Quote: Obadiah "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.'"
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.