There's a bit of a row brewing at the KC Stadium...
#1
Posted 11 February 2013 - 07:44 AM
http://www.thisishul...l#axzz2KZbpFzjX
Time will tell, I suppose.
FWIW, I think it's about time the SMC was run by a neutral body with no members having any vested interest in either club.
"The SMC's principal responsibility is to remain neutral"
#2
Posted 11 February 2013 - 08:07 AM
Well all i can say is when i posted about the legal problems (That no-one seemed to know about) on here a couple of months ago i was (As usual) accused of making it up i suggested that you Hull FC fans started to do a bit of digging as what i heard was quite shocking the relationship between the owner of Hull City and your club was not good and to put it mildly he had AP over a barrel:(CMHull FC memorabilia removed, Hull City's remains in place. Is this simply a case of a misunderstanding or are Hull City's owners and Stadium Management Comittee runners, the Allams, having a petulant swipe at Adam Pearson?
http://www.thisishul...l#axzz2KZbpFzjX
Time will tell, I suppose.
FWIW, I think it's about time the SMC was run by a neutral body with no members having any vested interest in either club.
#3
Posted 11 February 2013 - 08:12 AM
As a Rovers fan i find it deplorable what they have done to John Whiteley, fans of all 3 clubs should unite and show their anger over this
#4
Posted 11 February 2013 - 08:26 AM
#5
Posted 11 February 2013 - 08:27 AM
#6
Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:59 AM
Won't be long before the Allams do a Duffen and start saying there isn't time for international RL at the KC. "We want to invest in sport in this city..." Yeah right. Taking down memorabilia of one of Hull's sporting legends in a suite named after him shows that's boll*cks. You should be honoured to have it up.
#7
Posted 11 February 2013 - 10:14 AM
- Severus, July 2012
#8
Posted 11 February 2013 - 05:57 PM
FWIW, I think it's about time the SMC was run by a neutral body with no members having any vested interest in either club.
Which is how it should have been from day one.
#9
Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:44 PM
FWIW, I think it's about time the SMC was run by a neutral body with no members having any vested interest in either club.
Exactly. Said as much myself when I heard what was going on. Petulant in the extreme and how is it possible for it not to be a conflict of interest if the SMC is effectively owned by the football club. And how exactly does the payment of a "modest fee" do anything to rectify the alleged £880kpa loss that the SMC is apparently suddenly making. I've struggled to even find any reference to who is on the SMC, which is a worry in itself. Maybe a freedom of information request would help. The KC was supposed to be a stadium for the community, not a football club's plaything. It was gifted to the city by the council following the sale of Kingston Communications to the people in an act akin to Victorian philanthropy. The SMC seem to have conveniently forgotten this and its head henchman "Dr" Allam is well on his way to becoming the most vilified administrator in local sport since David Lloyd.
#10
Posted 12 February 2013 - 07:40 AM
It's worth going back to the original link I posted and reading the comments on there, now totalling 180 odd. Some of the City fans are unbelievable in what they put to print although, I might add, one or two Rovers fans have joined in the fun. Not unexpected I suppose.
It's rather odd that the Allams have told the Council they will move Hull City out of the KC and build their own stadium if they get promoted, yet are now treating the KC as if they own the place.
"The SMC's principal responsibility is to remain neutral"
#11
Posted 12 February 2013 - 08:36 AM
kick them out and let both RL teams share
#12
Posted 12 February 2013 - 09:29 AM
Some of the ###### written on there is unbelievable.It's worth going back to the original link I posted and reading the comments on there, now totalling 180 odd. Some of the City fans are unbelievable in what they put to print although, I might add, one or two Rovers fans have joined in the fun. Not unexpected I suppose.
#13
Posted 12 February 2013 - 10:15 AM
Sadly, they live in the same fantasy world as the owners of their club.Some of the ###### written on there is unbelievable.
"The SMC's principal responsibility is to remain neutral"
#14
Posted 12 February 2013 - 11:17 AM
Without a shadow of a doubt this is a devisive move to claim the stadium for Hull City at least as far as appearances go. The statements made by Mr Allam in the article above are almost insulting because of their transparency yet he seems to think we're all too thick to realise what's really going on.
Bad form
Edited by OMEGA, 12 February 2013 - 01:01 PM.
#15
Posted 12 February 2013 - 12:41 PM
Were it not for Hull City Council and Hull RLFC, Hull City would be stuck in anonymity in a dilapidated stadium on an estate on the edge of town. The KC Stadium has offered them publicity, credibility and status they didn't have before. Much of this has been funded by Hull City Council (directly or indirectly), when the majority of City's support seems to love outside the city boundary. It's sad that so many of their supporters won't seem to recognise this.
#16
Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:47 PM
Hull have the right to visual representation at the stadium just as much as City does, regardless of who owns the company tasked with running the stadium.
Edited by HKR AWAY DAYS, 12 February 2013 - 04:52 PM.
#17
Posted 12 February 2013 - 04:37 PM
Interestingly the views of Huddersfield Town fans aren't overly different to those of Hull City fans regarding the rugby club, those same soccer fans conveniently forget their own recent history
Fortunately Ken Davey indirectly owns 60% of the stadium
#18
Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:23 PM
"The SMC's principal responsibility is to remain neutral"
#19
Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:37 PM
One of the presenters on Radio Humberside's Sportstalk programme last night was trying to point out to a Hull City fan that the Allams are essentially paying themselves. The caller either could not or would not take on board what was a very simple concept. It's a shame so many of City's fans have adopted such a knee-jerk defensive stance. Our quarrel isn't with City or their fans. It's with the stadium management company.Hull City will be much more cash rich than FC and therefore able to pay exorbitant fees for displaying their history around the stadium. Anyway what does it matter how high the fee is because it's an Allam company paying an Allam company, basically he's just moving money from one of his bank accounts into another of his bank accounts.
Without a shadow of a doubt this is a devisive move to claim the stadium for Hull City at least as far as appearances go. The statements made by Mr Allam in the article above are almost insulting because of their transparency yet he seems to think we're all too thick to realise what's really going on.
Bad form
#20
Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:46 PM
Typically dignified response of the kind you would expect from the man.
I think the Allams have dropped a huge clanger. They could have gone on quietly trying to marginalise our club but removing the Johnny Whiteley memorabilia from the suite that bears his name has provoked a furious response. The man is held in such high regard in the city he loves that it's difficult to see the Allams coming out of this well.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users














