Didn't Shane Richardson and Adam Pearson both agree that the SMC should have been independant of both clubs, only for Pearson to jump at the chance of running the SMC a few months later when Richardson had gone back to Oz?



I may be wrong about the events that lead to us not being represented on the SMC, either way, we were initially stiched up when the SMC was set up imo.

It appears to me that you know people who SAY they are connected to FC, they obviously know very little about the covenants on the KC Stadium, the agreements that were made to release the land (which was donated by the Council), the KC Stadium is highly unlikely to be sold, I'm not saying never, but certainly not over 24 hours courtesy of some poor journalism and even poorer trolling.

Any figures on the ratepayers' return on investment from everything that KUHCC have thrown at your lot over the years?

Spot on ..If I remember there was Funding money also from the EEC to be part of sporting for the Hull area. they could also put a block on it being sold off

OK, here are the facts as I understand them.



Pearson and Richardson agreed that neither club should manage the stadium, a separate management organisation should be formed, Pearson agreed and went into the relevant liscencing, insurances etc. and asked Richardson (or Hull FC) for about £100k to join the venture, Richardson delined (it's perceived that Richardson's move back to Aus was in the offing at this stage).



Hull FC have had many opportunities to get involved with the SMC, and declined each and every one of them. No stitch up at any point, other than our own board denying themselves an element of control.

The council bought back the freehold interest in Craven Park when Rovers were in administration to allow them to continue trading, and a 250 year peppercorn lease arrangement with KCD (formerly Gaingroup) is now in place. So I'd guess feckall is your answer.

Whilst i hate myself for it...lol I agree basically with what your saying !



What i cant understand is ...

1. Why couldnt we do as in the case with huddersfield

both f.c and city own %age remainder hcc owned.

2. If its not making the revenue that hcc thought it would be, why cant the hcc run it themselves? they could claw back a far better return, plus open it up for a lot more events and activities, think on how much lost revenue Duffen cost the stadium,?

They don't SAY they are connected, they ARE connected both in the playing and board side of matters.

Right, so we now have property and local authority covenant law experts playing for FC, and on the board.



Haven't you got a bridge to run?

Hey I never said anybody I knew was an expert on anything. They do however have close contact with people who DO know what's happening and ARE experts.



You honestly don't believe that people like JR haven't got a good idea of what's going on and what could happen? They have their own legal teams too you know.



Information like this soon finds it's way through the organisation, just like at any other big company eg Smith and Nephew. Their staff have known what was revealed in today's paper months ago. What makes Hull's staff any different?

OK, lets start at the beginning, you're a troll.



actually, that kind of covers the middle and the end of it too.



run along and talk about your club, leave FC to those of us who have a vested (positive) interest.

That's quite separate from the initial sale of Poorhouse Lane too