Obadiah wrote:That is because there was goodwill on all sides. That has gone as was plainly obvious when the Allams evicted the sports groups from the Airco. The Allams do what is best for them as Ehab said in his interview with David Burns. If the upkeep of the KC is costing them millions each year the only way they can get out of that is by the Council revoking the lease and renegotiating a new arrangement for Hull City AFC's use of the KC. The Council become responsible for the repairs and Hull City just pay a fair rent.
Obadiah wrote:That is because there was goodwill on all sides. That has gone as was plainly obvious when the Allams evicted the sports groups from the Airco. The Allams do what is best for them as Ehab said in his interview with David Burns. If the upkeep of the KC is costing them millions each year the only way they can get out of that is by the Council revoking the lease and renegotiating a new arrangement for Hull City AFC's use of the KC. The Council become responsible for the repairs and Hull City just pay a fair rent.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12669 Location: Leicestershire.
Mrs Barista wrote:Surely if the SMC deal is terminated, the council will use it's new leisure management entity to operate the stadium. We can't really prejudge their cost allocation mechanics.
How would you feel about the council taking on that level of risk?
In all seriousness it would be potentially politically tricky.
Obadiah - if the Allams wanted shot of responsibility for the stadium, wouldn't simply winding up the SMC achieve the same end?
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Mild Rover wrote:How would you feel about the council taking on that level of risk?
In all seriousness it would be potentially politically tricky.
Obadiah - if the Allams wanted shot of responsibility for the stadium, wouldn't simply winding up the SMC achieve the same end?
The lease would be an asset and could be sold. Hull City AFC's agreement with the SMC would be void and they'd have to negotiate a new agreement with the new leaseholder. Far safer to let the Council take it back.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12669 Location: Leicestershire.
Obadiah wrote:The lease would be an asset and could be sold. Hull City AFC's agreement with the SMC would be void and they'd have to negotiate a new agreement with the new leaseholder. Far safer to let the Council take it back.
Ooh, that is an interesting wrinkle.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Obadiah wrote:The lease would be an asset and could be sold. Hull City AFC's agreement with the SMC would be void and they'd have to negotiate a new agreement with the new leaseholder. Far safer to let the Council take it back.
Obadiah wrote:The lease would be an asset and could be sold. Hull City AFC's agreement with the SMC would be void and they'd have to negotiate a new agreement with the new leaseholder. Far safer to let the Council take it back.
you clearly know nothing about Public Sector finance, crown expenditure, covenants, grant funding and the like.
Jake the Peg wrote:Is the lease still securing a debt with the RBS?
I think RBS have a floating charge over the assets (lease) of the SMC. The loan was made to the holding company who don't hold the lease. Although as a result of Allam contesting the legality of the loan there is a new agreement to repay over three years. I haven't checked to see if there is any additional security as a result.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
