I understand he thought Geraghty was rude to him. Phil Webbo may have the exact details, but I wouldn't have gone off in a huff over it.

So after 32 pages is it safe to say no ones got a scooby what's going on

Right, I've collated some data. The headlines are:

Overview - Cumulative profit position
The SMC's been running for around 12 years. It has cumulative losses over that period of £6.33m. However, £5.4m of those losses are not down to the operations of the SMC business, but due to mortgage write-off (£4.6m), loss on disposal of training ground (£0.4m) and waiver of loans to related parties (£0.4m). Underlying operating losses across the period are therefore £0.9m.

Operating Profitability over time

Adam Pearson controlled the SMC from 2002-2007. Its operating profit in those six years was £13k.
Russell Bartlett controlled the SMC from 2008-2010. Its operating profit in those three years was £79k
Assem Allam has controlled the SMC from 2011-2014. Its operating loss in those four year was £1.02m
Profitability in 2014 returned to approaching breakeven after two years of heavy losses in 2012 and 2013; in 2014 the operating loss was only £33k.

Comparing 2014 to both 2003 and 2010, costs have risen virtually in line with income. Given what I'd estimate is the relatively fixed nature of costs in this business, either cost leverage has been disappointing or maintenance costs are increasing. Quite possibly the costs of constantly relaying the pitch are in the P&L as they have an economic life less than a year.

Hull FC
The accounts for 2010 disclose gross profit on FC-specific activities of £0.4m (no allocation of overheads), but a loss of £1.2m in 2014 after overhead allocation. Our direct costs in 2014 are reported as £1.2m with a further £0.5m on administrative expenses. So FC's share of stadium operating costs per annum is £1.7m.

The problem with "costs", as we all know, is that Mr Allam can charge City whatever he wants and it makes not a jot of difference to the size of his bank balance.
However, he can make Hull FC (and others) look unsustainable by using the same criteria.

The operating profit under Pearson and Bartlett included the rent from Hull City Council for the library and office space. Take that out and the SMC was making operating losses. The warranties on the building work have expired which means the SMC has to pay for any maintenance work done on the KC or the Arena. The margin for making profits is already very small and given the age of the buildings is likely to get smaller. Unless the rent paid by FC and City increases the only source of additional funds to fund the KC and the Arena is by developing the land to attract new businesses.

Pitch relaying - the Galpharm Stadium (built 6 years before the KC) pitch lasted 15 years and the underground soil heating when assessed "was in perfect working order".

No offence, but you're being too simplistic.

In terms of SMC income optimisation, binning off the other Arena tenants to satisfy City's requirements is unhelpful. Income from the Arena was £248k in 2014. Presumably most of that has been sacrificed.

I think you're overplaying the impact of maintenance. Don't forget that maintenance and repairs are only 14% of total SMC costs.

Which businesses do you think will be attracted to the KC with Assem Allam as landlord, given the experiences of the Council, former Arena tenants, Hull FC...? I don't disagree in principle that other income streams would help, but the cost base needs to be reviewed also. Presumably automated turnstiles will realise a saving. Does the pitch need to be ripped up every year or could that cash be better deployed?

We all know that the smc accounts as they stand are meaningless. It's just a way of allam apportioning whatever costs and income he feels like. My gut feeling is that the cost of upgrades for city's benefit have been borne by the smc, apportioned between city and ourselves, thus resulting in the seemingly problematical issues already highlighted. Were the smc run by an independent body then they'd rightly tell city to dip into their £100m a year sky handout to fund any required upgrades themselves. The stadium would also be marketed and operated properly and external income would increase accordingly. I've no idea how successfully hudds stadium runs but I believe they pay significantly less to play there than we do and have never heard of any financial problems with the stadium itself so see no reason why the same couldn't happen in Hull.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that pearson would bite the council's hand off if he were offered the opportunity to take over the running of it and he wouldn't do that if he believed it were likely to be a financial millstone around his neck.

I don't take offence at much and not at all from what you've written.

Assem Allam is, last time I heard, making a number of staff redundant at the Arena thereby reducing the costs. Hull City Tigers Limited should pay a commercial rent for its use thereby making the arena profitable. Whether that happens will depend on the Council and the Premier League.

I may be over playing the costs of maintenance but I'm thinking 5 or 10 years down the line not how much is paid now. The costs will rise and from what I've seen the potential profit margins are too small for when the roof starts leaking.

If the SMC retains the lease and Assem Allam is cooperative (big if) then I want to see the whole area developed. Its the perfect site for the ice arena and Olympic size swimming pool. Such a development could attract cafes, hotels and some high class shops. Some of the land could be used for housing all of which could be re-invested in the KC. Yes very similar to Assem Allam's original idea of a sports village. Just because of who said it doesn't make it a bad idea.

If the SMC loses the lease the Council could develop the area on its own. Tenancy agreements with Hull FC and Hull City would provide the protection both teams need and the Council could utilise the stadium during the City of Culture year and beyond. All it takes is a little imagination and the money.

A sports village and stadium run by the Council makes it easier for FC and City to pay a fair rent that is affordable to both. It may be simplistic but its only a smaller version of the proposed Etihad development in Manchester.

Interesting

Interesting