Good idea, job sorted. Use the KC money and build a proper community stadium in East Hull which after all was what the KC was supposed to be but isn't!
Who knows, we may even get amateur finals on it!!

Oh dear, I feel a rather cyclical conversation coming on.

Come on guys and gals - let's prove the goose-man wrong.

Thats possibly why Rovers have in essence been granted a 30 year loan rather than a handout like your club got....note the difference

I'm not so sure. In FC's case we pay anywhere between £0.5m and £1.0m annually to the SMC, depending on who you believe. I would say that's a commercial rate to pay for the standard of facilities we get and over 50 years we will therefore be paying between £25m and £50m.

Rovers case is different. Hull City Council repurchased the freehold of Craven Park when Rovers went into administration to allow Rovers to continue in business, then put in place a peppercorn lease arrangement of 250 years length. So what you have now, you've basically got for nothing, apart from the improvements made since (assuming they weren't funded by grants etc). The NHS and the RFL are essentially funding the East Stand extension. The arrangements for the North Stand seem to be a grant for £2.3m (to be approved), then £4.2m which comes from central government via the council. From the report in the HDM, payments will be virtually nothing until 2016, then an increased more commercial rate will apply if Rovers' attendances increase. What the contingency arrangements are if the attendances aren't met is not clear, but it may be a possibility that the council has to find the difference to central government?

Set of barstewards Rovers improving facilities and actually paying for them to be done instead of begging the council to pay for it

Or

Ser of Barstewards Rovers are playing in that dump and not upgrading facilities

I'd be delighted if Hull KR were insulated from the risk of disappointing crowds, in the same way Hull FC are rumoured to be. There is a downside to this of course (a 'millstone', the ever erudite Kingston Droolers calls it), but I'd definatedly take it. Not seen any evidence that is case though - which bit of the reports are you referring to? I'll just check if there is a new one...

How odd, you were discussing this with Paul M earlier, as he mentioned from the HDM report: "Also who is paying the interest in the first four years, as Rovers are on a basic rent during this time." This part of the report, which said Rovers rent would be nominal for 4 years then would increase "as and when attendances increase" seems to have been pulled. Very strange.

Full of if's, buts, assumptions, HDM report and possibilities.

One could say, as usual, that your post is based on guesswork, made up assumptions and general heresay but that would be cruel