City, should we be concerned?

Quote: Mild Rover "Okay, some people are disappointed - but I think they're missing the point. It was a prestige project, primarily to support valued civic sporting institutions. Outsourcing the risk means you'll definitely outsource the profit (though the vice versa to that isn't such a good bet).

It has been a success in helping to bring the City more sporting prestige. Revenue generation wasn't the main priority, I strongly suspect. To the extent that money was an issue, it was in terms of trying to protect the community from ongoing costs - and they've managed that.

Now the system that has either short changed or protected the community, but not caused too many headaches, is, ahem, 'under strain'.

I'd have no problem with a peppercorn rent approach (that'd be hypocritical), with Hull City and Hull FC taking direct responsibility for running and upkeep. And also having control over the food and drink concessions and stuff like that. The clubs could keep any additional profit they make, and the community is as protected as they are now, possibly more so. What would you think to that, hypothetically?
The arena is slightly different issue, of course.'"

I fully agree the outrage of "no return" is stupid. Libraries, parks, art galleries etc aren't cash cows.

I think what you're talking about though is, in theory, what the SMC is supposed to do. But what happens IMO is the costs since the Allam's took over have escalated and the allocation of shared costs looks to be done on a different basis each year, with increasing amounts supposed to be Hull FC's. I think the latest version showed our operating costs were around £1.2m pa? It's possible they charged us half the cost of relaying the pitch though, you can't tell, and this would be cheeky if we'd not asked/wanted/needed it doing. The massive conflict of interest in ownership of SMC and primary tenant + antagonistic attitude of the Allam's to the Council and us makes it impossible to reach a fair and transparent position. As has been pointed out before, there is a commercial benefit to us in the purchase of passes but unless the council do a forensic audit of costs, income and allocations, it's unlikely we'll get this. Best outcome all round would be to break the current deal and have an independent arbiter to negotiate terms for the next 25 years with in independent operating body. Both clubs need certainty of outgoings, especially FC for whom a small change is a massive % of our business as opposed to a drop in a £70m ocean for City.