Joined: Mar 11 2007 Posts: 5659 Location: Next to Ramsgate Sands c.1850 in West Hull
ccs wrote:I think Mr Allam's trump card is the fact that the council (allegedly) allowed Bartlett to mortgage the SMC to the tune of £4m, which, in effect, allows any owner of the SMC to indebt the company for any amount, despite the fact that it has no tangible assets. The SMC accounts suggest to me that Mr Allam has made sure that the SMC owes him as much as is possible. How he's done this, I'm sure, is perfectly legal and above board.
If and when he goes, all these debts will be paid off by the new incumbent , and he won't have lost a penny.
Yep (again!). People think he's out-of-touch and oblivious. Rubbish. He's extremely astute and clever. I think he will "win".
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: Oct 26 2007 Posts: 2570 Location: East Hull is Wonderful
WormInHand wrote:Hello Man-in-the-sand, and welcome.
Thanks for answering my question - it's impossible to the council to legally take over the SMC and immediately liquidate knowing the financial situation.
I guess its a similar situation as to when Allam expected to be gifted the stadium and objected to the council's refusal - there are personal as well as moral and legal implications for the councillors.
I know the last SMC accounts to 2014 showed the RBS debt as still outstanding. Allam has gone on record as saying this debt has been repaid - is that since the last account submission or is he once again waxing lyrical for the media?
I understand the current SMC debt remains (approx) £2M to the bank and £4M to Allam himself. Am I correct?
And (sorry to bombard), but do you think there are sufficient grounds to terminate the SMC lease. this is the woolly point I can't believe Allam would leave himself exposed to. I'm of the belief he knows his lawyers are good enough to prove compliance. . Just my hunch, from observation of his previous...
It's not a case of taking over the SMC that is a company set up by Adam that was awarded the contract for the FM of the facilities, The council do not need to take over the SMC, the key to this is the FM contract, The council, if they were to win in court then would just cancel the contract and re award it, the debt to the company is an irrelevance, the value is the contract which cannot have debt attached, one senario is that should the SMC lose the contract, then it would be quite legal say for instance for Adam to set up a new FM company to manage the re submitted contract . and the Allams would still have absolute control of the SMC with no contract or assets just debt and unable to do anything about the facilities.
Barton Flyer wrote:texted my son to say light at the end of the tunnel, unfortunately it was a train coming! Re:- Rovers v Salford 29/03/09
HFC Boy wrote:Hull FC have not risen to the Challenge of Hull KR .
Success consists of getting up just one more time than you've fallen down.
Joined: Aug 01 2005 Posts: 5916 Location: Definately not in the Cuddle Crew
phil webbo wrote:It's not a case of taking over the SMC that is a company set up by Adam that was awarded the contract for the FM of the facilities, The council do not need to take over the SMC, the key to this is the FM contract, The council, if they were to win in court then would just cancel the contract and re award it, the debt to the company is an irrelevance, the value is the contract which cannot have debt attached, one senario is that should the SMC lose the contract, then it would be quite legal say for instance for Adam to set up a new FM company to manage the re submitted contract . and the Allams would still have absolute control of the SMC with no contract or assets just debt and unable to do anything about the facilities.
phil webbo wrote:It's not a case of taking over the SMC that is a company set up by Adam that was awarded the contract for the FM of the facilities, The council do not need to take over the SMC, the key to this is the FM contract, The council, if they were to win in court then would just cancel the contract and re award it, the debt to the company is an irrelevance, the value is the contract which cannot have debt attached, one senario is that should the SMC lose the contract, then it would be quite legal say for instance for Adam to set up a new FM company to manage the re submitted contract . and the Allams would still have absolute control of the SMC with no contract or assets just debt and unable to do anything about the facilities.
Sounds like a great outcome just can not believe it is this easy...
phil webbo wrote:It's not a case of taking over the SMC that is a company set up by Adam that was awarded the contract for the FM of the facilities, The council do not need to take over the SMC, the key to this is the FM contract, The council, if they were to win in court then would just cancel the contract and re award it, the debt to the company is an irrelevance, the value is the contract which cannot have debt attached, one senario is that should the SMC lose the contract, then it would be quite legal say for instance for Adam to set up a new FM company to manage the re submitted contract . and the Allams would still have absolute control of the SMC with no contract or assets just debt and unable to do anything about the facilities.
Well, the way you've just described it couldn't be simpler. Here's hoping for a (the) simple solution.
Is Hodgson the new Griffin, or is it all about pace?
WormInHand wrote:Hello Man-in-the-sand, and welcome.
Thanks for answering my question - it's impossible to the council to legally take over the SMC and immediately liquidate knowing the financial situation.
I guess its a similar situation as to when Allam expected to be gifted the stadium and objected to the council's refusal - there are personal as well as moral and legal implications for the councillors.
