www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-c ... l-bartlett I know it's not unusual for accounts to be filed late but when you read the rest of this article it does make you wonder what is going on here. Yes it's a Hull City related article but we do share the stadium.

www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-c ... l-bartlett I know it's not unusual for accounts to be filed late but when you read the rest of this article it does make you wonder what is going on here. Yes it's a Hull City related article but we do share the stadium.

The council own the stadium and appointed Pearson then Bartlett to run the SMC. IMO the SMC should be run independently of both clubs. If I were on the council, I'd be wanting a "belt and braces" audit of the SMC as the potential for dodgy intercompany transactions if City are in financial trouble is huge.

Couldn't agree more with that. The arguments for Hull City's accounts being filed late in the article are one thing but that should have absolutely no impact on the SMC accounts whatsoever. The council should be doing their own audit of the SMC already.

Personally not a fan of duffen or his SMC business since he flatley refused any of the four nations games could be played at the KC. We saw the 2007 NZ test series bring a massive rugby crowd to the KC and was probably the best game of the series. When both local sides are flying high potential rugby crowds look something like 24k (15k hull, 9k Kr) . Surely the massive rugby league following equal to that of our footsyball partners should be catered for as well,and then with loyal rugby fans from close teams such as wakey, cas,Leeds, bradford the KC could be filled.
And then I see he would be willing to let a match like northkorea vs Uruguay (or some other nil aspiring matches, we would be lucky to see the likes of england,brazil,italy,holland pooled here) play there in 2018.
I for one dont think someone who owns a team should then be allowed to run the stadium that is shared not only by his team but a team from another sport as well who are suppose to be equal in their ownership of the stadium, obviously he will favour the game that earns HIM money. Its a monoply to me.
I hope he sells and runs personally
I hope I got my point across!!!!

Duffen owns nothing. He's just the front man.

Russell Bartlett is the major share holder, a guy called Martin Walker, was along with Paul Duffen, involved in the take over from Adam Pearson at City.

Does anybody know who at the SMC is responsible for the commercial side of things?

Please explain ?

Do you mean intercompany transactions between Hull City and Hull FC ?

Surely against the law ?

No, nothing to do with FC. The point is that as far as I know the SMC are appointed as custodians of the £43.5m council-owned asset that is the KC stadium. I don't agree that having the same person/people on the board of both the SMC and one of the sporting clubs that plays there (ie City) is appropriate. From FC's point of view, the agreed rental is an arm's length transaction so there are no issues, but where you have common boards, there is potential for intercompany transactions to be manipulated. I've seen arbitrary management fees etc between related companies plenty of times. What I'm saying here is that, from an audit perspective, the council have placed their hugely expensive asset under the custodianship of an interested party, ie City, who appear to be in the financial mire. If I were at the council, I'd be all over the books like a rash. I'm not saying anything inappropriate has occurred, but the potential for it happening is definitely there, and IMO the council should have created an independent management team at SMC to avoid this eventuality.

Thanks for the reply Mrs Barista, but still unsure what you mean by inter company transactions.....what other companies apart from City and Hull FC are involved ?

Wrong

FC are not involved.

Then blame Richardson for not taking the place that was available.

The same (or very similar) shareholders own Hull City and the Stadium Management Company (SMC). The SMC has a contract from KUHCC to operate the stadium and receives income from :-

- Rents from HCAFC and HFC
- Catering and bar takings
- Executive box/coroporate hospitality
- Corporate events

What I think Mrs B is (quite rightly) saying is that there is such a close connection between Hull City and the SMC that there is the potential for creative accounting between the two

No, you are wrong.

The club gets income from the exec boxes at least.

Quote ="Bertie"Thanks for the reply Mrs Barista, but still unsure what you mean by inter company transactions.....what other companies apart from City and Hull FC are involved ?'" www.hullcityafc.net/page/WhosWho ... 38,00.html Your chairman is gets a mention here so it's more than likely rovers who are the "interlinked" club

Quote ="Bertie"Thanks for the reply Mrs Barista, but still unsure what you mean by inter company transactions.....what other companies apart from City and Hull FC are involved ?'" www.hullcityafc.net/page/WhosWho ... 38,00.html Your chairman is gets a mention here so it's more than likely rovers who are the "interlinked" club

can anyone explain in hull language please???

They are classed as "related parties" by virtue of common control.

can someone explain in 'hull' language please?

Is it the SMC that run the season pass sales for Hull FC? If so do the SMC take the money first and then pay it over to Hull FC? Anyone know?

Are you being deliberately stupid?

Hull City and the SMC, who run the ground, are owned by the same people

given that hull fc pay a rent to the stadium company - and some of this money here will come from us fans - then if any dodgy transfers are taking place between the smc and hull city then is our money indirectly involved?

I guess it depends how tenuous you want the word "indirectly" to be taken.

Yes, monies are paid to the SMC for rent of the facility, but that rent covers ground maintenance etc. and also forms the basis of the minimum amount the Council recieve.

IF, and it is a massive IF, there have been any irregularities it is more likely to be the loan taken out in advance of the TV monies has been diverted to prop up other associated businesses owned by Burnett, which would be very difficult unless you had some of the most "creative" accountants going.

Corporate Finance is notoriously complex, even more so given the requirements of the audit of Premiership Club accounts, the whole story has very little to do with FC, other than the fact that the SMC is our landlord, but ultimately they are only there because of the Counci.