The lease would be an asset and could be sold. Hull City AFC's agreement with the SMC would be void and they'd have to negotiate a new agreement with the new leaseholder. Far safer to let the Council take it back.

Ooh, that is an interesting wrinkle.

Maybe new SMC owners would let city do the £10 tickets the nutter promised

Is the lease still securing a debt with the RBS?

you clearly know nothing about Public Sector finance, crown expenditure, covenants, grant funding and the like.

Martin?

I think RBS have a floating charge over the assets (lease) of the SMC. The loan was made to the holding company who don't hold the lease. Although as a result of Allam contesting the legality of the loan there is a new agreement to repay over three years. I haven't checked to see if there is any additional security as a result.

Is the following though still true or not;

1. Whatever Hull City pay the SMC, is largely Allam paying himself some money from one company to another one.
2. They have not disclosed fully the SMC accounts so that they can be scrutinised as to why and how the alleged losses are accrued?
3. I would think a lot of expenditure lumped under the SMC is as a direct result of Hull Tigers promotion, and so therefore should be borne solely out of the outrageous additional income the Tigers received. Seems convenient though to show this as an SMC loss.

I believe you are right, I have looked for full SMC accounts and can find only the most basic returns, the SMC should always have been independent of any organisation operating commercially within the stadium (regardless of that being City,FC, Kr etc.) the Airco Arena should also simply not be available to City, it was intended as a community facility.

The sooner this sorry mess gets cleared up the better, for everyone, including the toothless tigers.

1. Only if the SMC makes profits. If they make losses the money for the losses has to be found from somewhere else within the Allam empire. The accounts suggest that Hull City AFC lent monies to the SMC to fund the losses.

2. The last set of accounts showed the SMC made a loss of £1.1 million from hosting Hull FC matches. Without opening the books it is impossible to say whether that figure is accurate, but that's the figure in the published accounts.

3. Hull Tigers don't exist and have never been promoted.

4. I think a large part of the additional expenditure came from structural repairs to the stadium. Again without open books we'll never know.

Is it not true the SMC made a loss from selling training grounds?
That have nothing at all to do with the SMC but are every thing to do with Hull City AFC.