"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!

Whilst you may be convinced by that article, it would appear that it has done little to ease the worries of quite a few city supporters who appear to be far from ill informed. (See BBC 606 site for City)

Not a fadge?

Oh yeah - forgot the word of the week!