Quote Mrs Barista="Mrs Barista"IIRC if there were evidence of breach of terms of either the head lease or sub tenancy arrangements, investigations can be brought into play to review SLAs and so on, forensic audit of the SMC's accounts. Whether that's happened and/or if it's not clear-cut, the reality is that the relationship between the council and the SMC is in the ter. As you allude to it'd be like throwing petrol on a bonfire the council don't have the resources or stomach to marshal. This is the latest in a long line of incremental pieces of damage to our club, however. Individually small, cumulatively damaging. A great sporting philanthropist with the privilege of running the stadium of the city's two biggest fanbases - you'd imagine optimising utilisation and attendances for both clubs would be a priority. Unless you have a vested interest in one of them, in which case the council dropped a bollock to start with. Oh, wait..'"
Aye.
The big question is whether or not running that stadium is an expensive privilege. If it is then the council have to outsource the power with the responsibility, or take it on themselves.
I'm not defending Allam's use of that power, but if the SMC is running a real loss on Hull FC games and can save money by not opening a stand, without breaching their contract with the club, I can see why Allam would make that a priority. A 3 sided KC still provides ample capacity, tbf.
I think ultimately, if the smc genuinely is loss making, a new settlement will have to be reached at some point. What exactly that would be, I'm not sure - but we're unlikely to see it while Allam is on the scene.
If SMC accounts paint an unrealistically bleak picture, the council's hand is obviously much stronger.