Had more to do with not wanting/being able to afford the Directors Bond required IIRC.

So, rather than knowing their income over a given number of years, you'd rather the council said: "well you pay us £X amount of rent and if we feel we might need to use some of your space, we'll just take it off you because we own the joint"?

As opposed to: "you pay us £Y amount and if we feel it necessary to rent space from you, we'll come to an amicable arrangement"?

Do you understand how commerce works in the real world?

err no

the council always planned to have facilities at the ground for community work. It is absolute madness that they are paying to hire rooms they built! The rooms should have always been separate from the agreement with the SMC, and therefore free of charge for council use.

if they'd decided to take space off the SMC at a later date it would be a different matter, but as far as i'm aware they have always had this space at the KC, and it was planned before it was built.

I wonder how much he knew about the set-up when his consortium bought City and the SMC. I'm certain he thought the stadium was primarily a Hull City possesion.

FFS, he didn't even realise he was sharing the KC with us until he arrived - he'd never heard of Hull FC. Presumably this is because the previous owner of the SMC - Pearson - marketed the sale as the lease was his asset - the Council would have had no say in the new governance of the stadium.

Pearson, being there at the start, had more obligation to other events and concerts. Duffen, not realising he should have, hasn't. And therefore there have been no extra-City/FC events since he arrived.

So yes - I suppose we can't blame Duffen - but the Council who sold our asset in such a negligent way should be made accountable for this. Or we can all sit meekly by and wait to re-inherit the stadium in 20 odd years time when another shed-load of tax-payers money will be required to make good "our" white-elephant.

Isn't the lease 50 years? I got this reply from Carl Minns when I complained about the lack of an international at the KC:

Thank you for your letter regarding the KC Stadium and rugby internationals.

The Council were only made aware of the problems regarding international matches at a very late stage by the Rugby Football League. At this time the Council did try to broker a deal to enable international rugby to be played at the KC Stadium this year. Unfortunately we ran out of time before any agreement could be reached.

With regard to the 50 year lease, which was signed in 2001, it is a legal agreement and there is little, in law that the council can do to alter it. Please be assured that although the previous two organisations that have had the lease on the stadium were involved with Hull AFC, this will not always necessarily be the case.

I have spoken to Paul Duffen regarding to the use of the Community Stadium and he is aware of how upset fans are. Rest assured that the Council and the Rugby Football League will work together to bring international rugby to the stadium in the future.

Yes the lease is 50 years, cant argue with Minns reply either tbf.

You're right - it is 50 years - it's ours which is 25.

I also got the same reply from Minns blah-di-blah I trust him not. I also requested from him full minutes and related documents of all council meetings pertaining to the original stadium leases and clauses when control was first given to the SMC under the Freedom of Information Act. He assured me it had been passed to the legal department and I'd be hearing shortly.

5 months later....



Apparently a FOI request must be responded to within 4 weeks. Can I sue? And should I persue?

Only covers certain info if i recall. Terms of a lease may not be info that can be shared.

Still need to respond:

"Timescales

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the CC is required to respond to your request for information within 20 working days following the date on which your request was received. Furthermore, the Act makes a number of provisions for extra time to be taken in responding to a request, for example:

* The timescale is put on hold if, after initial consideration of your request, a fee is requested. When a request for payment is sent to you, the 20-day working deadline is put on hold and will start running again (from where it stopped, not back to the beginning of the 20 days) when the appropriate fee is received.
* If the information being sought has to be considered under an exemption to which the public interest test applies, then the timescale is extended by a “reasonable period”. The CC will, however, tell you within the 20-day period which exemption(s) it believes apply to the information requested, and give you its estimate of the date by which it expects to reach a decision regarding the application of this exemption."

Plus Minns acknowledged the request had been received and was to be acted upon.

I'm getting a bee in my bonnet about this and feel the need to worm a bit deeper.

You go, girl.

I'd hazard a guess the inner workings of the council are like the Circumlocution Office in Little Dorrit.

I've requested information from the council under this act before. And was "quite persistent" in ensuring the timescales were met as it related to an imminent school closure.

I kid you not, but at midnight on the 20th working day after the request was made (just as I was rubbing my hands together at the thought of the next steps) there was a knock on the door. A senior council official (who shall remain anonymous) stood there with a thick envelope containing the required info. ILMAO it was still warm from the photocopier.



At least they made the deadline. On this occasion, though...