Absolutely. I mentioned that on here just before the forum. AP called it stadium branding and we’ve taken a decision not to spend on it. With Covid and such it was likely the right call and hopefully now might be able to make it more like home again. Hardly fair if City pay for these things (the tiger print on the stairs for instance) if Hull got it for free. Get things sorted on the pitch and then I’m sure the other stuff will follow.

I especially enjoyed the bit where AT mentioned about a conversation he had with Nigel Wood?

With both Hull clubs cashed up and with good coaches there clashes will be the hottest tickets North of the Trent

We are lucky to play at one of the best stadiums in the North of England. We might not own the ground but therein lies the business opportunity. To compare our clubs situation to that of the unwashed across the river (as so many of them do) is futile. Both clubs have been close to liquidation over the years and have dealt with the situation in different ways due to the circumstances at the time. A SWOT analysis of any business would reveal premises ownership to be in both the Strengths and Weakness column. Hull FC doesn't have the capital costs of stadium purchase or the maintenance, cleaning, refurbishment and revenue costs (as they are included as set costs in the lease agreement) of maintaining a deprecating stadium asset. Providing the club ensures that revenue streams increase and exceed revenue costs over a counting periods Hull FC is a financially viable business. The business opportunities will be realised by improving first team performance and improvement of community involvement. This will see increasing attendances which will drive the other elements of the match day experience.
All of this "Hull City's tenants" stuff is complete nonsense. Hull FC at the best stadium in the league is good for all parties concerned. Even Paul Lakin recognises it, which leaves him out of sync with the majority if his club's supporter base!

I think it's fairly obvious Pearson, just run out of cash, went all out signing players just before covid and it was pretty much downhill from there, made some poor decisions with coaches too.

But he has kept us a float and we are still in SL and found us what seems like good RL owners.

Anyone else still having a "pinch me" moment after yesterday? Still not sure it's sunk in yet.

Think the recruitment for the 2026 season will be very eye catching with the funds we will have available, could see some significant mid-season signings for 2025 also.

Just a point of order here in that yep you are completely right. Adam always made a big deal of it cos he wanted to negotiate a better deal for the club and used the 25 years clause as an excuse. I would respectfully point out that I have mentioned the terms of the lease as I understand them in here at least a dozen times and indeed in the Dentist Diary on many other occasions over the 15 years that ran. The lease is for 50 years with a chance to review by all parties after 25. But any changes had I believe to be mutually agreed by all. So if anyone is completely happy we continue on for another 25 years.

That inclusion was insisted upon by the owners of both clubs (City and FC) in 2001 in case either club had fallen on hard times and needed to renegotiate it to survive. The 50 year lease and insistence that at least two of the Cities Clubs signed up to use the Stadium, plus a massive community commitment was part of the agreement with the Government, before they would sanction release the 35m of the Capital funds gained by the council from the sale of KC.

Incidentally I believe there is also a clause about it having to be renegotiated immediately were we relegated from Super League (Just us not City) because of the massive difference between the financing of the two leagues, built in to protect our tenure, which was always a major worry for me under the Allams, cos I could see them using it not as it was intended but against us had we gone down. The deal particularly the percentage of receipts clauses is not ideal, but was agreed by Adam as chair of Hull City (of course it was as he was the only agency that would take up control of the SMC at the time as the Stadium was deemed too small for some of the major national Stadium Management organisations) and Richo (who was personally planning only a short term stay anyway) before it was signed. There is flexibility in it but that is in the gift of the SMC as the Allam's gleefully used it against us in their reign. Well that's how I remember it anyway and for my sins I was in the room when it was signed by the two owners and Cllr Pat Doyle Leader of the Council and John North Head of HCC Industrial Development.

Really pleased with everything that has been said,

BUT - it really winds me up when folk talk about 99% of us want our own stadium !!! FFS this is a business, AP and AT could not have been clearer on our future being at the MKM - Wilf so ably explains many of the reasons above. It is the best SL stadium in the country, despite some neglect from the Allam's - the only problem has been atmosphere or lack of, largely due to our poor form in recent years.

So next year even a semi resurgent FC v Rovers will surely be close to a sell out - nobody will complain about lack of atmosphere then, or perhaps we have a Donny style 12K with thousands locked out, massive debt & years of planning etc before it could happen.

Please move on, the Boulevard isnt coming back, be grateful for what we have now.

Really informative post, Wilf. Excellent counterpoint to a lot of the misinformed rumour and disinformation that tends to surround our tenancy.

I've often wondered why the club don't clarify our position in this more clearly to the fan base, just the general outline of our basics terms and agreement, not the fine detail points obviously.

I've never had any real concerns about our agreement to reside at the stadium, but at times the unsubstantiated rumour mill has done the rounds (unchecked by anyone connected with our club) about how we are about to be evicted at anytime soon, particularly when City were a PL club.

Same, I think people just don’t understand how much it would cost to build a stadium. In a money no object fantasy world then a St’s stadium would probably be ideal (18K capacity) but that stadium cost £25 million over 15 years ago. That was funded by selling Knowsley road for housing, we would be starting from nothing. It would be at least £50 million nowadays and would take decades to pay off before we could see any profit from gate receipts etc.

Cheers for the clarity, while it’s obviously something they’ll be keen to get sorted I’d be surprised if a takeover would have gone through if there was even the slightest doubt that we would have a ground in the next couple of years.

Whislt its good to know that the clubs financial future seems secured for the next few years its what happens on the field that really counts.
Success breeds success not only in bringing in quality exciting players but it also builds the fan base as seen at HKR.
Sadly with this squad we are miles away from that and big name options quota or UK based very limited for 2026 due to contracts unless the club once again pay off players.
Have to say it looks like been turned down by Rowley and Lam has done us a favour.
Impressed with Cartwright on and off the field and pleased also that Andy Last is back on board.
If anyone can get a tune out of that lot,instill the discipline and fitness it looks to be Cartwright.

Just think, if he'd taken the easy option we'd be stuck in the mire for years to come

Richie, Why did you leave your wife for the daughter of a multi millionaire business owner?