I know the last SMC accounts to 2014 showed the RBS debt as still outstanding. Allam has gone on record as saying this debt has been repaid - is that since the last account submission or is he once again waxing lyrical for the media?
I understand the current SMC debt remains (approx) £2M to the bank and £4M to Allam himself. Am I correct?
And (sorry to bombard), but do you think there are sufficient grounds to terminate the SMC lease. this is the woolly point I can't believe Allam would leave himself exposed to. I'm of the belief he knows his lawyers are good enough to prove compliance. . Just my hunch, from observation of his previous...
Apologies for mixing up the answers, but my brain is fried.
I think the mortgages Assem Allam said he repaid were those Bartlett obtained on Hull City's future ticket sales and maybe the parachute payments. I don't remember him saying anything about the RBS loan when he bought the club.
There is an agreement to pay the £2 million to RBS over 3 years. This is reported in the accounts. I'd be surprised if he'd paid it off.
Assem Allam isn't shown as a creditor in the SMC accounts. Only Hull City Tigers Limited. The debt to Hull City Tigers Limited is well over £6 million.
I think there is evidence he is in fundamental breach of the lease. There are three main parts to the lease, the KC, the Arena and the profit sharing. The SMC didn't have to pay rent and get to keep most of the profits from the KC in return for allowing the community to use the Arena at roughly the same rates as the Council would charge. What the Allams have done is a fundamental breach in my view.
I'm not sure how good his solicitors are. Both Barmby and Bullard agreed to settlements with a gagging clause so we don't know how much he had to pay out to them. Bullard's contract with Ipswich Town would have reduced any settlement significantly.
Barmby's father took him on and won. He threatened RBS and backtracked.
On all the major points the arbitration found in favour of the FA. If Malcolm Clark had declared an interest at the Membership Committee meeting he'd have lost the arbitration appeal. I think finding in his favour was a fig leaf so he didn't have to keep his promise to sell within 24 hours. We'll see what happens this time.
I'd be surprised if the Council terminate the tenancy. They would be better getting an order to restore the Arena to its previous state on the grounds that its a fundamental breach. If the SMC then failed to comply the Council would have a court order on which to base any termination of the lease.
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
Obadiah wrote:Apologies for mixing up the answers, but my brain is fried.
I think the mortgages Assem Allam said he repaid were those Bartlett obtained on Hull City's future ticket sales and maybe the parachute payments. I don't remember him saying anything about the RBS loan when he bought the club.
There is an agreement to pay the £2 million to RBS over 3 years. This is reported in the accounts. I'd be surprised if he'd paid it off.
Assem Allam isn't shown as a creditor in the SMC accounts. Only Hull City Tigers Limited. The debt to Hull City Tigers Limited is well over £6 million.
I think there is evidence he is in fundamental breach of the lease. There are three main parts to the lease, the KC, the Arena and the profit sharing. The SMC didn't have to pay rent and get to keep most of the profits from the KC in return for allowing the community to use the Arena at roughly the same rates as the Council would charge. What the Allams have done is a fundamental breach in my view.
I'm not sure how good his solicitors are. Both Barmby and Bullard agreed to settlements with a gagging clause so we don't know how much he had to pay out to them. Bullard's contract with Ipswich Town would have reduced any settlement significantly.
Barmby's father took him on and won. He threatened RBS and backtracked.
On all the major points the arbitration found in favour of the FA. If Malcolm Clark had declared an interest at the Membership Committee meeting he'd have lost the arbitration appeal. I think finding in his favour was a fig leaf so he didn't have to keep his promise to sell within 24 hours. We'll see what happens this time.
I'd be surprised if the Council terminate the tenancy. They would be better getting an order to restore the Arena to its previous state on the grounds that its a fundamental breach. If the SMC then failed to comply the Council would have a court order on which to base any termination of the lease.
Time for a cup of tea.
On the highlighted point, the SMC is an appointed contractor to manage a facility. In the event of a breach which qualifies as a termination trigger, if, for example, the council could terminate and simply appoint an alternative operator who has previous experience of running the facility, why would they fanny about with the existing operator who's agenda is to cause trouble and difficulties at every verse-end?
Mrs Barista wrote:On the highlighted point, the SMC is an appointed contractor to manage a facility. In the event of a breach which qualifies as a termination trigger, if, for example, the council could terminate and simply appoint an alternative operator who has previous experience of running the facility, why would they fanny about with the existing operator who's agenda is to cause trouble and difficulties at every verse-end?
The SMC is not an appointed contractor but a leaseholder. This gives them additional legal rights which a contractor wouldn't have. The Council have to show the SMC is in breach of a fundamental term of the lease. If they do can show that then yes they can terminate the lease. Once the lease is terminated the Council are in charge of running the KC and the Arena. The Council may not want that responsibility and hope they can do a deal with Assem Allam.
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
. and the Allams would still have absolute control of the SMC with no contract or assets just debt and unable to do anything about the facilities.
