Hull City AFC and Hull FC have user rights but have no legal interest as tenants, according to the City Council.

Under the current agreement Hull City AFC paid rent of nearly £5 million for the KC in the year ending 30 June 2014. West Ham will pay £1m a year for the Olympic Stadium. If the lease goes back to the Council do you think they'll get anywhere near £5 million a year rent?

Hull FC paid around half a million in rent. According to the accounts that doesn't cover the costs. I'm sure the Council have thought all this through.

you got a link to the comment about no legal agreement?

So from some of the comments on here you are suggesting that Allam maybe happy to lose the KC and renegotiate the lease to reduce the £5m p.a. rent? If this can not be done the spin would be council kick out City from the stadium. Also Hull FC can't afford the KC without another club to help with the bills.

What are the legal implications if the council were to take the KC off SMC and gift it to a joint partnership/company with an interested party. The joint company would own the KC and use equity to develop the land around the stadium and gain an income from this to help fund the running of the stadium without our championship soccer team? Profits would be shared and the council will gain additional rates from the development.

The Council couldn't borrow against a crown asset.

Where are you getting that West Ham figure from? Their rental terms are being kept confidential, and the rumours are £2m+, not £1m. Plus, naming rights for the stadium will be up for grabs as a further income possibility for the LLDC, rather than nailed on for a local firm. I'd wager they'll make much more money that way than KC likely pay., as they also will through their catering.

Also, have you seen the amount of uproar currently going on about how beneficial to West Ham and detrimental to the taxpayer the whole deal has been?

I've no idea what sort of rent might be renegotiated with City/the Council, but the West Ham comparison is fundamentally flawed and meaningless.

The figure of nearly £5m (£4.3m, I believe) drops down to £3.2m the previous year, so the rental must be very flexible.

Linked to number of games and the 2013/14 cup run?

The comparison was a poor one, IMO.

The deal is that good they can reduce season tickets and match day tickets by almost 50%

£2 million is still significantly less than £4.3 million. The naming rights are irrelevant as the KC has already been named, unless the Council take the opportunity to rename the stadium. KC presumably has a contract with the SMC not the Council for the naming rights.

I understand the rent Hull City AFC and Hull FC pay is calculated on revenue from pass and ticket sales (including cash). The last accounts did not take into account the large increase in prices and we only had two FA Cup matches at home.

If the Council take back the lease then the rent will be negotiated between the council and Hull City AFC. The old agreement will be dead in the water. I expect it to be considerably less than what Hull City AFC are paying now.

....apart from city playing 4 more home league games in 2012/13, and one FA cup game, (and just 2 FA cup home games in 2013/14).

Could they gift or sell this below the market value to another company and if so could they be a shareholder in the company?