I'm convinced by an independent audit by Deloitte's, certainly as far as the football club is concerned. I also know enough about corporate finance to know that they wouldn't get away with moving money between related business entities without it being transparent.

Easiest way for City and Duffen to put these stories to bed is to issue the accounts, simple.

Which they will do once the auditors are happy, as they have already said.

As a regular poster on here once said, "[ithings could get messy[/i".

I can't understand why everyone is getting so worked up about this.

The stadium is leased by the council to the SMC.

The lease will provide (as all leases do) that in the event of SMC's insolvency the lease will revert to the council.

The council would then have to operate the stadium itself (as some local authorities do) or appoint another operator.

The demise of the SMC or indeed Hull City would not threaten FC.

Personally I wish Duffen would just file the damned accounts so this boring thread can end.

Calm down it's only a thread!

It's only been on here 24 hours, calm down

Don't let him see the threads on Cooke or "Joynt's voluntary tackle"

That was my understanding of the situation. However, JTP has raised the possibility of the lease being counted as an asset of the SMC in any insolvency action and TBH I have no idea if that might be correct or not.

Ah, ok then

It can't be counted as an asset if the lease itself states that it reverts to the landlord automatically on the tenant becoming insolvent.

Even in the absence of such a clause the tenant's liquidator will usually disclaim (surrender) the lease because rather than being an asset it is treated as a liability due to the continuing requirement to pay rent.

A lease cannot usually be assigned (transferred) by the tenant to another party without the landlord's permission. Where it is assigned the new tenant becomes responsible for the tenant's obligations under the lease.

Feels like a clear conflict of interest to me.

The only problem I could see is if SMC went belly up and FC had not been paid the season pass money. I have no idea as to the financial set up between FC and SMC other then SMC collect money for ticket sales on FCs behalf. I do know FC did look at setting up there own ticketing set up a couple of years ago and I am sure that they did not persue it further due to lack of room and costs.


Any distruption to in the operation of the stadium will have some effect on the clubs using it. Clearly things are not as they should be and no doubt in the fullness of time they will become clearer and resolve themselves.

Hopefully no one will suffer

What length of contract do the current SMC have to provide this service?