Ive had it from a decent source that one of city's money men is a little tight at the minute making wage bills tighter than they should be.

Ive also queried why HCC would build the stadium and then have to rent some units back and was told thats just how things happen. Dont want to make any accusations on here but i think some of thecouncillors making the decisions may have had their own agendas.

you have to wonder if the SMC are getting the very best rent deal from City as well given the conflict of interest? It should be an independent SMC with a % of profit being kept by the company and the remainder being returend to the council.

The fact they wouldn't let the Int RL game be played there despite its potential to earn over 100K says alot

Dont think that was SMC. It was down to the fact that the premier league fixtures could not be confirmed or not for that date meaning it had to be kept free i believe. As they pay Hull City £30 million ish they get first choice of the dates.

So Duffen pleads.

But by this logic no event will ever be able to be planned ever if it falls during the football season.

We'd have no more concerts, other sporting events, festivals ever at the KC from August to June even though the stadium was built by the council for this sort of usage for the benefit of all Hull citizens....oh, hang on, when was there last such an event again?

Ah, well - Duffen's decision is final - we'll all just have to lump it.

Wasnt we offered a seat on the SMC?

Maybe the club needs an "in" on it.

We were, and turned it down. Bad mistake IMO.


If we ever get a chance it would be a good idea to take it. Doubt we will though.

Duffen spoke to the FA and they said they couldnt be flexible with regards to promising no football fixture at home that week. I guess if the internationals fall when we dont know the football fixtures and the FA wont budge they yes, we are going to struggle to get internationals.

Ive got no gripe with Duffen.

Maybe we thought there would be a conflict of interest?

Had more to do with not wanting/being able to afford the Directors Bond required IIRC.

So, rather than knowing their income over a given number of years, you'd rather the council said: "well you pay us £X amount of rent and if we feel we might need to use some of your space, we'll just take it off you because we own the joint"?

As opposed to: "you pay us £Y amount and if we feel it necessary to rent space from you, we'll come to an amicable arrangement"?

Do you understand how commerce works in the real world?

err no

the council always planned to have facilities at the ground for community work. It is absolute madness that they are paying to hire rooms they built! The rooms should have always been separate from the agreement with the SMC, and therefore free of charge for council use.

if they'd decided to take space off the SMC at a later date it would be a different matter, but as far as i'm aware they have always had this space at the KC, and it was planned before it was built.

I wonder how much he knew about the set-up when his consortium bought City and the SMC. I'm certain he thought the stadium was primarily a Hull City possesion.

FFS, he didn't even realise he was sharing the KC with us until he arrived - he'd never heard of Hull FC. Presumably this is because the previous owner of the SMC - Pearson - marketed the sale as the lease was his asset - the Council would have had no say in the new governance of the stadium.

Pearson, being there at the start, had more obligation to other events and concerts. Duffen, not realising he should have, hasn't. And therefore there have been no extra-City/FC events since he arrived.

So yes - I suppose we can't blame Duffen - but the Council who sold our asset in such a negligent way should be made accountable for this. Or we can all sit meekly by and wait to re-inherit the stadium in 20 odd years time when another shed-load of tax-payers money will be required to make good "our" white-elephant.