Jake the Peg wrote:Seems to me that the nudger believes that improved facilities would see a 25% increase in the support base and is pinning the existence of teh club on this assumption. Is there any evidence to suggest this is likely? Have the dobbins ever averaged over 10k before? (genuine question, I don't know). You've already seen a 500%+ increase in your average gates in the last 5 years so are there really any rovers fans who don't go to games when teh club are their most successful in over 20 years? Whilst Hull have seen an increase since the move to the KC, the biggest rise has been since rovers were promoted, and crowds now are only where tehy were at teh Boulevard in the early 80's. Although crowds are generally up in SL, I don't think any club is averaging more than they have at times in the past

berrigans bitch wrote::lol: One can only hope you show much more professionalism in your so called important position

Mrs Barista wrote:one of her weakest, most one-eyed posts ever

Mrs Barista wrote:"Hudgell says he took the decision to publicly talk about KR's financial plight in a bid to highlight the need to develop Craven Park"

Nowt to do with Look North's feature, then? He'll be citing image rights as a reason not to file accounts next, oh, hang on...

If Rovers are trying to strong-arm them into giving them some money, the council should consider that if there was a compelling business case for the ground extensions, the funding woud have been forthcoming already in line with the 2008 franchise application and you would be kicking off 2010 in a 14,000 stadium.

They would need to consider that if East Hull is so deprived of "facilities" whether they could be provided at a better, more accessible, more cost-effective alternative location. Investing in a stand at Craven Park wouldn't provide many financial benefits to the local community other than a few short term building jobs and a handful of back office staff if demand picked up a bit, plus maybe pub landlords would see an upside.

berrigans bitch wrote:That is the crux, to survive in top flight it has to be viewed as a business in order to survive, he may be great for the fans mixing in the east stand, on occasions passing remarks about his rivals (fc), kr fans love all this, nice and cosy..however he is losing half a million a year!! would you not sooner have more financial stability some-one who has no interest in us and is only focused on your club,or are you happy Hudge who loves to get one over his rivals and imo overspends in his quest to do this, Cooke, Dobson

cofr_rockin_robin wrote:Why did the rate payers of hull have to fund 700 K of their monies to HFC for the Boulevard ? Now you are moving back the rate payers should be getting some of thier monies back

Mild Rover wrote:I'm disappointed - I've come to expect so much better.
Business plan! When do the council expect to have recouped the £44 million they laid out for the KC? The clue I suspect is in it being called a 'community' stadium.
As I say, I'm not a fan of professional sports clubs receiving public subsidy, but for a fan of a club who have benefitted from it on a fairly spectacular scale to come over all holier than thou and start employing business criteria to other putative projects is a bit hard to swallow.

Mrs Barista wrote:Ooh, hark at her!

The KC was built from a KC cash windfall, wasn't it, hence the name KC stadium? And Rovers were offered the chance to play at the stadium gifted to the city but turned that chance down. So having opted to go it alone to now ask for extra money to build their own because they've only just realised their business model is unsustainable is a bit hard to swallow.

Councils are strapped for cash. As stated, if there is such a proven need for community facilities in East Hull I'm sure it will already be high up the council's priority list, so let them appraise potential locations against a set of community, accessibility and and financial criteria.

Still, you side-stepped Hudgell's image rights "rationale" quite neatly there.