You mean the council that have refused to sell the stadium to him already, that he won't speak to, and who are considering whether what he is currently proposing is actually permitted under the terms of the contract? That council? They seem to be doing the opposite of what you're saying.

I'm pretty sure the council said they would consider any offer he made for the stadium.

They would have to consider but equally have to avoid doing anything that could be deemed harmful to the Hull ratepayers as they could be held personally responsible. Suppose for example Allam offered to buy the stadium for £200 million - then the council could defend themselves by arguing they got a great deal for the ratepayers. But I'm not losing any sleep over that scenario because the great philanthropist won't even go near the market value, let alone add sweeteners to push the deal through. I rather suspect their preferred reply would be along the lines of go forth and multiply you thieving spiv but decorum has to be maintained.

Exactly.

'Seem' to be doing, there's a big difference between the bag of wind that are local councils and actual action.
And if you were an impartial councillor and were offered X amount for the stadium which would go a long way toward reducing the plight of the coffers of said council which in turn directly benefits the ratepayers (something that the stadium currently isn't doing nor will do going forward) then you would be under pressure to act on that offer if it benefitted the majority as opposed to a distinct minority.
In the same position you would consider the sale of a property that gives zero income but caused so much problems to be far easier to sell outright than to retain against the money/time spent to maintain the status quo and the reducing value of an aging stadium.
Can you not understand how that that is not a great stretch to see that as a possibility?

There are rules that councils have to follow for the sale of community assets. They won't be able to flog it off cheap, and Allam won't pay the market rate. In fact so far he hasn't offered to pay anything at all.

There are different rules also I think on different expenditure and income types. I don't think councils are allowed to simply sell off public assets to shore up revenue budget deficits.

I don't pretend to know anything about the working of councils and expenditure v income etc, but I do believe, all councils have a legal requirement to ensure expenditure does not exceed council income. A lot of councils over the last few years have sold council houses and public land etc to balance the books so what is the difference with selling off stadiums, leisure facilities and such like?
And after 60 odd pages of City, should we be concerned it is apparent plenty of supporters are and the way things are panning right rightly so.

Quite correct. Sale of a capital asset doesn't give any revenue for day to day spending. It increases the ability to spend and borrow further capital. It might support a major road repair or two. I think the council are keeping their powder dry and following the required protocols.

Never mind buying the smc, I hope they are looking at terminating the lease and leaving the smc as a company with nothing to run and lots of paper debt.

Brilliant solution for the immediate problem.

But could the council undertake the running of and maintenance of the stadium? Bearing in mind why the SMC was created in that way in the first place (albeit with an honest businessman with integrity at the helm), so that the council and ratepayers of Hull would not bear these costs?

If a similar company is created the council would have the problems of finding someone who wants to undertake it and ensuring that a similar debacle could not ensue, as a result of subsequent changes in ownership. There is also the issue of the potential changes in control of the council - the Bartlett-Allam sale which seems to have caused the problems occurring under the LibDem's watch. They, of course, have always maintained their disinterest in the stadium mainly, it would appear, because they short-sightedly opposed it's building in the first place. We only need another change in council control for gung-ho decisions and transactions made without due diligence from the current incumbents as owners for the same spaghetti mess as we are seeing at the present time to evolve.

Any creation of a 'new SMC' would have to have watertight clauses attached regarding any subsequent sale of the new company. Would they find a buyer to comply?