The real problem than any renogotiation will have is that Fc are in a position of weakness ie. what are you going to do about it if the SMC don't play ball. There is no where else to play in the city so the option to up sticks and walk is a non starter.

As MR and WiH state the only option is for a rehashing of the splits which would realistically only pay FC if they drastically increase the crowds, which in turn will add risk to the club if they lose fans for any reason, worsening financial climate, downturn in the clubs results or a general downturn in the interest in RL.

Its interesting that Pearson has announced the clubs first losses prior to openning up these talks, maybe thats his gambit?

This pretty much sums up the situation for me. However the last thing I want is there for to be some sort of concession with a share issue or somesuch toward Allam in return for a drop in the amount/re-scheduling of the contract terms.
IF AP has faith in the fans to turn up in numbers with (hopefully) improved performances, won't that offset the £300K loss when you take into account several one off payments from last year also? Showing a loss of £300K for the previous season with the possibility of another loss the year after doesn't automatically mean AP isn't getting any money back from the business in any case. Obviously he wants to get the best deal for his money (if it is indeed it is just his money)

how is he getting money out of FC if it's not making a profit?

So you never heard of business owners taking a salary then, you don't have to be a net profit business to do that.

The other main tenant lost £20m last year didn't they? Not sure our -£0.3m will be a compelling case for easing the contract.

You would think Allam owned the stadium,the way rovers fans are talking ,not the council!!! The SMC,is not owned by the allam's,neither.I would think the council would have more say than allam,regarding rent issues at the kc.

Quote: jimmyfivebellies "You would think Allam owned the stadium,the way rovers fans are talking ,not the council!!! The SMC,is not owned by the allam's,neither.I would think the council would have more say than allam,regarding rent issues at the kc.'" Actually, I believe the Allam's do own the SMC, whilst the council certainly own the stadium. Here are the terms of the original deal: www.hullcityafc.net/page/NewsDet ... 12,00.html

Quote: jimmyfivebellies "You would think Allam owned the stadium,the way rovers fans are talking ,not the council!!! The SMC,is not owned by the allam's,neither.I would think the council would have more say than allam,regarding rent issues at the kc.'" Actually, I believe the Allam's do own the SMC, whilst the council certainly own the stadium. Here are the terms of the original deal: www.hullcityafc.net/page/NewsDet ... 12,00.html

Yes, I have heard of business owners taking a salary IF THEY ARE EMPLOYED BY THE BUSINESS, and AP isn't employed by Hull FC, as far as I know.

Pearson doesn't head it, Mark Mcguire did till he left last month
would imagine Ehab Allam is running at the minute

Yeah - he resigned a while back. New directors are Messrs Allam, Allam and Mcguire (just realised he's gone too)

That's a very easy situation to remedy if he wishes, though.

"Adam, can I have a job with a healthy salary please?"

"Why, yes Adam, of course you can. Start Monday."

"Thanks Adam."



I don't think that will be his approach though, I don't think he's out to milk the club in that way.

but it would be a nonsense thing to do, if he draws a salary above the tax threshold (which would be anything over £0.00 as he is already employed by city) then he would have to pay employers and employees NI out of his own pocket (figuratively speaking) plus his PAYE at the higher rate on all of his earnings (assuming he gets over £60k from City, which I would imagine he does, he is best served doing what most business owners do and taking dividends when the company has paid Corporation Tax, and you can't take a dividend if the company has made a loss.

Same reason I was amazed (and don't believe) that Kath took a salary, quadruple whammy on tax given employers, employees, PAYE AND CT on dividends.

I know, I was merely pointing out that it would be very easy for him to do if he wanted.

Although it's worth noting that depending on the respective tax rates the difference might not be as much as you maybe think. Still preferred in your pocket than the tax man's, though.