Diogenes wrote:No it wouldn't be an offence because there would be no false representation. Silence cant amount to a representation unless in response to a direct question. There would only be a problem if the council actively misled the Allams as to their intentions for the company after any transfer of the SMC.
Representation can be expressed or implied (Section 2 (4)). If the Council bought the SMC the clear implication, unless stated otherwise, is that it would continue trading. Putting it into liquidation shortly afterwards would be false representation under the terms of the Act.
As phil webbo says it is irrelevant as the Council aren't going to buy the SMC.
What is more relevant though is will the freehold of the KC remain with the Council or be transferred to the new sports and leisure company? Will the council via its new company offer tenancies to Hull FC and Hull City AFC for continued use of the KC if it terminates the lease?
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12671 Location: Leicestershire.
Obadiah wrote:Will the council via its new company offer tenancies to Hull FC and Hull City AFC for continued use of the KC if it terminates the lease?
I'm sure they would. What would be interesting though, is whether this time they'd do it to be more attractive to the clubs or more attractive to potential operators. The indications seem to be that the council would again seek to protect themselves from losses, by finding somebody to manage it - perhaps after a transitional period under council control.
Difficult negotiation. The clubs could make a reasonable case that they should get existing terms. Though I think all sides could benefit from a simplified deal. The stadium needs the clubs and the clubs need the stadium. The clubs might push for a better deal, but the council can't to run it a big loss, either politically or economically. And apparently doesn't want to be stuck holding the baby. The council might ideally want more from the clubs, but there's a limit to what Hull FC, in particular, can afford and City will see no reason why they should pay more. Perhaps, the deal could or should be made directly between the clubs and the new operator. That'd be an intriguing game of chicken. But it'd probably pan out alright. Mutually assured destruction, innit?
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Mild Rover wrote:I'm sure they would. What would be interesting though, is whether this time they'd do it to be more attractive to the clubs or more attractive to potential operators. The indications seem to be that the council would again seek to protect themselves from losses, by finding somebody to manage it - perhaps after a transitional period under council control.
Difficult negotiation. The clubs could make a reasonable case that they should get existing terms. Though I think all sides could benefit from a simplified deal. The stadium needs the clubs and the clubs need the stadium. The clubs might push for a better deal, but the council can't to run it a big loss, either politically or economically. And apparently doesn't want to be stuck holding the baby. The council might ideally want more from the clubs, but there's a limit to what Hull FC, in particular, can afford and City will see no reason why they should pay more. Perhaps, the deal could or should be made directly between the clubs and the new operator. That'd be an intriguing game of chicken. But it'd probably pan out alright. Mutually assured destruction, innit?
Lets try again to put this right. again as I understand things from when it was set up
The user agreement for both City and FC is with the council, its signed up for twenty five years, with a further twenty five years on the table with safeguards on price built in. The SMC operates the stadium complex on behalf of the city council and has no input on what the clubs have to pay rent.
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.;
Mild Rover wrote:I'm sure they would. What would be interesting though, is whether this time they'd do it to be more attractive to the clubs or more attractive to potential operators. The indications seem to be that the council would again seek to protect themselves from losses, by finding somebody to manage it - perhaps after a transitional period under council control.
Difficult negotiation. The clubs could make a reasonable case that they should get existing terms. Though I think all sides could benefit from a simplified deal. The stadium needs the clubs and the clubs need the stadium. The clubs might push for a better deal, but the council can't to run it a big loss, either politically or economically. And apparently doesn't want to be stuck holding the baby. The council might ideally want more from the clubs, but there's a limit to what Hull FC, in particular, can afford and City will see no reason why they should pay more. Perhaps, the deal could or should be made directly between the clubs and the new operator. That'd be an intriguing game of chicken. But it'd probably pan out alright. Mutually assured destruction, innit?
There's also European law and any ramifications from the investigation into Swansea City's deal over their ground. You'd hope that if the Council terminate the lease they have a vision for the development of the site to bring in additional income to ensure the rents for City and FC remain affordable. Otherwise the full costs of maintaining an aging stadium will fall on both clubs.
A third party would only be interested in running the complex if it was profitable and that means being able to increase the rents of both clubs if costs rise.
Its alright jumping up and down over the way Assem Allam runs the KC but you need to know what the alternative is. Bartlett took money out of the SMC in loans and salary. I see no sign of that under Assem Allam. If fact Hull City Tigers Limited appears to be funding its operating shortfall with loans.
Ian P wrote:Lets try again to put this right. again as I understand things from when it was set up
The user agreement for both City and FC is with the council, its signed up for twenty five years, with a further twenty five years on the table with safeguards on price built in. The SMC operates the stadium complex on behalf of the city council and has no input on what the clubs have to pay rent.
The SMC runs the KC on its own behalf because it is the leaseholder. It isn't an agent for the Council. The terms of the lease set out what it can and can't do. I'd be surprised if the user rights are with the Council but I'm not sure. The Council briefing papers on the KC make no mention of an agreement between the clubs and it. It is more likely that they are with the SMC. Assem Allam mentioned honouring the contract between Hull FC and the SMC in one of his interviews.
On another point I'm sure if Assem Allam could blame the Council for the money the SMC allegedly loses from putting on FC matches he would have done so.
