Didn't Shane Richardson and Adam Pearson both agree that the SMC should have been independant of both clubs, only for Pearson to jump at the chance of running the SMC a few months later when Richardson had gone back to Oz?

I may be wrong about the events that lead to us not being represented on the SMC, either way, we were initially stiched up when the SMC was set up imo.

It appears to me that you know people who SAY they are connected to FC, they obviously know very little about the covenants on the KC Stadium, the agreements that were made to release the land (which was donated by the Council), the KC Stadium is highly unlikely to be sold, I'm not saying never, but certainly not over 24 hours courtesy of some poor journalism and even poorer trolling.

Any figures on the ratepayers' return on investment from everything that KUHCC have thrown at your lot over the years?

Spot on ..If I remember there was Funding money also from the EEC to be part of sporting for the Hull area. they could also put a block on it being sold off

OK, here are the facts as I understand them.

Pearson and Richardson agreed that neither club should manage the stadium, a separate management organisation should be formed, Pearson agreed and went into the relevant liscencing, insurances etc. and asked Richardson (or Hull FC) for about £100k to join the venture, Richardson delined (it's perceived that Richardson's move back to Aus was in the offing at this stage).

Hull FC have had many opportunities to get involved with the SMC, and declined each and every one of them. No stitch up at any point, other than our own board denying themselves an element of control.

The council bought back the freehold interest in Craven Park when Rovers were in administration to allow them to continue trading, and a 250 year peppercorn lease arrangement with KCD (formerly Gaingroup) is now in place. So I'd guess feckall is your answer.

Whilst i hate myself for it...lol I agree basically with what your saying !

What i cant understand is ...
1. Why couldnt we do as in the case with huddersfield
both f.c and city own %age remainder hcc owned.
2. If its not making the revenue that hcc thought it would be, why cant the hcc run it themselves? they could claw back a far better return, plus open it up for a lot more events and activities, think on how much lost revenue Duffen cost the stadium,?

They don't SAY they are connected, they ARE connected both in the playing and board side of matters.

Right, so we now have property and local authority covenant law experts playing for FC, and on the board.

Haven't you got a bridge to run?

Hey I never said anybody I knew was an expert on anything. They do however have close contact with people who DO know what's happening and ARE experts.

You honestly don't believe that people like JR haven't got a good idea of what's going on and what could happen? They have their own legal teams too you know.

Information like this soon finds it's way through the organisation, just like at any other big company eg Smith and Nephew. Their staff have known what was revealed in today's paper months ago. What makes Hull's staff any different?

OK, lets start at the beginning, you're a troll.

actually, that kind of covers the middle and the end of it too.

run along and talk about your club, leave FC to those of us who have a vested (positive) interest.

That's quite separate from the initial sale of Poorhouse Lane too

Was I having a go, I was merely stating that on a £43 million layout, a return of 47k is bad for the ratepayers of Hull, whichever team you follow. Do you think its acceptable that someone has trousered millions on the back of no personal outlay, I wasn't suggesting for one minute that FC have not paid there way, in fact with the over 7.5k deal and the rent I reckon they will have shelled out 47k a week.

Indeed. An inconvenient truth.

1-100 is may favourite KR stat, wasn't that wht they paid in the pound to their creditors?

You could say the same about The Guildhall, City Hall, Costello, East Park, Ferens Art Gallery and every museum in the city. How much do any of them contribute?

Slight difference in a £43 million stadium that makes money by the bucket, even if we had 30% of it I bet it would be a shed load that could be utilised on much needed spending by the council. I don't want it sold, I want it to bring in cash for the good of the city, but if it is sold even for the original outlay its the equivilant to over 7,300 years of returns at current return rates. Even you as a blinkered B&W cannot believe the ratepayers have had a good deal (this included FC fans as well) with what has been returned so far.

If they wanted to 'give back to the people of hull' why 14,000 off by kicking them out? Aren't family members fans/season pass holders at hull fc?

Absolute tosh. FC and City pay a commercial rent, which I know is an alien concept to a Rovers supporter benefitting from a 250 year peppercorn lease. City make a loss and FC a small profit. What are you suggesting here, that FC and City pay a rent over a commercial rate?

Fair do's. As I said I wasn't 100% sure on the events that lead to us not been represented on the SMC, and it seems we can only have ourselves to blame if you are correct.

However, not having reprecentation on the SMC shouldn't open the gates to Hull FC been treated differently to the other tennants of the stadium, which is certainly what happened in the early days.

At the time of the KC opening, a family friend who at that time was a duel Hull City and Hull FC season pass holder encountered some strange goings on. As the KC opened part way through the football season, he went to the KC to pay his money to be able to park in the south stand car park. He paid by cheque and was asked to make this payable to Hull City AFC.

Before the start of the super league season, he went back to the KC to pay for the same car parking spot for the duration of Hull Fc's season, again paying by cheque, only this time he had to make it payable to the SMC. He questioned this and explained that for the football season his money went to Hull city for the same service and he was told that there must have been a mistke as it should go to the SMC.

Later that summer he was back at the KC, wanting to secure the same car parking pass for the football season. I presume that you have already guessed, but I'll tell you anyway, he was asked to make his cheque payable to Hull City AFC. He refused, kicked up a stink and got a full refund on his Hull City season pass and has never been to see them since.

There may be a simple explanation for this, and i'm not suggesting it still goes on, but would this have happened had the council run the stadium themselves or at least got someone independant of both clubs to manage it for them?

Call me paranoid if you like, but I would be very worried if someone connected soley with Hull City was allowed to purchase the KC. Hopefully, because of the reasons you have pointed out earlier in this thread, that won't happen

I have a vested interest in the KC as I am a Hull City fan. Don't tell me where I can and can't post, if you don't like what I have to say, ignore it, simple.

There's a nice foe option.

[size=200WHERE THE F'CK DID I SAY THAT THEY HAVE NOT PAID A COMMERCIAL RENT[/size



If you read it properly before jumping on your high horse as usual, its about the end return to the RATEPAYERS of Hull, I don't for one minute doubt that FC and City have paid a commercial rent, I don't doubt that the concerts have made a big profit, I don't doubt that the stadium as a whole is a fantastic money making entity, my concern is that someone other than the ratepayers of Hull are trousering the rent paid by both clubs, the catering profits, the concert profits. The ratepayers have had a return over 8 years of 47k on a £43 million investment, surely even a biased sod like you understands that its not been a very good venture for the RATEPAYERS of Hull

this is my biggest concern.

they are 'rich' compared to the general population, but in the Oilgarch and Sheik filled world of football they aren't.

as you say they have already laid out a significant sum just paying off the debts.

I trust Mr Allam has the city's best interests at heart, but at the same time I am very concerned about what happens if he does his financial problems, and the stadium gets sold to some faceless investment group who fleece Hull and City dry.

You're an utter loon. The council bought the stadium for the community and charged the SMC with its guardianship. At the end of the SMC contract the council will still have an asset, including the land. If the SMC were making a massive profit to return to the council, they would be ripping off its tenants, charging them over the odds compared to the costs of the KC stewardship. How many concerts have there been exactly? Do you think the costs of staging a concert are immaterial? The stadium was bought, like most public assets, as an investment for the benefit of the community and in this case through an exceptional windfall. The fact is that the costs of its upkeep are being met at no cost to the taxpayer but entirely at the expense of Hull City and Hull FC. We're in effect servicing a public asset sat on the council's balance sheet on your behalf. As a taxpayer you should be thanking us for looking after your property and providing you with a modest return. What "return" as a tax payer are you getting from the double glazing?