I imagine they're confident of the offer being turned down. But making the offer puts additional pressure on the Council to come up with an alternative solution.

The timing of the other news is spectacularly bad, isn't it?

When the SMC was set up, it was to be jointly owned by the management of both clubs, but FC wouldn't pay their half of the costs, so it ended up being completely owned by the City management, who covered the costs in full(ironically, that was Adam Pearson).

As far as I'm aware there's no directors remuneration in the SMC accounts, so the money that goes in stays in, the Allam's don't take anything back out again, so the 'out of one pocket, into another' claim doesn't wash. If the council want to take control of the SMC, then they've just been invited to do so, but they won't because it loses money, which is the same reason no-one else will take it on either(the Allam's have this morning offered to make public every detail and agreement relating to the SMC accounts, they can do not more than this).

Like selling them the KC I would guess.

I said a couple of days ago that until the club respond we won't have the full picture. All we have are HDM assumptions and the Allams statement.

Directors remuneration isn't the only way to move money between companies owned by the same directors. You need to ask why there was around twice as much cash in the bank as there were posted losses in both years since the Allams took over, and what happened to that cash from one year to the next.

That would be the SMC accounts that since the Allams took over haven't been fully disclosed. Now if they open the agreement and accounts for all to see I will willingly accept I am wrong if it is found that they are run as independent parties.

I know the SMC was meant to be a joint venture, the fact FC never got on board is ridiculous and yet another failing of the old regime.

I'm sure that's at the root of all this.

I did not sense that the ultimate goal of that article was to make AP look bad, nor am I looking at this with rose tinted glasses. AP told smc to take the picture down I want to know why and shall be sending an e-mail like I did to all the Councillors etc earlier in the week when I like many others assumed it was down to the Allams.
If AP felt it was not in the best interest for the club not to pay the few hundred quid he should have told the fans why he had taken this decision, he now has to do that imo

I don't, it' just a ploy to push the Council and Hull into a corner.

I suspect he knew it was the thin end of the wedge and didn't want to go there. However, not communicating that in some way to the fans hasn't helped and I also reckon there are a lot of councilors at HCC who are now fed up with the situation having not been told the whole picture.

Comment from AP regarding SMC deal (last year ) www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... z2KxfYDxGt

Comment from AP regarding SMC deal (last year ) www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... z2KxfYDxGt

Indeed.
I can see the meeting now.
Allam 'I'll give what I offered previously'
Council 'Bugger off'
Allam 'Fine then take the running of it back and lose 500K a year'
Council 'Erm hang on'

I feel for you guys because it's looking like you are now stuck between a rack and a hard place.

My issue is what proof do we have that AP ordered the pictures to be taken down and what proof do we have that it was a few hundred pound?

Having read the articles in the mail. i think the allems are after a sympathy vote

Well I was furious when I thought it was the Allams who took Johnny's picture down and presently I am just as furious with AP, [ithis was all started because of the disrespect shown to our sporting hero,[/i that has not changed!! it is just that we now need to seek answers from AP instead of Allam.
We cannot stop this fight just because it maybe our own chairman who made the decision! we still want answers don't we ?

A direct quote in the press is pretty hard to defend, so [iI am assuming[/i it to be correct tbh.

I back Pearson in this, if the reason he instructed the SMC to take the pictures down was in protest at the new charges.
We've never heard AP complain about our agreement with the SMC and given the information that's come out its easy to understand why.
Any FC statement should only clarify their position on the pictures issue.

AP didn't order the pictures be taken down the Allams did. Now how much they were really asking to keep them up is the grey area and I agree that we have no proof what that figure was.

Or perhaps more realistically just allowing him to run the smc as a commercial entity, if they don't want to take it back and run it as a publicly subsidised community one.
The council and community can't transfer the commercial risk and still expect to call all the shots.

If he is willing to give it to the council, perhaps he would, for example, give it to AP. do you think AP would take it?

whoever is responsible or who has what level of responsibility thats what people want to know where ever your club allegiance is someone or more have disrespected a local hero

It was £300 per picture, it's not a grey area at all.

There is an easy way round this loss, tender out the services to a catering company say for £100k pa and the SMC's financial position improves £170k overnight (Rovers use this model)

If it is losing what he 'says' it is then no I doubt he would.

a lack of actual dates in the hdm article of when convicted it only mentions last year.

is it coincidence this story came out on the same day hdm has an exclusive with the allams??

be interested to know when Pearson actually got his ban.