Quote: carl_spackler "Not entirely irrelevant, it's a potential additional revenue stream that may be taken into account when agreeing rental terms. It has already been quoted that the profile of West Ham has been considered as a way to increase the earning potential of it, too.
It may well be less, I have no idea. I just think it's flawed to support that belief with the evidence of a deal elsewhere that is being highly criticised for being undervalued, and also concerns a team with significantly higher average attendance and a stadium more than twice the size.'"
The rent Hull City AFC would pay would be based on market rates. West Ham, Manchester City and Swansea City all pay similar amount in rent and well below what City pays the SMC. West Ham has been criticised publicly, Swansea City Council was investigated by the EU and I have seen nothing but praise for what Manchester City have done for East Manchester.
Now if Hull City AFC were paying significantly less for stadium hire than other association football clubs then they may well have to continue paying £4m plus a year. But they aren't.
The rent Hull City AFC would pay to the council if the lease was revoked will not be based on the market rates in London, Manchester and Swansea. It will be based on the market rate in Hull and in particular what other users of the stadium pay for its hire per match.
Having issued the writ there's a lot for the Council to consider.
