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The rent Hull City AFC would pay to the council if the lease was revoked will not be based on the market rates in London, Manchester and Swansea.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