: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:47 pm  

The Key wrote:

Can't for the life of me see why people think this is a Hull City thing.

More SMC v Hull Citizens.

Problem is, Chair SMC = Chair Hull City who has just cited Hull City's POTENTIAL fixtures as a reason to deny Hull a major international sporting event.
Unfortuately, Chair SCM is paid to manage our community stadium - part of his remit is to attract major international events to Hull.

So IMO Duffen must resign as the head of the SMC as a clear, and presumably ongoing, compromising of interests has arisen.

How can we get access to the original agreement between the council and the SMC outlining their obligations to the community as MANAGERS, not owners of the stadium?

Zaphod wrote:

As Chairman of SMC he has been negligent in two of his duties, to maximise income for the stadium and to allow the stadium to be used by the whole community not just football fans. The decision was made with his Hull City hat on and if he is now sticking by the decision we are never going to get an RL international at the KC again because they are always sorted well before football fixtures come out.
This ludicrous situation of being chairman of both Hull City and SMC needs addressing because there is a clear conflict of interests

... sums it up perfectly.

I'm also waiting for my replies from the SMC and Carl Mince....

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:48 pm  

Suzie wrote:

Did anybody else just hear Mr Duffen then on Radio Humberside at the Hull City Forum?

David Burns asked him if he'd been answering lots of letters from the people who watch Rugby League to which he responded "that can't be true because they cannot write". He giggled away thinking it was very funny, some of us actually think this is a serious matter.

Yes heard what he said , was tongue in cheek , and as someone who watches rugby league and football it did not upset me . However I can feel uproar in the air from sections of the RL world who cannot take a joke .

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:50 pm  

FC Tiger wrote:

So you are bad mouthing the Chairman of the club that meant the KC was built.

Being a band wagon City fan means that you wont know about a man called Adam Pearson, without him and the council owned telephone company called "Kingston Communications" the stadium would not have been built.

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:52 pm  

FC Tiger wrote:

Yes heard what he said , was tongue in cheek , and as someone who watches rugby league and football it did not upset me . .

You surely cannot be this naive?

[Kosh]

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:54 pm  

FC Tiger wrote:

He is a business man too , and find it hard to believe he would turn away a large crowd which would buy stadium food , drink and other extras that the SMC would make money on . Also the only reason the KC was built is because Hull City would play there . With FC as sole tenant there would be no KC and so no Big internationals of RL or Football U 21's. So you are bad mouthing the Chairman of the club that meant the KC was built.

The stadium would not have been built for City alone, so it works both ways. The whole point is that the project was only viable, and to an extent remains so, with both clubs using it. Something that both you and Duffen appear to have either forgotten or arrogantly chosen to ignore.

I normally steer clear of these arguments as I'm not really bothered about City one way or the other, but you're doing them no favours on here with your defence of the indefensible.

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:55 pm  

Christ you make me laugh.

One of the reasons I started to post on here was the absolute crud some of you posted about Hull City. The chairman makes one little joke and some of you are drowning us with tears. Get a back bone.
For those twittering about him resigning due to conflicts of interest, give your heads a rattle.

It's FC's board you need to be calling negligent because they've turned down every opportunity to get involved with the SMC. The plan was that they'd be equal partners, FC wouldn't do it. About the only input they had was to try to reduce the capacity. If they'd won that battle, you wouldn't even be having this debate.

Now, when all the works done you're expecting more say?

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:58 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

Christ you make me laugh.

One of the reasons I started to post on here was the absolute crud some of you posted about Hull City. The chairman makes one little joke and some of you are drowning us with tears. Get a back bone.
For those twittering about him resigning due to conflicts of interest, give your heads a rattle.

It's FC's board you need to be calling negligent because they've turned down every opportunity to get involved with the SMC. The plan was that they'd be equal partners, FC wouldn't do it. About the only input they had was to try to reduce the capacity. If they'd won that battle, you wouldn't even be having this debate.

Now, when all the works done you're expecting more say?

And out comes the nice guy

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:00 pm  

FC Tiger wrote:

Yes heard what he said , was tongue in cheek , and as someone who watches rugby league and football it did not upset me . However I can feel uproar in the air from sections of the RL world who cannot take a joke .

He would feel very safe in an audience 100% Football, although said tongue in cheak it was a very 'laddish' thing to say by a man who normally comes across with a fair share of intelligence, until now.

It also goes some way for him to feel justified in his (bent) decision and probably feeling comfortable being with that audience, there is no way he would have said that in front of a RL audience, he would have been lynched on the spot, and rightly so.

I honestly think that the man is so out of touch with this City, he is an embarrassment, the sooner the council get rid of him the better.

[Kosh]

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:03 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

Christ you make me laugh.

One of the reasons I started to post on here was the absolute crud some of you posted about Hull City. The chairman makes one little joke and some of you are drowning us with tears. Get a back bone.

Someone who only posts on here because he gets upset about what's said about City think that RL fans are being over-sensitive?

You couldn't make it up.

My Uncle Harry wrote:

For those twittering about him resigning due to conflicts of interest, give your heads a rattle.

It's FC's board you need to be calling negligent because they've turned down every opportunity to get involved with the SMC. The plan was that they'd be equal partners, FC wouldn't do it. About the only input they had was to try to reduce the capacity. If they'd won that battle, you wouldn't even be having this debate.

Now, when all the works done you're expecting more say?

IIRC the board at the time couldn't or wouldn't come up with the money required to take up the post. My guess is that situation is unchanged.

And people aren't asking for more influence for FC. They are in fact arguing for no influence from either club.

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:03 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

Now, when all the works done you're expecting more say?

We don't expect any say.................the same way City Hull shouldn't have any say.

The SMC were given the task of running the COMMUNITY stadium and should do so showing no preference to either club that plays there