Linked to number of games and the 2013/14 cup run?

The comparison was a poor one, IMO.

The deal is that good they can reduce season tickets and match day tickets by almost 50%

£2 million is still significantly less than £4.3 million. The naming rights are irrelevant as the KC has already been named, unless the Council take the opportunity to rename the stadium. KC presumably has a contract with the SMC not the Council for the naming rights.

I understand the rent Hull City AFC and Hull FC pay is calculated on revenue from pass and ticket sales (including cash). The last accounts did not take into account the large increase in prices and we only had two FA Cup matches at home.

If the Council take back the lease then the rent will be negotiated between the council and Hull City AFC. The old agreement will be dead in the water. I expect it to be considerably less than what Hull City AFC are paying now.

....apart from city playing 4 more home league games in 2012/13, and one FA cup game, (and just 2 FA cup home games in 2013/14).

Could they gift or sell this below the market value to another company and if so could they be a shareholder in the company?

Really? Slightly surprised.

I still think it was a strange comparison given that the West Ham deal that is getting huge amounts of bad press for it's perceived lack of commercial sense, has been declared confidential, and the rumoured amounts are at least double the amount plucked for the comparison.

...aaaah, I thought you were referring to my comment about city's last 2 "rentals" as being a poor comparison!

Not entirely irrelevant, it's a potential additional revenue stream that may be taken into account when agreeing rental terms. It has already been quoted that the profile of West Ham has been considered as a way to increase the earning potential of it, too.



It may well be less, I have no idea. I just think it's flawed to support that belief with the evidence of a deal elsewhere that is being highly criticised for being undervalued, and also concerns a team with significantly higher average attendance and a stadium more than twice the size.

No, sorry, Obadiah's. He seems to be suggesting that City should pay significantly less rent on the basis that West Ham have seemingly managed to bag a ridiculously beneficial deal at the expense of the taxpayer.

The rent Hull City AFC would pay would be based on market rates. West Ham, Manchester City and Swansea City all pay similar amount in rent and well below what City pays the SMC. West Ham has been criticised publicly, Swansea City Council was investigated by the EU and I have seen nothing but praise for what Manchester City have done for East Manchester.

Now if Hull City AFC were paying significantly less for stadium hire than other association football clubs then they may well have to continue paying £4m plus a year. But they aren't.

The rent Hull City AFC would pay to the council if the lease was revoked will not be based on the market rates in London, Manchester and Swansea. It will be based on the market rate in Hull and in particular what other users of the stadium pay for its hire per match.

Having issued the writ there's a lot for the Council to consider.

Still waiting for Allams £10 tickets and the first full International from the city youth structure

You're not getting what I'm saying, you're not comparing like for like. You're right that a renegotiation would see City pay a market rent, you're wrong in the examples you pick being the same.

West Ham - allegedly getting a ridiculous deal that is at the centre of a media/public backlash questioning/condemning it. You also came up £1m a season, which is half what is rumoured.
Manchester City - Again, where have you got £2m ish from? They agreed to pay £2m a year just for the naming rights, they reportedly pay circa £4m for their overall rent.

Swansea is a closer comparison, but again there has been significant concern over the fact that they only pay a peppercorn rent, so I'm still not sure how you seem to think that these 3 are strong indicators of how much City could expect to pay at market value. Your approach seems to be that if I somehow managed to rip off Audi for a brand new A4 at half price, you should then be able to come to a similar arrangement on a Skodia Fabia.

The market rate for the KC would be what Hull FC pay the Council per game for its use.

Manchester City pay £2 million rent and £2 million for the naming rights if your figures are correct. Which means they pay £2 million pa for the stadium. Half of what Hull City AFC paid in 2013-14 accounting year.

Swansea City is similar to us. The football club and rugby club pay monies to the stadium management company for the maintenance of the stadium as well as the peppercorn rent. Both Swansea City and the rugby club each pay over a £1 million a year for the stadium up keep.

My approach is simple, the SMC is making losses and if the lease is revoked Hull City Council will be responsible for running the stadium complex and any losses it makes. Hull City AFC pays rent of £4.3 million which is above what would be judged a market rent, so the rent is likely to be reduced significantly when a new agreement is negotiated. In broad terms it would be similar to the rent Hull FC would pay for use of the same facility. Unless the Allams agree to pay more out of civic duty.

Without seeing detailed accounts, I'd take any running costs, profits/losses with a pinch of salt. Since the days of bartlett the finances of the football club have been intertwined with those of Hull city and I don't beleiee for one minute the figures which have been banded around. From memory, a couple of years ago, Hull paid £750k for a yer which included the small shop and offices they use and 13 or so rugby games. We then get told that the SMC are losing money hand over fist on our contract. Too many questions are unanswered but I for one don't believe it costs north of £5m a year to run the KC for the football and rugby clubs when the likes of the DW and John Smiths seem to be operated for much less.

It#s long past time when some vindictive individual should be able to hold a sword above the head of a professional sporting club in a council owned facility. About time someone stood up to him

Point of order, West Ham will be paying £2M/annum AND they stumped £15M up front to offset part of the debt accrued in developing the stadium for soccer use (£400Million to convert it apparently!!! )
Based on 19 home league games per season that's £105k/game, however they will be getting the benefit of all the corporate.
Given the location, they are getting one hell of a deal, I would be annoyed as hell if I were a Tower Hamlets resident as they loaned £40M towards this and it would seem WHU aren't paying 'market rates' for a 'community/legacy' stadium