A tenancy agreement can be with anyone who has a legal right to use/occupy property. Have you never heard of sub letting?

I don't know either way, but there is every chance that the club have a tenancy agreement with the SMC unless someone has actually had sight of the document. The fact that the SMC have allegedly varied the rental agreement would lead me to think that it may well be them who hold the original lease

Looks like the worm's blown your theory out of the water. The lease is an asset of the SMC and, as such, may possibly be sold on. there could (and probably are) clauses to restrict this. there is certainly significant commercial value in the lease so there would likely be prospective buyers of the SMC if it were put into receivership

Is it? Wouldn't that depend on whether they bought it outright or had a staged payment/continuing payment arrangement?

In any case it doesn't materially affect FC's exposure.

In this particular case the Head Lease and sub leases were set up at the same time with a very well defined set of criteria. The SMC (or whoever else holds the Head Lease) has very limited scope for alteration of the terms of the sub leases.

Of course a lease is an asset. Do you have any understanding of leasehold property?

You're backtracking quicker than a french tank

[url=http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/HULL-CITY-Tigers-hit-claims-club-finances/article-1344374-detail/article.htmlWhat a shame for the ill informed football haters[/url

Only a very basic understanding. I would have thought that a lease is an asset if you own it outright but not if it is purchased under staged payments. I could be wrong, which is why I phrased it as a question and not a statement.

The SMC make payments to the council from the proceeds of running the KC. Whether these count as ongoing payment for the lease or are covered under a condition of the lease I don't know.

All rivalry aside I can't see how anything that relates to any financial irregularities by the SMC and or Hull City Football Club would have any implications to Hull FC.

There maybe a period of uncertainty and if another management team is installed but perhaps this could be considered a positive if a new 'rugby friendly regime' is adopted.

However there may be much ado about nothing until anything concrete is founded - Best scenario may be a new SMC anyway!

I must admit if I received a letter telling me I "appear to be labouring under the misapprehension" about something and referring to "outposts of the Hull Civic empire" I'd not be happy. Just having money and a nice job doesn't exclude you from using common courtesy in a letter. He just comes across as a tit from that.

Whilst you may be convinced by that article, it would appear that it has done little to ease the worries of quite a few city supporters who appear to be far from ill informed. (See BBC 606 site for City)

Not a fadge?

I vote for Basil to be put in charge of the SMC!

Oh yeah - forgot the word of the week!

I'm convinced by an independent audit by Deloitte's, certainly as far as the football club is concerned. I also know enough about corporate finance to know that they wouldn't get away with moving money between related business entities without it being transparent.

Easiest way for City and Duffen to put these stories to bed is to issue the accounts, simple.

What an 'up his own back side, Wanger' he sounds !!

Which they will do once the auditors are happy, as they have already said.

As a regular poster on here once said, "[ithings could get messy[/i".

I can't understand why everyone is getting so worked up about this.

The stadium is leased by the council to the SMC.

The lease will provide (as all leases do) that in the event of SMC's insolvency the lease will revert to the council.

The council would then have to operate the stadium itself (as some local authorities do) or appoint another operator.

The demise of the SMC or indeed Hull City would not threaten FC.

Personally I wish Duffen would just file the damned accounts so this boring thread can end.

Calm down it's only a thread!

It's only been on here 24 hours, calm down

Don't let him see the threads on Cooke or "Joynt's voluntary tackle"

That was my understanding of the situation. However, JTP has raised the possibility of the lease being counted as an asset of the SMC in any insolvency action and TBH I have no idea if that might be correct or not.

Ah, ok then