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The rent Hull City AFC would pay to the council if the lease was revoked will not be based on the market rates in London, Manchester and Swansea.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.

Still waiting for Allams £10 tickets and the first full International from the city youth structure

You're not getting what I'm saying, you're not comparing like for like. You're right that a renegotiation would see City pay a market rent, you're wrong in the examples you pick being the same.

West Ham - allegedly getting a ridiculous deal that is at the centre of a media/public backlash questioning/condemning it. You also came up £1m a season, which is half what is rumoured.
Manchester City - Again, where have you got £2m ish from? They agreed to pay £2m a year just for the naming rights, they reportedly pay circa £4m for their overall rent.

Swansea is a closer comparison, but again there has been significant concern over the fact that they only pay a peppercorn rent, so I'm still not sure how you seem to think that these 3 are strong indicators of how much City could expect to pay at market value. Your approach seems to be that if I somehow managed to rip off Audi for a brand new A4 at half price, you should then be able to come to a similar arrangement on a Skodia Fabia.

The market rate for the KC would be what Hull FC pay the Council per game for its use.

Manchester City pay £2 million rent and £2 million for the naming rights if your figures are correct. Which means they pay £2 million pa for the stadium. Half of what Hull City AFC paid in 2013-14 accounting year.

Swansea City is similar to us. The football club and rugby club pay monies to the stadium management company for the maintenance of the stadium as well as the peppercorn rent. Both Swansea City and the rugby club each pay over a £1 million a year for the stadium up keep.

My approach is simple, the SMC is making losses and if the lease is revoked Hull City Council will be responsible for running the stadium complex and any losses it makes. Hull City AFC pays rent of £4.3 million which is above what would be judged a market rent, so the rent is likely to be reduced significantly when a new agreement is negotiated. In broad terms it would be similar to the rent Hull FC would pay for use of the same facility. Unless the Allams agree to pay more out of civic duty.

Without seeing detailed accounts, I'd take any running costs, profits/losses with a pinch of salt. Since the days of bartlett the finances of the football club have been intertwined with those of Hull city and I don't beleiee for one minute the figures which have been banded around. From memory, a couple of years ago, Hull paid £750k for a yer which included the small shop and offices they use and 13 or so rugby games. We then get told that the SMC are losing money hand over fist on our contract. Too many questions are unanswered but I for one don't believe it costs north of £5m a year to run the KC for the football and rugby clubs when the likes of the DW and John Smiths seem to be operated for much less.

It#s long past time when some vindictive individual should be able to hold a sword above the head of a professional sporting club in a council owned facility. About time someone stood up to him

Point of order, West Ham will be paying £2M/annum AND they stumped £15M up front to offset part of the debt accrued in developing the stadium for soccer use (£400Million to convert it apparently!!!

)
Based on 19 home league games per season that's £105k/game, however they will be getting the benefit of all the corporate.
Given the location, they are getting one hell of a deal, I would be annoyed as hell if I were a Tower Hamlets resident as they loaned £40M towards this and it would seem WHU aren't paying 'market rates' for a 'community/legacy' stadium

I'm going to have one more go at this and then I'm going to give up, because you're either incapable of grasping the point or deliberately choosing not to to suit your point. It's fundamentally flawed to state that Hull City would/should pay less rent at a market rate by quoting examples WHO HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY CRITICISED FOR NOT PAYING THE MARKET RATE (West Ham and Swansea). Man City pay roughly the same, it seems (in rent), but they also paid for the corporate areas, bars and restaurants, are helping fund the expansion and campus, and the stadium also makes a lot of money from other activities.

Only positive from tonight is the new floodlights are good, far brighter and less shadows (some would of course argue it'd have been better if they'd gone out!) also the speakers in the East stand seem to have finally been fixed!

South stand speakers were still as bad as ever.

The market rate Hull City AFC will pay for renting the KC per match will be the same as what the Council will charge Hull FC. That is likely to be less than the £4.3 million paid in 2013-14.

If the SMC is making losses now, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon, you can see why Assem Allam might want rid of the lease.

Sorry, what did you say?