£629,909. From the SMC accounts for 2010

Feck me, that's a lot considering we don't make anything on non match days and get peanuts out of the catering

if we are paying that much no wonder the council didnt want to sell up and have us kicked out , out of intrest what do city pay

This is partly why I thought Kath couldn't be taking loads out of the club. Paying this amount of service charge, supposedly spending the full cap, transfer fees, and making a profit when so few other clubs were.

You have to remember that the rent includes office space/club shop, a staffed ticket office, maintenance and stewarding etc

I'm not saying its the best deal out there (the 7,500 attendance cap in particular is now a hindrance to growing the club) but i'm sure other clubs will be spending more just keeping their grounds maintained.

If you checked them all it would be roughly same, think it has been 500k+ every year

So following the Wigan fans post on page 2 stating " Wigan RL paid Whelan £190k in total for the 2010 season (last available accounts)"

We're definitely paying over the odd's. At the end of the day Pearson struck this deal back at the time, and now he has a foot in the door he's actually realising it's not a good deal. I'd be very interested to see Hull City's contribution.

Personally think deals like this should be reviewed every 5-10 seasons. Attendances and performances fluctuate, and from the posts in this thread we're currently paying double by the sounds of it if not more than we possibly should be. (Correct me if I am wrong)

Back in years gone loads on here were stating what a good deal it was,now all of a sudden its a bad deal ?

Quote: Roland_R "So following the Wigan fans post on page 2 stating " Wigan RL paid Whelan £190k in total for the 2010 season (last available accounts)" We're definitely paying over the odd's. At the end of the day Pearson struck this deal back at the time, and now he has a foot in the door he's actually realising it's not a good deal. I'd be very interested to see Hull City's contribution. Personally think deals like this should be reviewed every 5-10 seasons. Attendances and performances fluctuate, and from the posts in this thread we're currently paying double by the sounds of it if not more than we possibly should be. (Correct me if I am wrong)'" That Wigan fan did acknowledge that theirs is a very good deal. The review idea is a double edged sword, IMO. Attendances and performances do fluctuate, while maintenance and staffing costs are more predictable - in one sense you're quite fortunate that the SMC already bears risk that'd normally belong to the club. What you should be paying isn't a simple thing to gauge - the KC is realistically the only show in town. Pointing at the Wigan deal will only provoke a 'go and play and Wigan then' response if the SMC are not symapathetic. They don't turn huge profits, so while they might be open to restructuring the deal, I can't see them just agreeing to effectively handing back half the rent or anything like that. That's if it is a business decision. There's the political appeal for equitable treatment (and we all know the name for that in Troll ). But the sweeteners that the politicians might give to the SMC could be quite unpalatable, given the suspicions of some Hull fans. Hull City's 'contribution' was £1,619,180 in 2010 according to Mrs B. The take per fan per game was very similar. viewtopic.php?f=34&t=497406

Quote: Roland_R "So following the Wigan fans post on page 2 stating " Wigan RL paid Whelan £190k in total for the 2010 season (last available accounts)" We're definitely paying over the odd's. At the end of the day Pearson struck this deal back at the time, and now he has a foot in the door he's actually realising it's not a good deal. I'd be very interested to see Hull City's contribution. Personally think deals like this should be reviewed every 5-10 seasons. Attendances and performances fluctuate, and from the posts in this thread we're currently paying double by the sounds of it if not more than we possibly should be. (Correct me if I am wrong)'" That Wigan fan did acknowledge that theirs is a very good deal. The review idea is a double edged sword, IMO. Attendances and performances do fluctuate, while maintenance and staffing costs are more predictable - in one sense you're quite fortunate that the SMC already bears risk that'd normally belong to the club. What you should be paying isn't a simple thing to gauge - the KC is realistically the only show in town. Pointing at the Wigan deal will only provoke a 'go and play and Wigan then' response if the SMC are not symapathetic. They don't turn huge profits, so while they might be open to restructuring the deal, I can't see them just agreeing to effectively handing back half the rent or anything like that. That's if it is a business decision. There's the political appeal for equitable treatment (and we all know the name for that in Troll ). But the sweeteners that the politicians might give to the SMC could be quite unpalatable, given the suspicions of some Hull fans. Hull City's 'contribution' was £1,619,180 in 2010 according to Mrs B. The take per fan per game was very similar. viewtopic.php?f=34&t=497406

Some were saying from the off it was a mill stone round our necks, yet again the club apologisits beat them down

when we initially signed the agreement it protected us from a very many variables andd unknowns, not least what kind of attendances we would get at the KC.

I can visualise the SMC meeting to discuss the rent issue; In attendance are the main parties - Mr Allam and his CEO, Mr Pearson and his CEO, and the Councils representative and EO. Mr Allam’s CEO will be a busy chap switching from his Hull City place to his Hull FC place. Talk about a conflict of interest!!!! And a plot for a comedy sketch lol!

On the issue, it has to be held in mind that any rent reduction translates into reduced income for the SMC. We already know (via the Yorkshire Post) that the SMC is run at break-even, so who will meet the shortfall in revenue? Will Hull City accept a rent increase? Or will it be sourced out of tax payers money? Something else to factor into the negotiations is the Council no longer rent office space at the KC – the SMCs income has been reduced by approx. £75,000 per annum because of this. Also, a Coalition Gov’t directive was sent out to all local authorities to gain maximum returns from ALL assets. To me all of this adds up to little scope for re-negotiation.

One last observation, the KC costs approx. £860,000 per annum to run (it might even be more) of which FC pay less than a quarter (approx £170,000), which on face value seems about right.

Ap is nowt to do with the SMC

The SMC has someone from City

Does the coalition govt have that much say on a stadium,paid for by the kc shares sell off,and not actually by the council or govt?

As far as I know (I could be wrong BTW) yes as it is stil classed as a council asset.