Surely it is in the councils best interests and indeed primarily that of the citizens of Hull to terminate the lease (legally of course). The damage that has being done by the SMC, not only financially with regard to the debts accrued (and would be further into the future) that has a hefty whiff of skullduggery about it but also to the users, Hull FC being one of the prime targets for fallout from the actions of the owners of the SMC.
With all the other aspects of the negativity and heavy handedness toward the community at large (threats to pull the soccer club out amongst many others) and would continue to be affected into the future by allowing the SMC to retain the lease it would seem prudent and the best all round for the city of Hull to have the contract terminated..or do the council think everything will be fine and dandy once they've helped the plunderer to get what he wants anyway??
knockersbumpMKII wrote:Surely it is in the councils best interests and indeed primarily that of the citizens of Hull to terminate the lease (legally of course). The damage that has being done by the SMC, not only financially with regard to the debts accrued (and would be further into the future) that has a hefty whiff of skullduggery about it but also to the users, Hull FC being one of the prime targets for fallout from the actions of the owners of the SMC.
With all the other aspects of the negativity and heavy handedness toward the community at large (threats to pull the soccer club out amongst many others) and would continue to be affected into the future by allowing the SMC to retain the lease it would seem prudent and the best all round for the city of Hull to have the contract terminated..or do the council think everything will be fine and dandy once they've helped the plunderer to get what he wants anyway??
The lease protects the Council from the costs of maintaining a stadium for Premier League football. Since Hull City got promoted the TV companies have demanded a fairly huge investment in the ground's infrastructure. The SMC's losses could be genuine and show Assem Allam investing in the KC. He has every reason to do so if City remain in the Premier League. The SMC is hamstrung by the lease and its agreements with FC and City.
If the lease is terminated all those costs fall on the Council. As would the decision about who pays for the upkeep of the KC. It would need to find alternative sources of finances or else increase the rents paid by FC and City. Hull City paid rent of over £4 million last year and it will be substantially more this year (the season passes went up 30%). It is believed Manchester City pay £1 million a year for the Etihad and West Ham will pay £2.5 million a year rent for the Olympic Stadium.
Its not as simple as taking the lease off Assem Allam. A number of consequences will flow from that decision.
Joined: Dec 29 2011 Posts: 3607 Location: Back row of Threepenny, forever
Obadiah wrote: It is believed Manchester City pay £1 million a year for the Etihad and West Ham will pay £2.5 million a year rent for the Olympic Stadium.
Its not as simple as taking the lease off Assem Allam. A number of consequences will flow from that decision.
Obadiah wrote: It is believed Manchester City pay £1 million a year for the Etihad and West Ham will pay £2.5 million a year rent for the Olympic Stadium.
Its not as simple as taking the lease off Assem Allam. A number of consequences will flow from that decision.
Its a partnership between the Council and the football club. It shows what's possible if the owners of Hull City/SMC and the Council talked to one another. Maybe not on the same scale but cooperation would be a massive improvement on what we currently have.
Its a partnership between the Council and the football club. It shows what's possible if the owners of Hull City/SMC and the Council talked to one another. Maybe not on the same scale but cooperation would be a massive improvement on what we currently have.
Obadiah wrote:The lease protects the Council from the costs of maintaining a stadium for Premier League football. Since Hull City got promoted the TV companies have demanded a fairly huge investment in the ground's infrastructure. The SMC's losses could be genuine and show Assem Allam investing in the KC. He has every reason to do so if City remain in the Premier League. The SMC is hamstrung by the lease and its agreements with FC and City.
If the lease is terminated all those costs fall on the Council. As would the decision about who pays for the upkeep of the KC. It would need to find alternative sources of finances or else increase the rents paid by FC and City. Hull City paid rent of over £4 million last year and it will be substantially more this year (the season passes went up 30%). It is believed Manchester City pay £1 million a year for the Etihad and West Ham will pay £2.5 million a year rent for the Olympic Stadium.
Its not as simple as taking the lease off Assem Allam. A number of consequences will flow from that decision.
I fully understand the protection the council has wished to employ from the off, yet it's pretty clear no business model/plan was done to even try to see how the stadium could/would pay for it's upkeep without fear of costs. That other aspects of the council loses/wastes money hand over fist & other assets 'lose' money (ongoing running costs) seems to have avoided your gaze?
In fact given the £72.5k/year the council paid for office space alone and the approximate £1M profit (Based on the £50k returned profit to the council in the earlier years), the massively overinflated salaries paid to the SMC owners (compared to salaries to run it via the LA), the huge (£500K/year? I read somewhere) 'management fee' charged to the SMC by the owners, the running of loss making events that have done damage to the pitch such as the highly successful squash tournament which netted less than the expenditure, it would appear that the stadium would have being an opportunity to sustain itself quite nicely.
But the whole mess has being perpetuated further by a council who allowed transfer/sale of the SMC to a 'buyer' with the sale cost added as a debt to it making matters more complex as it is clear to see for all, Phil Webbo (EDITED after referring to wrong person) making the error as to what is exactly what with regard to the financial aspect alone, this in itself is an indication of how complex the matter has become.
The right and proper thing to do is for the council to terminate the lease at the first opportunity, regain control of its assets and ensure a fit and proper person is at the helm so that the community stadium is in the hands of the community not some power crazed psuedo anthropologist that has in fact caused so many issues across every aspect of the community stadium..or do you think the Allam's or any other private organisation for that matter solely in it to make profit is the best option, if so why?
Last edited by knockersbumpMKII on Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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
