Plausible, and I agree that the offer was likely made in the expectation it will be rejected. But there are two (main) possible reasons why the council will likely turn it down. The 'debt-free?' question can help shed a lot more light than the accounts from either the profitable or loss making eras - just because we're dubious about how the latter were constructed, doesn't mean the former were transparent and free from political arithmetic. Plus costs may well have risen as the stadium has aged.
If the answer to 'debt-free?' isn't 'yes', then it's back to square one, with the Allams sweating the asset and bitterness all round - but at least the offer will be seen clearly for what it is and there's hope that the SMC isn't necessarily some bloody great poisoned chalice.
If the answer is 'yes', and the council still don't want it... Well it could be that they're very risk averse, and I know that some people would keenly advocate that position. But it'd seem more likely to me that it doesn't even really qualify as a risk and, as unpleasant as all this is, the prospect of chucking in many tens of thousands of pounds each year is even less appealing.
Either way, at least we'd, if not quite 'know', then have a bit of a clearer idea - not about Allam, but about the SMC/stadium. I'm not convinced by it's portrayal either as loss-making burden or potential source of even modest profits. One must be true, but in one case there's a clear (though not very competent) attempt to encourage transfer of ownership, while the other often sounds like wishful thinking.

Under different tenures (AP and Duffen) the SMC broke even for 10 years. Since the Allams took over, it's now £6m in debt, due in large part to the exceptional write off of £5m.

Of course, as acknowledged in the half-d response to Whiteleygate, the SMC said "The SMC's principal responsibility is to remain neutral and to support all sporting, educational and community opportunities at the KC Stadium and the Sports Arena." Until today when AA openly contradicted this by saying City's academy was much more important as it would yield players for the national side, then.

"I choose to take responsibility of the football club. You don't force me to look after the whole thing. There are elected councillors for that, rates and taxes."

^^^^ that's my favourite bit ^^^^^^^

Allam's interview: https://audioboom.com/boos/2995316-asse ... ce=twitter At 1.58: "What about the people you voted for? Are they there for tea and coffee and lying and cheating, and knocking down buildings and closing down sports activities - is that what you voted them for?" At 3.05: "It's not my job. My job is to promote the football, I took this. Do i dilute the efforts and look after this and this 150 clubs, or do you want me to concentrate and make a success of the football and the academy? Academy is a very important item, very important issue for the community. Academy is important, far more important - equally important to every other activity." At 4.40: "...have discussed the matter with the East Riding, because the East Riding council have a different policy. They promote sports and they spend money on sports activities, unlike in the case of Hull City Council - they close them down." At 6.00: "Let the council do something. We need to start a bubble...what they call the covered pitch. That's their land, it is not my land. Build the covered pitch and then we'll leave the arena as is. The covered pitch will cost £1.5M. East Riding council spent £7M on Haltemprice. Come on, spend one and half million, it's your land, it's your freehold - spend one and a half million and then have the arena for the other sports." Words fail me.

Allam's interview: https://audioboom.com/boos/2995316-asse ... ce=twitter At 1.58: "What about the people you voted for? Are they there for tea and coffee and lying and cheating, and knocking down buildings and closing down sports activities - is that what you voted them for?" At 3.05: "It's not my job. My job is to promote the football, I took this. Do i dilute the efforts and look after this and this 150 clubs, or do you want me to concentrate and make a success of the football and the academy? Academy is a very important item, very important issue for the community. Academy is important, far more important - equally important to every other activity." At 4.40: "...have discussed the matter with the East Riding, because the East Riding council have a different policy. They promote sports and they spend money on sports activities, unlike in the case of Hull City Council - they close them down." At 6.00: "Let the council do something. We need to start a bubble...what they call the covered pitch. That's their land, it is not my land. Build the covered pitch and then we'll leave the arena as is. The covered pitch will cost £1.5M. East Riding council spent £7M on Haltemprice. Come on, spend one and half million, it's your land, it's your freehold - spend one and a half million and then have the arena for the other sports." Words fail me.

He's still knocking Hull City Council ,with his East Riding Council crap about spending.
He's closing down sports facilities with out blaming Hull council.
Its just the mans greed for money, only reason wants to take the academy up to next level.

I would like to the think that the premier league who are assessing the club in Apr for cat 2 status are also aware of our he has gone about this? Hull City have known about the fact they needed a covered arena for other a year yet a month before the assessment they panic and throw a whole host of clubs out of a community arena with zero regard to any of them. Surely morally that sits wrong with them also and they look at the lack of planning from the club.

As SMC are in huge debt..

Could they be declared bankrupt? ... and a new company is formed to take it over??

Just so I've got this straight...

- Hull City need a certain type of covered facility for their academy to train at in order to reach the next tier of academy funding from the FA?
- He/Hull City don't want to pay the £1.5m needed to build one.
- Instead he decides to commandeer the arena for Hull City, using his ownership of the SMC, evict the clubs that use the facility, and spend £250k converting it to use as this academy.
- Puts the blame for this action on HCC for not building Hull City their own £1.5m complex.

At the same time he withdrew £7m from Hull City last year - did I read that right? And spent £25.5m on players?

How much additional funding will City receive following this upgrade?

www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Council- ... story.html

www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Council- ... story.html

I emailed the SMC to explain their pricing policy of swill and nose bag.

Oddly no reply

He still will not produce a Hull born England international

I emailed radio burns this during his show,

Mr Burns,

Why should the sports clubs that use the Airco arena leave because Mr Allams says so, the arena was built before he took over the football club and the smc.

Do radio Humberside think Mr Allams is doing the right thing in evicting the clubs for the benefit of his football club yes or no?.

Or will you sit on the fence and not say anything that affects your relationship with him.

Never got read out

It may be prudent to prepare yourself for a disappointment.



By whom? That applies to both the declaration and of the formation of a replacement. Allam has not indicated that he'll withdraw support, if the council don't accept offer to sell - he'll just continue in his current direction.



From what I've read - yes, yes, yes, yes, dunno and wouldn't be surprised but not sure whether it'd be a nett spend.
There was an article on funding levels academies in When Saturday Comes recently. I'll check it out later.

I sent something similar and never got read out,that was no surprise because Burnsie takes off his defenders of the people cloak off when anything anti Allam is asked.