He's probably inferring that Mr Allam will make life difficult for Hull FC if he doesn't get his own way.
Or maybe not.

Well, I realise that. When doesn't Allam love to make things difficult? But I wondered if Obadiah had heard something specific. Seems a bit random to associate Hull FC with the Airco situation otherwise.

If the court finds the SMC is in breach of the lease what are Hull City Council going to do if the Allams refuse to remove the pitch? Are they going to let the SMC keep the lease? What happens if the lease goes back to the Council?

I haven't heard anything but I like to think through all the possible consequences. I'm sure the Council will have thought that far ahead as well.

could a court remove the control of the smc from the allams?

maybe the council have sounded 'someone' out to take over the smc if the allams are stripped of the control!

The SMC belongs to the Allams they would have to sell it for someone to take it over.

The council can "evict" the SMC from the KC complex for a breach the terms of the lease. If the court finds in their favour over the Airco they would have legal grounds for terminating the lease.

Anyone taking over the running of the complex would have to negotiate new agreements with Hull FC and Hull City AFC for the use of the stadium.

Complicated isn't it? No wonder Hull City Council have taken their time. Hopefully they've spent it wisely and asked all the right questions.

I think it would be in both clubs interests to agree a deal with the new lease holders of the KC. Maybe Allam is looking for a reason to blame the council for moving City to Melton?

No, but it could remove control of the stadium from the SMC.

it could all get very messy (and expensive!) I am not sure if the lease is HCC>SMC>Hull FC or if it's HCC>Hull FC and the SMC are managing agents.....one for Wilf?

Hull City AFC and Hull FC have user rights but have no legal interest as tenants, according to the City Council.

Under the current agreement Hull City AFC paid rent of nearly £5 million for the KC in the year ending 30 June 2014. West Ham will pay £1m a year for the Olympic Stadium. If the lease goes back to the Council do you think they'll get anywhere near £5 million a year rent?

Hull FC paid around half a million in rent. According to the accounts that doesn't cover the costs. I'm sure the Council have thought all this through.

you got a link to the comment about no legal agreement?

So from some of the comments on here you are suggesting that Allam maybe happy to lose the KC and renegotiate the lease to reduce the £5m p.a. rent? If this can not be done the spin would be council kick out City from the stadium. Also Hull FC can't afford the KC without another club to help with the bills.

What are the legal implications if the council were to take the KC off SMC and gift it to a joint partnership/company with an interested party. The joint company would own the KC and use equity to develop the land around the stadium and gain an income from this to help fund the running of the stadium without our championship soccer team? Profits would be shared and the council will gain additional rates from the development.

The Council couldn't borrow against a crown asset.

Where are you getting that West Ham figure from? Their rental terms are being kept confidential, and the rumours are £2m+, not £1m. Plus, naming rights for the stadium will be up for grabs as a further income possibility for the LLDC, rather than nailed on for a local firm. I'd wager they'll make much more money that way than KC likely pay., as they also will through their catering.

Also, have you seen the amount of uproar currently going on about how beneficial to West Ham and detrimental to the taxpayer the whole deal has been?

I've no idea what sort of rent might be renegotiated with City/the Council, but the West Ham comparison is fundamentally flawed and meaningless.

The figure of nearly £5m (£4.3m, I believe) drops down to £3.2m the previous year, so the rental must be very flexible.

Linked to number of games and the 2013/14 cup run?

The comparison was a poor one, IMO.

The deal is that good they can reduce season tickets and match day tickets by almost 50%

£2 million is still significantly less than £4.3 million. The naming rights are irrelevant as the KC has already been named, unless the Council take the opportunity to rename the stadium. KC presumably has a contract with the SMC not the Council for the naming rights.

I understand the rent Hull City AFC and Hull FC pay is calculated on revenue from pass and ticket sales (including cash). The last accounts did not take into account the large increase in prices and we only had two FA Cup matches at home.

If the Council take back the lease then the rent will be negotiated between the council and Hull City AFC. The old agreement will be dead in the water. I expect it to be considerably less than what Hull City AFC are paying now.

....apart from city playing 4 more home league games in 2012/13, and one FA cup game, (and just 2 FA cup home games in 2013/14).

Could they gift or sell this below the market value to another company and if so could they be a shareholder in the company?

Really? Slightly surprised.

I still think it was a strange comparison given that the West Ham deal that is getting huge amounts of bad press for it's perceived lack of commercial sense, has been declared confidential, and the rumoured amounts are at least double the amount plucked for the comparison.

...aaaah, I thought you were referring to my comment about city's last 2 "rentals" as being a poor comparison!

Not entirely irrelevant, it's a potential additional revenue stream that may be taken into account when agreeing rental terms. It has already been quoted that the profile of West Ham has been considered as a way to increase the earning potential of it, too.



It may well be less, I have no idea. I just think it's flawed to support that belief with the evidence of a deal elsewhere that is being highly criticised for being undervalued, and also concerns a team with significantly higher average attendance and a stadium more than twice the size.

No, sorry, Obadiah's. He seems to be suggesting that City should pay significantly less rent on the basis that West Ham have seemingly managed to bag a ridiculously beneficial deal at the expense of the taxpayer.

The rent Hull City AFC would pay would be based on market rates. West Ham, Manchester City and Swansea City all pay similar amount in rent and well below what City pays the SMC. West Ham has been criticised publicly, Swansea City Council was investigated by the EU and I have seen nothing but praise for what Manchester City have done for East Manchester.

Now if Hull City AFC were paying significantly less for stadium hire than other association football clubs then they may well have to continue paying £4m plus a year. But they aren't.

The rent Hull City AFC would pay to the council if the lease was revoked will not be based on the market rates in London, Manchester and Swansea. It will be based on the market rate in Hull and in particular what other users of the stadium pay for its hire per match.

Having issued the writ there's a lot for the Council to consider.