Quote: oud3pstander "Do you seriously think a[ Hull FC do not have a legal agreement with the Hull City Council. b[ pay less because they where asked to join Hull City AFC.
If so when they sold the Boulevard they must of had the thickest Solicitors in the World as it was sold at less than face value.'"
Hull FC have a legally binding agreement with the SMC. The SMC has a legally binding lease with Hull City Council. Hull FC have user rights at the KC but no tenancy agreement, hence no legal rights as tenant. That is according to Hull City Council in one of their papers to the Scrutiny Committee.
As far as I know Hull FC's agreement with the SMC is similar to Hull City's. Its based on a percentage of gate receipts which is why Hull City pay more.
If the lease is revoked by Hull City Council they become landlords and the agreements with the SMC for both City and FC become worthless. New agreements with both clubs have to be agreed and put in place. The market rate for the stadium hire per game will be more or less the same for both clubs unless the Allams agree to pay substantially more.
I doubt many solicitors would have predicted the behaviour of Assem Allam.
I doubt whether many Councillors are looking forward to becoming landlords of the KC. They may be hoping that the Allams will back down and put the Airco back into its previous condition.
