It can't be counted as an asset if the lease itself states that it reverts to the landlord automatically on the tenant becoming insolvent.

Even in the absence of such a clause the tenant's liquidator will usually disclaim (surrender) the lease because rather than being an asset it is treated as a liability due to the continuing requirement to pay rent.

A lease cannot usually be assigned (transferred) by the tenant to another party without the landlord's permission. Where it is assigned the new tenant becomes responsible for the tenant's obligations under the lease.

Feels like a clear conflict of interest to me.

The only problem I could see is if SMC went belly up and FC had not been paid the season pass money. I have no idea as to the financial set up between FC and SMC other then SMC collect money for ticket sales on FCs behalf. I do know FC did look at setting up there own ticketing set up a couple of years ago and I am sure that they did not persue it further due to lack of room and costs.


Any distruption to in the operation of the stadium will have some effect on the clubs using it. Clearly things are not as they should be and no doubt in the fullness of time they will become clearer and resolve themselves.

Hopefully no one will suffer

What length of contract do the current SMC have to provide this service?

I'm not sure if there's a contract involved as such. The SMC holds the Head Lease to the stadium and that gives them certain rights and responsibilities. I imagine that the agreement runs for as long as the term of the Head Lease, although probably subject to review during that period.

As our lease is 25 years the Head Lease must be at least that long.

The head lease given when the stadium was built was 50 years so i presume theyve got about 40 left.

Did they buy the lease from the company that Pearson set up then? How did the management of the stadium transfer as ltd companies?

The company changed hands. The lease didn't have to move anywhere.

Quote ="Big Dave T"What length of contract do the current SMC have to provide this service?'" 50 years www.hullfc.com/hullfc/contents/?page_id=34

Quote ="Big Dave T"What length of contract do the current SMC have to provide this service?'" 50 years www.hullfc.com/hullfc/contents/?page_id=34

I can't see the council will allow us to be thrown onto the streets even if the SMC did go belly up....especially with a crowd of 13000 avge. This is twice the amount of people who voted in the last local elections

What I was meaning is that the leaseholder is the SMC which as a corporate entity can be bought and sold and retain ownership of the lease, which I presume does have commercial value. Obviously, if they liquidate then it will be forfeit

Correct. If the ownership of SMC changes hands the lease remains with SMC.

If SMC goes into liquidation the lease reverts to the council.

Ah ok, thats the answer i was looking for. They bought the company then from Pearson et al.

The more i hear about the SMC been a seperate independant company i question why the council dont set up a function and manage it themselves and take the profit? Wonder what the rationale is for effectively sub-letting the stadium?

By leasing the stadium out it made it difficult for the city council to sell the stadium within that fifty years



At the end of the fifty years the stadium will be past it anyway, so in around 30 years time you ( that are still around) will be looking at a new stadium

Fair points!



Slide different slant, will it ever pay for itself?

Its making money if thats what you mean, it can't fail too at the moment. I don't think it was set up to pay for itself, but money should be salted away against future expediture if and when it is required.

It has been noticed that there is now grass growing in the superstructure, always a sign of neglect or corner cutting.



Look above the East stand, great big chunks of it coming out of the water channels

I can just imagine how well and how efficiently the stadium would be run in public hands





They can't even get the fecking bins emptied

Fair point!!



(wasnt actually meaning public hands, the council do have numerous ltd companies that they own, maybe they could have just set their own SMC up)

Why didn't you let any of us know this before now? It would have given us something to watch this season!

the council as usual completely cocked it up. It was stated in the HDM the other year that the council actually pays to rent the office/learning space in a stadium it built with its cash!

they handed over far too much control IMO, I can understand the rational in having a private company do the day to day running of the company, but they seem to have little control now.

i dont know of any other businesses that have built a product and rented it out to only then rent space back!

ffs at least you fc fans have somat to talk about...............now the seasons over.

Yours will be over next weekend on the evidence of tonight's performance.

Duffen's still not convincing me with his comments in todays HDM

apparently Turner needed to be sold to help the club 'evolve' funny, I'd have thought keeping a player who's been voted player of the season 2 years in a row would have helped the club evolve. And getting rid of the deadwood would be the better option.

he's also likened the collapsed £12million deal to buy Negredo from Madrid (which I never really thought would happen...) to buying a car on credit, and saying they never had £12million to pay up front anyway.

as I said in a previous post, City, FC and KR have had more than their fair share of dodgy chairmen and silly decisions for the fans not to be cynical.

Ive had it from a decent source that one of city's money men is a little tight at the minute making wage bills tighter than they should be.

Ive also queried why HCC would build the stadium and then have to rent some units back and was told thats just how things happen. Dont want to make any accusations on here but i think some of thecouncillors making the decisions may have had their own agendas.

you have to wonder if the SMC are getting the very best rent deal from City as well given the conflict of interest? It should be an independent SMC with a % of profit being kept by the company and the remainder being returend to the council.

The fact they wouldn't let the Int RL game be played there despite its potential to earn over 100K says alot