If the above was possible. Can the SMC exist in it's current format because technically the SMC would be responsible for the ground expansion. How would that additional cost filter down to both tenants? There is also the issue of the new pitch. Is it Hull City demanding the new pitch? If so who pays if you have 2 tenants playing on it and when does it get installed?

Best post on the subject ever

The conditions of the existing agreement could be varied. With the agreement of all parties, of course. You'll be aware of this after your lie that City "tell" FC when to play was uncomfortably revealed as such when we declined to move our game this weekend.

You seem to be forgetting a couple of things:
1. The Stadium's owners have a frosty relationship with the Allams and have said the Stadium's not for sale.
2. Allam has said, categorically, he will not go back to the council to discuss the stadium. The matter is "closed".
3. Relocation to Melton is a medium term option, requiring planning, some not insignificant changes to highways and a railway bridge. Timescale would likely be into years, and consent less than certain (I'm being generous).
4. In the event of 3 happening, City are legally contracted on a rental agreement at the KC.
5. Also, in the event of 3, head lease would be re-assigned. The Council were impressed with Adam Pearson in their original stadium dealings with him. A vision to scale back costs, re-introduce the community aspects of the stadium rather than indulge the interests of one tenant through an inherently biased SMC arrangement, bring back usage of Arena tenants etc could be appealing. Groundshare with a RU team could be looked at. And if the Council can dream up a "classroom"/public usage rationale to support a flaky commercial case for stadium developments at Craven Park, the opportunity to do the same in a far superior, better-located facility near the City Centre could be attractive, with other council buildings being rationalised to consolidate in one of its biggest facilities, generating cost savings.

You seem to look at the situation through one lens. Try widening your perspective.


.

No costs would filter down to Hull FC, the rent is set as part of the user agreement which can only be amended with the unanimity of the SMC and Hull. Similarly, the SMC are responsible for the costs of re-laying the pitch, in the same way that you wouldn't expect to pay a higher rent to your landlord because he replaced your faulty stove.

The clue is in the second letter of SMC. Management. They are responsible for utilising the stadium facilities to raise revenue to maintain it. I.e., the rent from the tenants and other income-raising initiatives. Just like any successful business manages it's assets to grow and maintain. There is a conflict here for the Allams. A percentage of any profit goes to the council and it's in their interests to make it appear that the SMC struggles to perform to give them leverage in their ownership quest. (It would be interesting to see how an independent owner of the SMC would fare.) None of this is news to Allam, he knew the score when he bought the SMC, which is why it's strange that it's only now he's decided to bleat about it, hmmm?

As for Hull City's rent, that's between Allam as owner of City to negotiate with himself as owner of the SMC. As was made clear from Picturegate, it's a shuffling of money from one pocket to the other so not really relevant.

What landlord in the right mind would lay a pitch at the costs of over £1 million without trying to recoup the costs through rental?

Not really, I'm providing an alternative perspective with some relevant, and fundamental points which you seem unwilling or unable to address. Try these:
Who owns the stadium?
How is their relationship with the Allams?
How long would you expect it to be until a stadium were open for business in Melton given timelines for planning consent, a likely caling-in, preparatory/remedial works, highways variations and build?
Can the terms of the SMC sub lease be materially varied without agreement of all parties?
If Melton went ahead, would the council sensibly look to work with a new SMC to optimise its usage in a more collaborative way and yield cost savings?

In your own time.

So, just to make sure, the council aren't going to sell it and build us a new stadium?!...

Are you really that stupid to understand that it's their responsibility due to the rental agreement between the parties?

They can't just change the rent as they suit!

He knew the responsibilities of the SMC when he bought the company. Incidentally, this isn't the first time the pitch has been re-laid, you know. It's been done several times with the SMC footing the bill via revenue gained each time. That the Allams seem intent on cauterising the SMC's revenue sources is 'curious' but ultimately irrelvant to Hull FC. Not our problem.

He is, so expect him to ignore trivialities like facts and counter with the 'head patting' emoticon.

No neither do I,but its fun seing him shot out of the water time after time.

Are you really of the opinion that any rent paid would not incorporate an allowance for repairs and renewals???

Pitch relaying would be done on a cyclical basis which should be planned well in advance. The kind of thing which the land lord should have figured into account which working out the rent in the first place.

You claim to live in HK? Would you expect your rent to change if your AC machine broke down or would you expect the landlord to fix it without passing on the cost to you?

Oh, and do remember, I lived there for a number of years

www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... tions.html Allam labels councillors "liars and cheats".

www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... tions.html Allam labels councillors "liars and cheats".