i noticed the ayatollahs reply, sorry smc reply to clr brady toatally missed the part where the council intended to have a Johnny Whiteley suite and pictures placed in the stadium, so why do hull fc have to pay, if the council requested them!

you mean the we charge Dean Windass £20 a game to keep his picture up or something bollox

To summarise...

"We can do what the feck we like. Deal with it. Johnny who?"

Sir Doctor Johnny would be a mouthful

Nope, you heard it correctly. In an unprecedented gesture of magnanimity they have 'allowed' the JW suite to keep it's name but insist it's the responsibility of FC to pay for maintaining the heritage of one of OUR heroes.

Apparently everything he's done for the rest of the city - far, FAR more than the Allams will ever do - counts for nothing.

I'm really struggling not to post something libellous. Think I'll go for a walk to calm down. Back later...

Seems to me that the crux of the problem is the unfair manner of the charge. Allam pays it to himself and we would have to pay the charge to him, win win for DR Allam!
If the philanthropist is so magnanimous might he consider that we pay the charge to a suitable local charity rather than the great doctor (via the SMC)?
I am sure that the faithful would see this as a rallying call and come together to pay the charge to a charity in Gentleman John's name.

Does anyone realise that the SMC could charge City £100000000000000000000000 a second for displaying pictures and not a penny would change hands outside of Allamhouse Limited. They could say charging us the same would be treating both parties equally.

Yep - a point everyone seems to be overlooking.

Are the council, as owners, within their rights to demand an audit of the SMC accounts, as Cod'ead suggests? Someone also said earlier a council representative sits on the SMC board, this is worth pursuing if true. Geraghty mentioned the council must be consulted on and changes the Allams wish to make to the stadium, so this would indicate they still have some influence.

For me, the crux of the problem is that no money needs to be charged to put pictures up. To us, or City. There are better ways to raise revenue, if that is what this is about.

And second, if the Allam's want respect, as their [iarslikhan[/i in chief seemed to be claiming on the radio before, they could go a long way to getting it by giving some respect to one of the city's greatest sporting heroes

Dr Allam refutes that charge

Yes, I think that this is the reason an audit could be interesting...I doubt it will happen but...

That Talksport was utterly ridiculous, even the councillors were completely inadequate in being able to form a sentence and were unable to get to the simple route of the problem. The real question we are supposed to be asking as Hull FC fans and tenants of the KC "community" stadium is this:

Why did the council allow the SMC to be privately owned?

It's obvious that any money going from Hull City to the SMC's hands is not an expense to Hull City as the Allams own both the SMC and Hull City Football club. As the Allams have only just recently introduced this memorabilia expense, it's obvious that they're exploiting Hull FC's situation as tenants of the KC, hence Hull FC's reluctance to comply and our outrage. As the SMC have subsequently taken down photos of Johnny Whitely from a suite named in his honour this is ridiculous and only furthers our argument. The Allams owning both the SMC and Hull City should be central to our argument, it shows the Allam's agenda for what it is.



This is the point entirely, it proves how we are being exploited. So why did the council not decide to manage the stadium themselves and cut out the easily corrupt-able middle-man that is the SMC in the first place?