed silence.

If he's playing dumb, it's a helluva convincing act.

Top photoshopping!

No it wouldn't be an offence because there would be no false representation. Silence cant amount to a representation unless in response to a direct question. There would only be a problem if the council actively misled the Allams as to their intentions for the company after any transfer of the SMC.

I think this is just confusing the issue, there will be no transfer of the SMC, it is a private FM company owned by a third party and nothing what so ever to do with the council, It's the lease and the FM contract that falls within the remit of the council, so should a court find The SMC in breach and the lease and contract revert back to the council the company (SMC) would still exist and be registered at company's house albeit without the contract, where they went with any attached debt and as a trading entity is entirely their business, and what the council did with the contract is theirs.

I think we were talking about the scenario where the council accepted Allam's offer to take the SMC. As you rightly say the key to it all is whether the council could lawfully terminate the lease. If it can and if it chooses to do so (and I accept it may not want to) it could cost Allam a lot of money.

Representation can be expressed or implied (Section 2 (4)). If the Council bought the SMC the clear implication, unless stated otherwise, is that it would continue trading. Putting it into liquidation shortly afterwards would be false representation under the terms of the Act.

As phil webbo says it is irrelevant as the Council aren't going to buy the SMC.

What is more relevant though is will the freehold of the KC remain with the Council or be transferred to the new sports and leisure company? Will the council via its new company offer tenancies to Hull FC and Hull City AFC for continued use of the KC if it terminates the lease?

I'm sure they would. What would be interesting though, is whether this time they'd do it to be more attractive to the clubs or more attractive to potential operators. The indications seem to be that the council would again seek to protect themselves from losses, by finding somebody to manage it - perhaps after a transitional period under council control.

Difficult negotiation. The clubs could make a reasonable case that they should get existing terms. Though I think all sides could benefit from a simplified deal.
The stadium needs the clubs and the clubs need the stadium. The clubs might push for a better deal, but the council can't to run it a big loss, either politically or economically. And apparently doesn't want to be stuck holding the baby. The council might ideally want more from the clubs, but there's a limit to what Hull FC, in particular, can afford and City will see no reason why they should pay more.
Perhaps, the deal could or should be made directly between the clubs and the new operator. That'd be an intriguing game of chicken. But it'd probably pan out alright. Mutually assured destruction, innit?