I need to have a say.
What Starbucks did was technically within the letter of the (tax) laws but Joe public saw it as being unethical and pressure of the public forced a change. Whilst it may be within the law for SMC to charge for hanging photos this does not make it right. Likewise the public can force a change of mind.
With City no doubt running at a loss then it would make sense to transfer those losses onto an associated business to reduce taxation / council dividends and possibly have those losses covered in part by another unconnected party - raising whatever charges are possible be it season ticket handling to hanging photos. A number of staff costs and overheads could be “reappraised” to achieve this. So what if city are paying for the privilege of hanging their photo’s up – the payments being made will only be covering losses which in all likelihood originated from their football operations. The SMC’s financial performance over the past 2 years v the first 8 years does seem to suggest this.
Notwithstanding the numerous accounting avenues that could be at play here the underlying issue is the disrespect to a local sporting icon. Everyone has seen the creeping takeover of the stadium and the tiger adorned reception for some time but the emotional fight is about justice and respect for Johnny. I never saw him play, much too young
, but there is a degree of aura about the man that cannot be ignored and from his glittering playing career to ambassadorial role for the city and sport. It should be the SMC paying JW for the privilege to be associated with the great man not the other way round!
When the Allams first bought Hull City an elderly man muttered one word to me – “Ruscadors”.
I won’t put another penny into the Allams coffers – be it football, refreshment stands, or squash!
