In which case it's hard to make an informed opinion personally. It's easy to think of the Allams being the bad guys, not saying they are not, but someof what they say could be true.

My experience of things like this is that it's usually a bit of both.

Could some sort of protest be organised for Hull's next home game vs Warrington?

The Whiteley masks was a good idea, or a boycot of the food & drink outlets (does that money go to the SMC or is it a separate catering company?).

10,000+ Hull fans holding up an A4 sized slogan each saying 'We want an independant SMC' (or something similar), would get peoples attention too.

Correct - all the best lies contain an element of truth. For instance, CS makes a good point above about the 'Rugby Related Costs', as does Mrs B about the convenient change in accounting practice.

Usually a confidentiality clause is binding to all parties, That's why the Allam's using the SMC to actually make this statement has surprised me.

The fact that they are giving out figures relating to Hull Fc and the Council has to be in breach of any clause if Hull Fc can not make a response as to why they refuse to pay for for any pictures being put up in the stadium

The SMC made a modest profit for the years up until the Allams took it on, FACT, the SMC had £1.2m in the bank at the last set of accounts, but still posted a loss, FACT.

There's something odd about the situation.

Lots of management speak nonsense in that statement which is basically designed to pull the wool over the eyes of stupid people. So they've 'benchmarked' the cost of hanging up pictures, in my experience 'benchmarking' is always used as an excuse to hide behind dubious decisions. And as for the change in accounting practices I nearly died laughing at that one.

Seems to me that the last sentence appears to be an add on, just appears like.
The Judge, for whatever reason posted that `******** only understand one thing that is a ******tap to the forehead`. Now that was neither promoting, contradicting or condoning said act, merely a statement of what he considered to be a fact.
Anyway, the Allams have upped the tempo somewhat by blaming the HCC for inadequacies in the SMC`s financial viability. Surely they perused previous years accounts and digested the financial implications of such accounts.
As for the pitches needing relaying at a cost of 1.5 million then that is just pie in the sky, the pitch when we hand it over is always immaculate so where do they conjure these figures from.

I am pretty sure neither Huddersfield nor Wigan pay extra, but then, their stadia are managed by independent bodies.

lets face it, this whole issue is finished, most will believe the HDM article, the club can't say anything.

Anyone still want to say the SMC user agreement is not a mill stone round the clubs neck?

That would be why it was seperated from the one before.


Wrong. On a number of levels. You carry on though and see where it gets you.

Especially when you factor in Hull City's accounts prior to the Allam takeover showed a net worth of minus £30m, their July 2012 accounts show a net worth of minus £50m.

Also, he's blaming others for hidden costs etc. whatever happened to caveat emptor?

Totally agree.

If and I'm assuming they are in breach of any clauses, Surely the Council can terminate the agreement they have with the Allam's