Sounds very damning but no surprise.

Will end up settled out of court with NDA in place, no doubt

Let's hope the council sees a copy of the claim, is this how they expect the SMC to manage their stadium?

One odd comment early in the claim:



I thought the SMC and Hull City just happen to be owned by the same people, and the SMC could (should) be owned by anyone.

That was my take on it too.
One thing I've never understood is why the pitch needs relaying every year when Newcastle is getting relayed for the first time in ten years??

There is an issue with all year round usage, but I can't help but thinking that if City's U23's did not play on it, it would help out

It's also because it's predominantly sand??

I'm definitely no legal expert but after reading that there is no way the allams can get away with that. Shows them up for the toys out of the pram type of muppets they are

Although reading through it shows what utter scum the Allams are (not that we didn't know that already) I wouldn't bet against them getting away with it. Never underestimate their deviousness, nor that of the unprincipled legal team they have on hand, nor especially the joke that is the British "justice" system. They won over the Arena after all.

What a fantastic outcome thus far for the groundsmen,
Clearly someone was intent on being Judge Jury and Executioner ?

These documents really show some person in this sorry matter as not high in intelligence, not thorough, low attention to detail, A person with a definite agenda and with a clear discrimination against one of the 2 teams whom they should actually be acting on behalf of !!!

The SMC prime reason for being is to provide a Stadia for both tenants, with ;

1) A playing surface for the equal good of both teams sufficient to carry out the act of playing professional sport. and
2) A Stadia for the equal good of both sets of team supporters to watch sport in safe stadia with provision for adequate Security, Refreshments, & Toileting
3) Adequate general facilities (social, corporate, commercial and sport related)

So I ask..... how can this be carried out fairly for the equal benefit of both paying tenants when any Stadium Management Company has a clear bias to one tenant clearly manifested as open discrimination in writing in a case of Law?

This must surely cast serious doubt over the competency of any Stadium management organisations ability to act in an even handed way for the equal good of both tenants when a bias for one such tenant and in equal measure bias against the other paying tenant is so well documented and obvious.

Surely such a state of affairs is not only unacceptable, it should also mean that such a misplaced responsibility is untenable for any post holder who holds such views against a paying tenant.?

Lest we forget, both tenants are there to be served well and in equal measure by the Management Company.

It's a civil matter. Worst case scenario it goes to a tribunal and the smc get found against, have to pay compo and costs. Drop in the ocean and the allams don't care

Absolutely disgraceful, never read anything like it in so far as failures by the SMC/allam with respect to disciplinary procedure, it's not even amateur, it basically reads like a deliberate we want rid.
I would have thought the solicitor would have made a claim for emotional distress, it can't have been easy to be lied at/accused of xxx with zero evidence, knowing full well you were telling the truth and they were simply wanting to get rid of you no matter how many lies/untruths they came out with yet you explained absolutely everything in response!

That and the whole losing your job thing having given your heart and soul and plenty more and many hours unpaid/written off just shows the dedication.
it must have being gut wrenching to say the least.
I hope they screw the bas tards for as much as they can. Will they want to go to court, i hope they do.
The council will do nothing, nada, they are simply gutless and as amateur as the disciplinary procedures.