What, on the basis of the average gate Hull City were getting when they left Boothferry park?

Alos, why no comment from Neil Hudgel? Oh, thats right, he is too self centred to comment on big issues in the game

Not sure how old you are, but I can remember City getting 30k+ gates every season, in fact I went as a schoolkid to see them play Sheff utd and there was near to 40k in there. The stadium was never built with City being in the old 3rd division, but as a platform for them to get where they are now. In contrast FC and Rovers have never had these dizzy heights in attendances on a regular basis and never will, even when the capacities where not heavily policed by H$S they never got much more than they do now, so to say it was not with Hull City as the MAJOR partner in it is really dillusional.

For the record I am RL through and through and rarely watch football, but I realise that City playing Man utd or Liverpool will, always be far more attractive to the masses than FC playing whoever.

This isn't about FC its about RL fans in Hull being slapped in the face by a SMC that , for no good reason, is denying them (and the city) an Int game. Both sets of fans and clubs should be united and damning in their condemnation of this poor decision.

If this is how the guy goes about business I'd be worried about him running my club, never mind my stadium!

That's not what you said. You said that the stadium would have been built even if Hull FC weren't involved. It wouldn't have. I don't question that Hull City were probably the major partner.

If you really think the council would build a £43million stadium for a Division Three football team with no sign of making it up the leagues, you are the dillusional one. At the time of talk of the stadium, City nearly went bust. I don't think they thought they'd be making the Championship (let alone the Premiership).

Is it straight up 50:50 ownership between FC and City??
If it isnt then who are we to argue that he can't hold games there? Its his overall final choice, if he dont want it, it aint gonna happen.

no neither team owns the staduim the council does and thats run by the smc, which is headed by the hull city chairman!

priority between hull fc and hull city depends which club is at the buisness end of the season.

yet when you combine the crowds for RL in Hull they are the same as soccer or very similar.

i hope the soccer team enjoy their time in premier league.

its good to see soccer acting so childishly in a land where its a major sport.

I am 37.

Hull City have made it to the 6th round of the FA Cup for the first time in my life time. I am lead to understand that in the very early 1970's They played Stoke City in a cup replay and lost 2-3 where there was a crowd of over 42k. I started watching Hull City in the very late 70's, going with my Brother and my Uncle. The crowds were not more than 4000 at that time. I became a junior season ticket holder in 1983 and held a season ticket until adulthood but didn't renew my ticker in 1991. During this period of time Hull City's best average for a season was 8500 (+ / - a few). The biggest league gate they got in this time was on Box ing Day of 1983 when Scunthorpe United came to Boothferry Park adn 18k were there.

During this period of hte early 1980's there was an GB V Aus test match, Two Hull v hullkr finals and a Hull v Leeds game which all eclipsed gatewise any football match during that time.

Re can all recollect on bygone days, but quoting attendances from the 1960's is pointless. Just how many of those are still around.

I have no problem with Hull City as a football club. Infact, they have to be admired as how to market themselves and attract new followers.

However to even suggest Hull City are a partner is not just dillusional, its just plain incorrect. They are a tenant. No more, no less. The problem which is inherent is the perceived conflict of interest of the chairman of Hull City, who is also in charge of a company which runs the stadium on behalf of the owners, The City Council. The question remains, has He really acted in the best interested of the owners of the stadium, by rejecting the opportunity to generate what is likely to be close to £1m (combined amount) for all of the interested parties.

BTW, the answer is no

All very interesting, but irrelevant all the same.

The stadium would not have been built for ANY single club. It would have been illegal for the council to spend public funds to do so. No getting around that fact no matter how much some folk would like to ignore it.

Interesting.

So Councils can build stadiums for two clubs sharing but not for one ?

Point me to that bit of legislation please, be interesting reading.