Hope the Hull FC under 19s can do the same before an Super League match
Like f**k
Also fans who stay to watch the reserves get a free hot drink, you know from those food and drink stalls that cost an absolute fortune to run at rugby games
The Milky Bar Kid wrote:City under 21st are playing at the KC Stadium against Mansfield after Hull City AFC v Newcastle United
Hope the Hull FC under 19s can do the same before an Super League match
Like f**k
Also fans who stay to watch the reserves get a free hot drink, you know from those food and drink stalls that cost an absolute fortune to run at rugby games
I think we should be worried clearly the heat is being turned up, now is it the club he hates, does he want the sole use of the stadium ?
Or is it he dislikes our chairman and his side kick so much ?
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.;
Joined: Mar 11 2007 Posts: 5659 Location: Next to Ramsgate Sands c.1850 in West Hull
He's never had the purpose of the SMC to the fore during his ownership - i.e., running the stadium as a community stadium for the benefit of the people of Hull who own it. In doing so, maximise profits so as to plough them into the stadium to enable never-before-seen events to be staged in the city. That's "the city", not "City".
While I can see the logic of the council in offloading the running and costs of the stadium to a third party while retaining ownership, they were naive in accepting the terms and conditions presented by the then owners. A lot relied on the integrity and honesty of Pearson to do the right thing. And he did. But how foolish to think that any new owner would share that sense of honour. For every Pearson there's a thousand mercenary, ruthless megalomaniacs. As we're seeing, in my opinion, now and with the last lot. Appalling advice seems to have been taken by the council on the setting of the terms of the lease.
Pearson, tragically, is now hoisted by his own petard. But the other losers are the people of Hull. I'm fuming on both counts.
Philip Larkin wrote:
There ain’t no music East side of this city That’s mellow like mine is, That’s mellow like mine.
Sorry but the council at the time is completely to blame, it was a clear opportunity for them to recoup back some of the money as well as enable the facilities to be used by more people. Even the debacle of paying to use their own facility has being brushed under the carpet, £72,500PA paid out (over £1/2mill total) for only £49K (equivalent to £1M actual profit) payment over 12 years!
IF the council had run the stadium the salary costs would be miniscule compared to that of a private company run solely for profit paying out their owner and subservients large sums of money. It has always been in the best interests of the SMC to keep the profit as low as is possible and as has being shown running it at a loss even as a tool/leverage. Here's one of the latest documents from HCC https://cmis.hullcc.gov.uk/CMIS/Documen ... Ff55vVA%3D
Allowing the city youth team to play on the pitch regularly & even allowing city to train on it doesn't give an equal balance of use within the terms of the lease for both parties? How can the council just let this stand, expecially since the atestation of the former groundsman says it is the soccer that kn@ckers the pitch in any case..deliberately damaging an integral part of the stadium to stick a thumb in the eye of the co-users should be deemed to be against the lease terms. The council are bottleless feckwits
Sorry but the council at the time is completely to blame, it was a clear opportunity for them to recoup back some of the money as well as enable the facilities to be used by more people. Even the debacle of paying to use their own facility has being brushed under the carpet, £72,500PA paid out (over £1/2mill total) for only £49K (equivalent to £1M actual profit) payment over 12 years!
IF the council had run the stadium the salary costs would be miniscule compared to that of a private company run solely for profit paying out their owner and subservients large sums of money. It has always been in the best interests of the SMC to keep the profit as low as is possible and as has being shown running it at a loss even as a tool/leverage. Here's one of the latest documents from HCC https://cmis.hullcc.gov.uk/CMIS/Documen ... Ff55vVA%3D
Allowing the city youth team to play on the pitch regularly & even allowing city to train on it doesn't give an equal balance of use within the terms of the lease for both parties? How can the council just let this stand, expecially since the atestation of the former groundsman says it is the soccer that kn@ckers the pitch in any case..deliberately damaging an integral part of the stadium to stick a thumb in the eye of the co-users should be deemed to be against the lease terms. The council are bottleless feckwits
B0NES wrote:Heard they will be more u21's fixtures played at the KC if they get promoted . And we can't even practice kicking a ball .
You heard right. Think HDM stated something on the lines of the further up the 'fixture divisions' (these graded divisions are sorted via training facilities, coaching capabilities etc) the more games have to be played at the first team ground. This being a non-negotiable Football League rule.
[quote="knockersbumpMKII"]Sorry but the council at the time is completely to blame, it was a clear opportunity for them to recoup back some of the money as well as enable the facilities to be used by more people. Even the debacle of paying to use their own facility has being brushed under the carpet, £72,500PA paid out (over £1/2mill total) for only £49K (equivalent to £1M actual profit) payment over 12 years!
IF the council had run the stadium the salary costs would be miniscule compared to that of a private company run solely for profit paying out their owner and subservients large sums of money. It has always been in the best interests of the SMC to keep the profit as low as is possible and as has being shown running it at a loss even as a tool/leverage. Here's one of the latest documents from HCC https://cmis.hullcc.gov.uk/CMIS/Document.ashx?
Allowing the city youth team to play on the pitch regularly & even allowing city to train on it doesn't give an equal balance of use within the terms of the lease for both parties? How can the council just let this stand, expecially since the atestation of the former groundsman says it is the soccer that kn@ckers the pitch in any case..deliberately damaging an integral part of the stadium to stick a thumb in the eye of the co-users should be deemed to be against the lease terms. The council are bottleless feckwits
In theory you are correct. In practice however the council have demonstrated over many years that they are unable to run anything efficiently.
[quote="knockersbumpMKII"]Sorry but the council at the time is completely to blame, it was a clear opportunity for them to recoup back some of the money as well as enable the facilities to be used by more people. Even the debacle of paying to use their own facility has being brushed under the carpet, £72,500PA paid out (over £1/2mill total) for only £49K (equivalent to £1M actual profit) payment over 12 years!
IF the council had run the stadium the salary costs would be miniscule compared to that of a private company run solely for profit paying out their owner and subservients large sums of money. It has always been in the best interests of the SMC to keep the profit as low as is possible and as has being shown running it at a loss even as a tool/leverage. Here's one of the latest documents from HCC https://cmis.hullcc.gov.uk/CMIS/Document.ashx?
Allowing the city youth team to play on the pitch regularly & even allowing city to train on it doesn't give an equal balance of use within the terms of the lease for both parties? How can the council just let this stand, expecially since the atestation of the former groundsman says it is the soccer that kn@ckers the pitch in any case..deliberately damaging an integral part of the stadium to stick a thumb in the eye of the co-users should be deemed to be against the lease terms. The council are bottleless feckwits
In theory you are correct. In practice however the council have demonstrated over many years that they are unable to run anything efficiently.
Users browsing this forum: Cuddleclub, Google Adsense [Bot] and 153 guests
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
