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.
I will be able to read his fixture list next year. It will be under the heading Championship League.
On Sports Talk last night Burnsy said that he is trying to get an interview with someone from Red Hall. Maybe we can get the other side of the story from Woods?
My knee jerk was that I hope City go down, because of this decision, but in reality I don't want that to happen!
FC Tiger wrote:That is what is happening . I get the feeling that you think SMC gives 100% preference to City and did not go the whole hog and have City play saturday lunch time Oct '07 so FC could play Wigan in a play off game the same evening .
All very interesting stuff and mostly correct in my book. HOWEVER you ARE totally and utterly wrong when you say it would have been built if only City played there! Having been part of the team that drew up the tenancy agreement for the Stadium and made the presentations to the Government when the local authority was asking the gov for permission to spend the £43m on the Stadium (As you have to do with Capital expenditure fro LA reserves), I can assure you the building of the KC was dependant on having 'At least 2 of the local proffessional teams as tenants'. Under law an authority cannot build a stadium for one club it is not legal or ethical.
Look at the Council minutes if you want confirmation of this in fact the then Leader of the Council Pat Doyle had to assure the full council that it would be used by at least 2 clubs (Rovers turned the chance down) before the project was voted on!
Without both hull Fc and Hull City signing up to play there it would not have been built!
For me as I have said on many occassions before all I want to know is how can Wigan give a concrete promise that a game can be played and City cannot! Thats the only Question for me! Football first me thinks!
2016 The Year of the Airlie Bird -on sale NOW, price £15, BUY THE BOOK RE-LIVE THE DREAM!
Joined: Oct 19 2003 Posts: 17898 Location: Packed like sardines, in a tin
The Dentist Wilf wrote:All very interesting stuff and mostly correct in my book. HOWEVER you ARE totally and utterly wrong when you say it would have been built if only City played there! Having been part of the team that drew up the tenancy agreement for the Stadium and made the presentations to the Government when the local authority was asking the gov for permission to spend the £43m on the Stadium (As you have to do with Capital expenditure fro LA reserves), I can assure you the building of the KC was dependant on having 'At least 2 of the local proffessional teams as tenants'. Under law an authority cannot build a stadium for one club it is not legal or ethical.
Look at the Council minutes if you want confirmation of this in fact the then Leader of the Council Pat Doyle had to assure the full council that it would be used by at least 2 clubs (Rovers turned the chance down) before the project was voted on!
Without both hull Fc and Hull City signing up to play there it would not have been built!
For me as I have said on many occassions before all I want to know is how can Wigan give a concrete promise that a game can be played and City cannot! Thats the only Question for me! Football first me thinks!
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
FC Tiger wrote:You are partly right in that it would be better for the stadium to be in use all year so FC would use it during the summer . However if only FC had committed to the move to the KC and City had elected to remain at BP then the stadium would not have been built. I know of several councilors who worked on the stadium project who said that Hull City had to be involved or the KC would not be built , but it would have been built if City had been the only professional tenants.You do need to be bother about City because without them FC would still be at the Boulevard playing in front smaller gates than at the KC .
Wilf has already owned you all ways up on this one. I just thought I'd have a little gloat as well.
The fact is that 2 clubs had to be involved or there would have been no stadium. City would not have got the KC on their own, it simply would not have been built.
For someone who claims to be both an RL and soccer fan it's rather clear to see where your loyalties actually lie. I'm beginning to think that you're just another poorly-disguised Tiggers troll...
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Joined: Jan 25 2005 Posts: 3196 Location: The City and County of Kingston upon Hull
Duffen is a 'here today gone tomorrow' speculator so I can't be bothered with what he says and for what its worth I will be there at City v Blackburn on Sunday. What has always perturbed me is the conflict of interests of first Pearson and now Duffen have with the football club and the SMC, and the perceived lack of involvement by the Hull board, because at the end of the day we are both tenants in a community stadium.
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've
forgotten this before.
The council should step in and warn Duffen, he has done alot of damage to the community and lost alot of money by his decision, also I can see the RFL looking elseware in the future for internationals before considering the KC.
Joined: Feb 21 2003 Posts: 3460 Location: West Hull
FC Tiger wrote:You should give 2 hoots because without the local fooball that the blinkered Rugby only people despise then there would be no international rugby locally . The venues for the internationals all host football clubs as the main tenant . Even in Hull , while I have been watching RL. , Boothferry Park was used many times to host GB internationals and at least one FC game against NZ early 80 's .
Totally irrelevant in my book.............hence the reason i couldn't give 2 hoots
Not making it a Hull City v Hull FC argument.
Just Duffen's role as Chairman of SMC shouldn't allow him to show favouritism to either team.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
