Surely if it was already in the contract the club would have already being paying for displaying our stuff.

This is something that neither club has had to pay for in the past.

Precisely the opposite, if the club moan and it is a nominal fee (define nominal, nominal when you're moving it between your own pockets, or nominal because you can get it from a cash point?) then thy look petty.

This isn't a commercial issue, it's a rights and equality issue, the Stadium BELONGS to the people of Hull, to have a suite named after Johnny Whitely with no images of Johnny Whitely is simply absurd. If we don't voice an opinion now then what will his next "commercially driven" wheeze be?

Some may not see through this, fortunately enough of us do, and are willing to do something about it.

That's my point, maybe the clause to charge has always been there but never implemented and maybe now the have decided to enforce it and AP is not accepting it?

I think the City stooge they had on after the game Sunday said that Pictures were not included in the agreement and it was a new thing.

Of course there is a bigger picture, no one disputes that. However you or anyone else on here don't know the agreements in place regarding displaying things. Maybe club are right to say nothing but right now we only stuff had been taken down and we don't know the clubs stance on it.

What are you doing about it?

It's Good To See That When Issues Like This Happens.. Fan's From All Clubs Can Come Together And Fight For What's Right..

Regarding The Bunch Of City Fans Who Find All This Funny, I Hope City Don't Get Promoted And Get In Trouble With Fifa With The New Rules

Quote: PAUL M "That's my point, maybe the clause to charge has always been there but never implemented and maybe now the have decided to enforce it and AP is not accepting it?'" This is a new charge as stated in this article www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html I also think he'd better check what he says before stating the stadium has never made money, the fact is in the previous 10 yrs before the Allams took over it always posted a profit not a large profit but a profit.

Quote: PAUL M "That's my point, maybe the clause to charge has always been there but never implemented and maybe now the have decided to enforce it and AP is not accepting it?'" This is a new charge as stated in this article www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html I also think he'd better check what he says before stating the stadium has never made money, the fact is in the previous 10 yrs before the Allams took over it always posted a profit not a large profit but a profit.

what new rules are theses?

He said something along the lines of "elements that are additional to the lease agreement need to be recognised commercially", I very much doubt, when they were hammering out the original lease agreement someone had the foresight to say "pictures, you gotta pay to put up pictures". Advertising, yes, of course, but not historical images directly linked to the tenant of the property, let alone images of the players the flaming room is named after.

Is there a picture of The Circle in The Circle Restaurant, who is paying for that?

Can you imagine renting a house and having to pay to put photo's of your family up?

The fact you even ask that question shows you up Paul.

id love to know Johnny Whiteleys take on all this

That response shows you as a cretin but hey ho.

You indicated you were doing something about it, I asked what?

It wasn't a loaded question, I was interested. I stand by the first sentence.

Financial Fair Play.. They Can Only Spend What They Receive On Income.. Something Along Them Lines

You clearly haven't read the majority of the thread, and the first sentence is against the AUP, Mr Moderator.