So donating money to the Labour party puts you above the law?

Ask Phil Webster. There is no reason why the council shouldn't have started legal proceedings to reclaim the Airco Arena for the people of Hull. Its not like Assem Allam will agree with them and take out the 3g pitch.

Webster's conspicuous by his absence after the initial bluster.

Hull City's financial change in circumstances is a separate issue to the SMC materially breaching the terms of the Head lease though, right?

The facts in a nutshell. I mean Hull City and the SMC are separate entities aren't they (or so we were led to believe), although history teaches us differently.

If anyone seriously believes that Allam throwing a few £k at the national party would have any effect on the decisions of a majority Labour controlled council, then they're away with the fairies.

The unions donate £millions each year and I can't remember the last time Labour introduced pro-union legslation.

Allam's donation is a straw man in the extreme

Of course, but when you're short of cash losing an extra half a million is a lot of money. The City Council have the power to stop Hull City getting academy 2 status and all that entails. The question is will they do it or let Assem Allam get away with it? The audit has already said Hull City's facilities passed the test. All that stands between the City of Hull getting a category 2 football academy is Hull City Council. Do they have the backbone to stand up on behalf of the evicted users of the Arena?

Half a million's about 10 weeks wages for a player isn't it? Not that material.

Do the council have the backbone? "Hell yeah"

Surely April was more than 10 days ago? Has something happened to phil webbo? Did he lose his seat or maybe something worse has happened to him? Getting a bit worried about him now

The council have since said that they would delay a decision until after the audit.

They have now asked to meet the FA before the decision is ratified.

I know that but the question is why would they wait if he's in breach of his tenancy agreement?

My interpretation of this situation is, that if a dispute between the two parties exist,(regardless of the auditor's recommendation).

The FA will reject the soccer club's proposal for Tier 2 status.

Therefore the Council do not need to take legal action, only if the Allam's still refuse to remove the 3g pitch.

Also an extract from The Dentist's Diary...

l contacted a Councillor close to the action who sent me an E mail that explains the Council’s position and he agreed that I could enclose an extract from it here for your information.

[i“The reason that the council are holding off is that should the Allam’s fail to upgrade the academy they will take up the pitch, but if they were successful we would then instigate proceedings to have it removed which is very expensive, people need to remember this is public money and we need to be mindful of that, so if by waiting a few weeks we can resolve this, why would we start (Lengthy) and expensive court proceedings? As far as the question of those political contributions, they were to the National party not Labour (Hull) we have had not one word from the national party on this, It has never even been mentioned in passing, to sum up, if we can get to where we need to be cost free, we will take that option every time”[/i

Another slight possibility is that the council have said to Mr Allam, "If you want the audit ratified by the FA, then it will be on our terms, and this is what you'll need to do....".

I think it is more straightforward. Council at the meeting with the FA ask whether the Allams have stated its for exclusive use. If they have, they have evidence to prove a breach.

The council should not be responsible for the cost of removal of the 3G pitch.

If spending public money on a legal case to protect the use of a public asset is not in the public interest, then there it little point in having a local government organisation.