To this extent, yes. Good that he's finally stating the actual case.

Cue the trolls comments about begging bowls etc. Hope this does away with comments from some about AP not wanting to relinquish control to other investors, always found that one hard to believe. Also glad to hear we may be back in the black by Autumn. I’ve said it before and now again, we’re very fortunate to have him, his limited funds have kept us going over the last rocky 4 years, hope the rumours of a major investor from a few months ago come to fruition not only for our sake but for him. It would be good for everyone concerned.

The one thing im not understanding is if relations are so good with the SMC and Council why arent they getting on with the lease? Even when agreement is made it will take time with the solicitors to finalise it.

A longer lease would make it easier to attract investors as without an extension the club will fold, theres no alternative stadium.

Im sceptical there any local investors, if there was a multimillionaire FC fan around who wanted to risk their fortune on a declining sport theyd have done so by now, the price to buy the club will be as cheap as it has been since the end of the 90s.

If it's not due for renewal for another 3 years maybe City want to see how things pan out their side for a while longer?

Potentially, also from the limited details we have its debateable whether the current deal ia better for FC or the SMC, there were certainly things that annoyed the Allams. At least in Pearson we have someone who knows all about it, he signed it from the other side of the table!

From bits we know its free stewarding and these mysterious 2k tickets the SMC buy in FC's favour, bar takings and a cut of the revenue when crowds go over about 7.5k in the SMC's favour.

It’s in the interests of the SMC/City to retain their political leverage for as long as possible, I strongly suspect. As the clock runs down, the sirens start to sound much louder on the council’s side. The longer SMC-City wait, the more they’re likely to get.

And, yes - discussing how to negotiate a deal to maximise benefit to one’s own side is slightly painful for me at the moment.

Yes that's what I'd assume. I guess there are 3 leases in play - head lease between Council and SMC, sublease between SMC and City and sublease between SMC and FC. Not sure how the sequencing would work on these, nor whether they all have the same expiry dates. Either way can't see any substantial investment incoming unless/until this security is in place.

Good read tbh and good to see that we may be back on a even keel come August one the last Covid payment has been paid,I think some fans haven’t realised how much of a impact this has had on the club.People bang on about Pearson,yes he has made mistakes but by god,we are far better having him and his goods far outweigh the bad.I await the numptys coming on saying we are skint blah blah and need Pearson to go.Looks as though he is looking for investment and if it helps him and club then good.

The SMCs deal was 50 years, whether there are any review points before that I dont know. No idea what City's lease term is either but of course they and the SMC are essentially the same thing.

Quite right when the lease was agreed it was for 50 years, (something that was part of the governments agreement to the Council being allowed to spend some of the capital receipts they had received from the sale of Hull Telephones shares to build the stadium) however to safeguard the two clubs should they fall on hard times or should circumstances change on either side (the clubs or the council) it was decided by the council and the clubs that it would be a good idea to review the terms after 25 years, it was hoped that would benefit the clubs but as things stand now it could be quite the opposite. At least the climate has changed somewhat now the Allam's have gone, because I believe Adam felt that they would try and get us out at that point.

Gas, water, electricity, insurance and wages have all gone through the roof since AP put your lease in place, surely he can't be that confident of renegotiating better terms.

Better terms doesn't just mean cost though. We could end up paying more, but being given more freedom with the stadium, which in turn could offset the higher rent. An example would be been able to have a home friendly every year, or the way food/drink takings are shared out.
While AP will no doubt want to keep rent costs as low as possible, there will be a lot more to discuss than just rent costs.

I can't help but feel that as a club we fail to organise our support base to it's fullest financial potential. I know our pass, ticket and merchandise sales are up there but there must be at least 1000 more ardent / affluent supporters who would be prepared to pay into a share scheme (not necessarily for dividend but for love of the club)? Have we ever investigated this type of revenue stream?

Yes but equally the SMC wont find the approx 15 days of revenue we bring in if we left. The stadium is now old, theyve tried and failed with concerts and it isnt 1st choice for proms, weddings etc like it was when it opened. It would sit empty most weeks if only City played there.

Agree, also with the current situation of paying off the Covid loan they could have looked at selling 2 or 3 year passes to get revenue in early.