www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... z2KqrsOyhT

www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... z2KqrsOyhT

And how many gullable people will take all that in, my guess is most of the population of Hull

HDM in the Allams pocket again.

The points around rates and utilities is probably fair. The mortgage point is spurious as the SMC purchase was included in the overall deal, as is the maintenance point therefore- condition of the assets and cost of remedy should have been reflected in the company purchase price. Point 2f is my favourite. The numbers are different now because we've changed how we do them.



Of course, FC have a right of reply. Oh, hang on, that confidentiality clause must only work one way.

Been following this story and reading these posts with bated breath. I generally take a back seat and listen intently to what goes on. This man is dangerous in the extreme. Be very careful. One or two posts had the right idea, should have gone along with The Judge`s.

You think so? Well you may not be around for long to contribute much more then.

I voiced an opinion, is that not allowed on here? Or are they only allowed if you agree with them?

This has now gone way beyond petty, it is a reflection of just how nasty the Allams are.

The claims made in the HDM article point once more to the need for an urgent forensic audit of the SMC's accounts. I reckon it would come in costing a damn sight less than the £500k claim against the Council

Try reading the AUP. You know, the terms and conditions of using this site that you agreed to when you signed up.

Read them mate, no contravention there then!

Going to be an interesting day, he's basically accused the council of being inept, almost to a point of criminality. I hope Geraghty and his pals have the balls for the fight, I fear they don't.

Well after reading the latest drivel and biased journalism in the local rag (if you can call it journalism) it confirms the thoughts I posted earlier in this thread.

The Allams are now cranking up the pressure on HCC by putting the KC Stadium into a financial mess (or making appear as though it is) in the hope it leaves the Council no option but to hand over the KC to them and they can then laud over the City they have yet again saved it. The questions that need asking by the Council to the SMC is why since the Allams tenure there is now no sponsor for the Arena, no basketball team playing out of it, why the hockey is looking like relocating etc etc etc.

The guy is a an out and out bully and the Council need to stand up strong and look at all avenues possible to remove the Allams from the SMC before they destroy the KC Stadium.

I just wish for once the local media would actually grow a set and do some proper hard investigative journalism on this guy and the actual issue rather than giving him free PR and laying down like fecking lapdogs at his feet and acting like bleeding stooges!!!

Not sure what to think after reading the SMC statement. Impossible to know what's true or not without hearing from the council and Hull FC.

Must have missed this one then:

1.2. Messages that are in contradiction with British law, or that promote any act that’s against British law, are prohibited on this site.

That would include posting agreement with any post that contravenes the above rule.

The problem is that the club are effectively gagged by the terms of their lease. The SMC apparently aren't. That means we're only going to get one side of the story.

'Rugby related costs.' I'd be interested to see how Hull FC supposedly rack up more of the loss than Hull City. I have a strong suspicion that the 'exceptional repairs' and grounds maintenance etc may have been split down the middle, despite City using the ground around 2/3rds more often. Just can't see how we can cause more than twice the amount of losses City do with less use of the stadium.

Also, HDM shouldn't be criticised too much for printing the statement. They ran the feature on Johnny Whiteley, they are now rightly publishing the response, and will probably also print any response they now receive to that. It's not like they've said they agree with/believe it.

In which case it's hard to make an informed opinion personally. It's easy to think of the Allams being the bad guys, not saying they are not, but someof what they say could be true.

My experience of things like this is that it's usually a bit of both.

Could some sort of protest be organised for Hull's next home game vs Warrington?

The Whiteley masks was a good idea, or a boycot of the food & drink outlets (does that money go to the SMC or is it a separate catering company?).

10,000+ Hull fans holding up an A4 sized slogan each saying 'We want an independant SMC' (or something similar), would get peoples attention too.

Correct - all the best lies contain an element of truth. For instance, CS makes a good point above about the 'Rugby Related Costs', as does Mrs B about the convenient change in accounting practice.

Usually a confidentiality clause is binding to all parties, That's why the Allam's using the SMC to actually make this statement has surprised me.

The fact that they are giving out figures relating to Hull Fc and the Council has to be in breach of any clause if Hull Fc can not make a response as to why they refuse to pay for for any pictures being put up in the stadium

The SMC made a modest profit for the years up until the Allams took it on, FACT, the SMC had £1.2m in the bank at the last set of accounts, but still posted a loss, FACT.

There's something odd about the situation.

Lots of management speak nonsense in that statement which is basically designed to pull the wool over the eyes of stupid people. So they've 'benchmarked' the cost of hanging up pictures, in my experience 'benchmarking' is always used as an excuse to hide behind dubious decisions. And as for the change in accounting practices I nearly died laughing at that one.

Seems to me that the last sentence appears to be an add on, just appears like.
The Judge, for whatever reason posted that `******** only understand one thing that is a ******tap to the forehead`. Now that was neither promoting, contradicting or condoning said act, merely a statement of what he considered to be a fact.
Anyway, the Allams have upped the tempo somewhat by blaming the HCC for inadequacies in the SMC`s financial viability. Surely they perused previous years accounts and digested the financial implications of such accounts.
As for the pitches needing relaying at a cost of 1.5 million then that is just pie in the sky, the pitch when we hand it over is always immaculate so where do they conjure these figures from.

I am pretty sure neither Huddersfield nor Wigan pay extra, but then, their stadia are managed by independent bodies.

lets face it, this whole issue is finished, most will believe the HDM article, the club can't say anything.

Anyone still want to say the SMC user agreement is not a mill stone round the clubs neck?