So all the time we were being told that we made no money from the concessions that was untrue? Or at least not quite true if we have a guaranteed flat income regardless of sales.

Two points to bear in mind here:

1. The SMC has always been owned by the owners of City. Regardless of how good or bad the deal is, no money actually changes hands.
2. If the deal for City is that bad, why not change it? See point 1.

When the SMC was set up, it had to be capitalised, this was at £2mill

Pearson, Wilkinson (the internet backer) and the Healey's were involved in the setup.

Divide and conquer, something I've witnessed first hand over the last 3 years or so.

I'll pay 300.00 so there pictures stay down, must have missed there concert too

As i got told,

Say in the last year at Boulevard the club made £70k over the bars.

SMC would give us £70k "from the bars take"

Now if the bars are not taking enough to cover this then its their fault for charging £3.70 for a can of beer.

Rich said every meeting "we will have "AT LEAST" the same income as Boulevard, is guaranteed, we might get more, but never less"

I knew about Pearson and Wilkinson but wasn't aware of the Healey link. Is this common knowledge.

I know the SMC has always been owned by the owners of city, I have stated many times how stupid this is. It has always left the possibility of a conflict of interest that the council should never allow to happen.


The point I made about city getting a less favorable deal was in relation to a point somebody made about Pearson agreeing with the council then finding out what FC had agreed afterwards and being very unhappy at the disparity. Once in place this has always been a contract that the SMC and city have had to abide by regardless of the owners.

We have only heard one side of the story and then the Allams are changing their statements day by day. We still have to hear APs side of the story, so i for one will reserve judgement.

Initially I would have agreed with you, however I am now not so sure.
The uproar started earlier in the week as people noticed that the pictures had been removed, I suspect hundreds of e-mails were sent all over the shop (and quite rightly so), however it now transpires AP knew about this last summer &ordered the pictures of our great legend to be taken down over a few hundred quid.

I wonder if the same level of anger will be directed at AP for this decision ? will he be bombarded with hundreds of e-mails questioning why this has happened ?, I very much doubt it tbh.
We may not actually be the victims or the innocent party in all this, which is a worry thought tbh.

We have only heard one side of the story and then the Allams are changing their statements day by day. We still have to hear APs side of the story, so i for one will reserve judgement.

Doesn't matter what he says, only FC fans will pay any attention to the fine detail. If you had a quick poll of 100 people in the city this morning you will probably find only the diehard FC fans among them will have any sympathy for us.