Since they are losing money at the club and have managed to turn the once profitable SMC into a loss making concern don't they cut their losses and sell the SMC to someone else? Answer? Because this is not about money. This is about spite.

Because if they sold it someone could do what they are currently doing to you, to us. I think that would pretty embarrasing.

Why would they sell a club that was losing millions before they came in and saved it, don't get that. I tried to correct your wrong ways, unfortunately you aren't clever enough to understand them so i bid you farewell.

Praise The Lord.

Goodbye

Dear City fans. YOUR CLUB DOES NOT OWN THE STADIUM. What part of this do you not understand?

Charging rental to hang pictures isn't really going to make a dent in the losses made by the SMC over the last 2 years, being a businessman I am sure Mr Allam can come up with betters ways to boost income, something that didn't seem to be a problem prior to him taking over. It has got pettiness written all over it but heyho it gets his name in the limelight again in Hull, albeit for the wrong reason once again.

You really are clueless. Nobody has suggested that he sell Hull City. They are saying he should get rid of the SMC, which was profitable before he came along and turned it into a loss making venture. Time you were in bed I think. Mummy will be along to tuck you in.

Erm, not really. Having finally worked out what you meant by "all intensive purposes" I'm struggling with your last couple of efforts.

Correct me, but you appear, by stating:
and

....to be saying that the SMC[i hasn't[/i charged Hull City for their pictures?

I just read all of City1904's posts.

There's 10 minutes of my life I won't be getting back.

I need to have a say.
What Starbucks did was technically within the letter of the (tax) laws but Joe public saw it as being unethical and pressure of the public forced a change. Whilst it may be within the law for SMC to charge for hanging photos this does not make it right. Likewise the public can force a change of mind.
With City no doubt running at a loss then it would make sense to transfer those losses onto an associated business to reduce taxation / council dividends and possibly have those losses covered in part by another unconnected party - raising whatever charges are possible be it season ticket handling to hanging photos. A number of staff costs and overheads could be “reappraised” to achieve this. So what if city are paying for the privilege of hanging their photo’s up – the payments being made will only be covering losses which in all likelihood originated from their football operations. The SMC’s financial performance over the past 2 years v the first 8 years does seem to suggest this.
Notwithstanding the numerous accounting avenues that could be at play here the underlying issue is the disrespect to a local sporting icon. Everyone has seen the creeping takeover of the stadium and the tiger adorned reception for some time but the emotional fight is about justice and respect for Johnny. I never saw him play, much too young

, but there is a degree of aura about the man that cannot be ignored and from his glittering playing career to ambassadorial role for the city and sport. It should be the SMC paying JW for the privilege to be associated with the great man not the other way round!
When the Allams first bought Hull City an elderly man muttered one word to me – “Ruscadors”.
I won’t put another penny into the Allams coffers – be it football, refreshment stands, or squash!

No, But It Can Come From The SMC.. Wonder If That's Why It's Running At A Loss

can we not boycott the food stands and hit them were it hurts, in the pocket.