Because a tenancy agreement is with the owner, not the appointed operator. And because it was published at the time of the move. And several times since.

It's a 25 year lease BTW.

The SMC operates the stadium on behalf of the council. They have no legal right over it nor over the tenants. If the went bust tomorrow it would have zero impact on our right to use the stadium.

Not so sure about this. I wrote to Duffen at the time of the RL Test match refusal to stress I considered the stadium to be a public facility and the SMC therefore obliged to service the needs of the whole community not just it's own footballing interests. I wrote asking for their complaints process so I could formally raise my concerns and know the timescales for a response and which independent watchdog to approach if I was not happy with the outcome.

This is an excerpt from the reply I received from Paul Duffen himself"You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that the Superstadium Management Company Ltd (SMC) is some outpost of the Hull Civic empire. It is not. The SMC is a private commercial company which amongst other assets owns the Head Lease to the KC Stadium and surrounding land. As Chairman of the SMC my decision is final with regard to the running of the Stadium, including what events do or do not take place. There is no complaints procedure"

I took it that "owning the lease" would mean the SMC are under no control of the council and do not "run the stadium" for them, it is a business purely for their own profit and benefit.

Their only other obligation is to the two tenants - Hull City, an independent company run by the same people and Hull FC. Without knowing the clauses that were drawn up within the original agreement when the council sold the lease to the SMC I don't even know if the council would have the right to reclaim the stadium or would the rights be passed to their (the SMC's) creditors?

personally I think its becoming a 'no smoke without fire' case...selling your best player for around 6million, when weeks before you'd stated you wanted 12million, in a quick deadline day sale is strange behavior. Also all this summers signings have been loans, or players from lower leagues (that presumably don't demand as high wages) for a club with 'no debt' thats won another £60million+ from SKY for staying up it was a very cautious summer.

that combined with the fact the owners made their fortune in property, which has hardly been a good industry to be in, during this recession...it makes you wonder.

I hope it all isn't true, but all 3 Hull clubs have had situations in the past where everything looked rosey then suddenly its revealed the club is built on sand. So there's reasons to be skeptical.

"As Chairman of the SMC my decision is final with regard to the running of the Stadium, including what events do or do not take place. There is no complaints procedure"

I don't normally resort to name-calling, but, seriously, what a to$$er. "My decision is final" - 95% of "events" are covered by the original agreement anyway, so talk about bigging your part up.

A tenancy agreement can be with anyone who has a legal right to use/occupy property. Have you never heard of sub letting?

I don't know either way, but there is every chance that the club have a tenancy agreement with the SMC unless someone has actually had sight of the document. The fact that the SMC have allegedly varied the rental agreement would lead me to think that it may well be them who hold the original lease

Looks like the worm's blown your theory out of the water. The lease is an asset of the SMC and, as such, may possibly be sold on. there could (and probably are) clauses to restrict this. there is certainly significant commercial value in the lease so there would likely be prospective buyers of the SMC if it were put into receivership

Is it? Wouldn't that depend on whether they bought it outright or had a staged payment/continuing payment arrangement?

In any case it doesn't materially affect FC's exposure.

In this particular case the Head Lease and sub leases were set up at the same time with a very well defined set of criteria. The SMC (or whoever else holds the Head Lease) has very limited scope for alteration of the terms of the sub leases.

Of course a lease is an asset. Do you have any understanding of leasehold property?

You're backtracking quicker than a french tank

rlWhat a shame for the ill informed football hatersrl

Only a very basic understanding. I would have thought that a lease is an asset if you own it outright but not if it is purchased under staged payments. I could be wrong, which is why I phrased it as a question and not a statement.

The SMC make payments to the council from the proceeds of running the KC. Whether these count as ongoing payment for the lease or are covered under a condition of the lease I don't know.

All rivalry aside I can't see how anything that relates to any financial irregularities by the SMC and or Hull City Football Club would have any implications to Hull FC.

There maybe a period of uncertainty and if another management team is installed but perhaps this could be considered a positive if a new 'rugby friendly regime' is adopted.

However there may be much ado about nothing until anything concrete is founded - Best scenario may be a new SMC anyway!