Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
Obadiah wrote: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.
Wrong choice of term, but the same substantive impact. Why could the council not grant the lease to another more consistent party within a short period? Surely terminating the SMC deal doesn't mean the council have to run the stadium and arena themselves?
Mrs Barista wrote:Wrong choice of term, but the same substantive impact. Why could the council not grant the lease to another more consistent party within a short period? Surely terminating the SMC deal doesn't mean the council have to run the stadium and arena themselves?
No, but it leaves them open to a legal challenge from allam and potential financial damages if they lost
Joined: Aug 30 2005 Posts: 3231 Location: in a cave
Obadiah wrote:If the council buy the SMC and put it into liquidation shortly afterwards it may well be fraud. Leaving the directors appointed by the council open to a criminal prosecution and any councillors that voted for such a strategy to personally pay for the losses that would follow.
The SMC's last accounts (2014) show about £2 million owed to the RBS under the terms of the guarantee given to its holding company and over £6 million to Hull City Tigers Limited.
Wrong in every respect and betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of both company and criminal law. If the council had any sense and were properly advised they would do a deal with RBS and call out Hull City Tigers Limited whom I very much doubt would want their conduct to be scrutinised in court.
First there was wisdom Then there was knowledge Now there is only information
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
Jake the Peg wrote:No, but it leaves them open to a legal challenge from allam and potential financial damages if they lost
Not sure what you mean here. Clearly legal process on establishing breach of contract would be the first step. If successful, the council could terminate the lease. Then appoint a new entity to the head lease. What financial damages would the Allams claim if "the SMC is loss-making", surely the council would be doing them a favour?
Mrs Barista wrote:Not sure what you mean here. Clearly legal process on establishing breach of contract would be the first step. If successful, the council could terminate the lease. Then appoint a new entity to the head lease. What financial damages would the Allams claim if "the SMC is loss-making", surely the council would be doing them a favour?
Are you being your usual obtuse self or do you genuinely not understand?
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
Jake the Peg wrote:Are you being your usual obtuse self or do you genuinely not understand?
What I'm saying is if step one is proving in court there's a breach that triggers termination, and that is successful, what would the Allams' grounds for legal action and financial compensation be?
Joined: Aug 30 2005 Posts: 3231 Location: in a cave
Obadiah wrote:
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.
A leaseholder has rights but also has additional responsibilities. If the council can lawfully terminate the lease it can make whatever future arrangements it wants for the future running of the stadium. This may or may not involve granting a new lease to someone else or running it through an arms length company.
First there was wisdom Then there was knowledge Now there is only information
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
