Pretty much what has been said by Burnsy on blunderside not long back.

Don't believe the hype when it comes to players wages and "apparent" clauses not being in place.
They will probably have 6 or 7 players earning "inflated" salaries ie. Bullard, Geovanni etc...these players will not play in the championship so will move on themselves.

The reports I've seen indicate that Hull City would have massive cash-flow issues, but that'd be mitigated by low levels of existing debt (by PL/football standards). The administrators would have a reasonable chance of finding a buyer if they can tidy up the mess a bit. 9 point deduction next year though, now they've closed the 'stuff it, we're down anyway loophole'.

The complex and close relationship between the SMC and Hull City might drag it down too, if reports are accurate. A new SMC would just replace the old one, which would be extremely unlikely to impact on Hull FC. (I reckon)

If Hull FC's tenancy agreement is with the council, which I assume it is - the SMC is just an agent - then nothing will change. Even if the contract is with the current SMC, the council would surely make honouring existing deals a condition for appointing a new body. Or do it themselves, like in the old days before all this PFI, brushed aluminium, 21st century nonsense. 'Synergy' - my backside.
Unless, of course...

da, da, da...

(Are you nervous?)...




Any change was agreeable to all parties.

KC is council owned, won't effect us. Our finance is fine, in fact as we all know has been on the up, it's not our problem that City's is the opposite.

If City stay up there are buyers waiting. If City go down and into administration, then they will be bought as there are still buyers there, but it will spell the end to anything of glory for them for years to come and I'd imagine they'll end up playing Leeds in 2 seasons.

But as for impact on FC, None at all, well apart from the concerts coming back that is and the pitches.

The current deal that FC have is with the SMC and was struck with Pearson just before he sold the club Bartlett. Pearson said the deal (details cannot be disclosed by either party) was a deal that he didn't want to do BUT he knew it was in the best interests of both sides to agree it. Now when Adam said this (he was on his show on KCFM at the time) with James I was told something just days before the talks went on and was told that FC had a plan D which could have seen them walk away from the KC in the longterm.

However City's mess isn't our mess and just cos they play there thats as far as that closeness is. As for the SMC going down with City, I'd be very surprised as the accounts for it are well balanced and alarm bells would be ringing if they weren't.

Is there anybody that you don't talk to?

Presume this is why brown is on gardening leave and not paid off. If they go into administration he'll get nothing.

As for us, the SMC pays the running costs of the stadium which we contribute towards. If there's less coming in from elsewhere then over time our costs may go up.

Wonder if problems with the SMC would mean a new provider of catering services at the KC?

SMC dont run the catering

No, but they awarded the contract

Depends of the other clubs are willing to match there wages, i doubt Bullard will get another 50 grand a week contract with injury worries.

Spot on. Pearson hasn't come out and said this directly but he's said that a payoff would depend on City staying up or not.