The council can't (wouldn't want to anyway) take control of the smc which is a private ltd co owned by the allams. ?They do have the option of taking legal action to effectively cancel the lease agreement but I can't ever see them going down that route personally
Joined: Mar 11 2007 Posts: 5659 Location: Next to Ramsgate Sands c.1850 in West Hull
Jake the Peg wrote:The council can't (wouldn't want to anyway) take control of the smc which is a private ltd co owned by the allams. ?They do have the option of taking legal action to effectively cancel the lease agreement but I can't ever see them going down that route personally
If they don't then it's carte blanche as far as the Allams are concerned. Their tentacles would be free to extend in all directions with tenacious grip and poison.
It would be the beginning of the end for us, I truly believe.
Philip Larkin wrote:
There ain’t no music East side of this city That’s mellow like mine is, That’s mellow like mine.
WormInHand wrote:If they don't then it's carte blanche as far as the Allams are concerned. Their tentacles would be free to extend in all directions with tenacious grip and poison.
It would be the beginning of the end for us, I truly believe.
I doubt they have the balls to fight allam over the lease as a whole, only challenging isolated breaches. We could always lease caravan park 14 times a year
Joined: Mar 11 2007 Posts: 5659 Location: Next to Ramsgate Sands c.1850 in West Hull
phil webbo wrote:You see the problem is Mrs B, you always portray yourself as the all seeing oracle, with quotes to hand to prove your point at the drop of a hat, yet where are your newspaper clippings showing how the Lib Dems watered down the original SMC agreement? the one that has got us in this mess, your right we are custodians, but of what? we can only work with the agreement that was signed betwwen the then council and the SMC, if you think we are just sat here doing nothing it is maybe yourself that is just shouting emotional BS, like I said Hull FC and the other spots clubs have the same rights to use the facilities as Hull City AFC, We will be taking this as far as the law and the contract allows us, and you can't underestimate the part the court of public opinion will play in this matter, your personal insults are ill directed as on this matter I am firmly on the side of the small sports clubs and HULL FC, (just ask Adam) and lets be fair you really don't know whats going on.
What's all this? Were the terms of the agreement changed when Bartlett bought City, or what?
What changes were made?
Philip Larkin wrote:
There ain’t no music East side of this city That’s mellow like mine is, That’s mellow like mine.
Last edited by WormInHand on Thu Apr 16, 2015 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Aug 01 2005 Posts: 5916 Location: Definately not in the Cuddle Crew
WormInHand wrote:Completely agree. In addition, as a rate payer in Hull I expect the council to protect our assets and services. The cost of legal action is small change compared to the value of the assets we stand to lose. Not only would I be happy for the council to fund such legal action on our behalf, I expect it. To do nothing now I would consider a negligent act by the council and would certainly be making noises and challenging at whatever level necessary.
I really hope Brady does not seriously consider any legal bill to be an obstacle and was merely expressing apprehension as to a possible reaction from some citizens of Hull out of empathy for the hard times we're in.
Ill ask him next time i see him. I do beleive hes on 'our' side bit is careful in what he says
Joined: Mar 11 2007 Posts: 5659 Location: Next to Ramsgate Sands c.1850 in West Hull
Jake the Peg wrote:I doubt they have the balls to fight allam over the lease as a whole, only challenging isolated breaches. We could always lease caravan park 14 times a year
We may have to!
I don't think the council have had the stomach for this so far, either. There's the cost issue and we have no idea what the "new" SMC lease terms are. Legally unsurmountable? Plus they probably have pressure from the central Labour party who are grateful to the benefactor and don't want him rattled (played a blinder there, did ultra-conservative Assam).
But most importantly, until the Allams breached the lease agreement, the only course of action open to the council was to take over the SMC, debts and all. Obviously a non-starter.
With the actual laying of the pitch the lease terms have been broken. It is only now the council can follow the second path of termination of the contract and casting the SMC adrift complete with their own debts. I hope the council realise it's now or never. And it will be "never" for us and a lot of others under the Allam influence if they don't. They may not want to, but they now have to.
Philip Larkin wrote:
There ain’t no music East side of this city That’s mellow like mine is, That’s mellow like mine.
Joined: Mar 11 2007 Posts: 5659 Location: Next to Ramsgate Sands c.1850 in West Hull
Sebasteeno wrote:Ill ask him next time i see him. I do beleive hes on 'our' side bit is careful in what he says
Don't get me wrong, I like and trust Mr Brady. I just hope he isn't letting himself be constrained by legal costs which are really of little consequence given the scale of the situation now. It will cost far far more if he lets this little concern prevent action. Like not wanting spend money on the reel of cotton that prevents the stitch turning into nine. Or in this case a massive gaping rent that can never be repaired.
Philip Larkin wrote:
There ain’t no music East side of this city That’s mellow like mine is, That’s mellow like mine.
Mrs Barista wrote:Just a question on the council putting in an application on the dome pitch. Who's paying for it? (the pitch that is, not the planning application).
Surely if the Planning is put in place any NEW owner would then use it. Council don't have to build anything (as a house with planning in place for extension)
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
WormInHand wrote:Plus they probably have pressure from the central Labour party who are grateful to the benefactor and don't want him rattled (played a blinder there, did ultra-conservative Assam).
Just remember there was a very BIG caveat to Allam's offer of £500k extra support. It was only offered if Labour walked away from trades union support. So what would you do: accept a promise of a "gift" from a certifiable loon but walk away from £8m+ funding from grass-roots supporters, or stick with the status quo?
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Joined: Mar 11 2007 Posts: 5659 Location: Next to Ramsgate Sands c.1850 in West Hull
The extra offer is in addition to the extra £200,000 and the extra £300,000 donations he has already made, though. He is already a significant Labour party benefactor.
You're right that the additional £500k is a no-brainer and won't happen, though.
Philip Larkin wrote:
There ain’t no music East side of this city That’s mellow like mine is, That’s mellow like mine.
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
