Mild Rover wrote:The fact it was windfall money makes no difference in principle. It does in practice, but I'll come back to that. When the issue of Rovers taking up the offer to play at the KC is raised by Hull fans, is it just forum points scoring, or do you really think we should we should? As it happens I'd like to see it for the derby, but that is very much a minority opinion. Which brings me back to Rovers negotiating position. Ideally the council would build us a swanky new £6 million stand. But we need to be realistic - there isn't cash knocking about like there was back when the KC was built and it might not be possible. If it really isn't Rovers should be magnaminous, IMO and accept a smaller tidbit. Use of the KC community stadium once a year for a token payment perhaps. 18k at that one game would drag us up much closer to the 10k average we apparently need. Image rights - I honestly don't know. But if it was a cover up to hide big losses it either didn't last very long or if lies are being told it is been done pretty half-heartedly.
I think you should be allowed to play your derby there, nearly all the fans would be accomodated, your average would be raised, every-one is happy.
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
General Zod. wrote:It's not about the council "owing the club" it "owes the area".
Fine. But if it is established that East Hull is short of facilities, and the council wants to prioritise their provision, surely it's right that they appraise all possible locations in East Hull against a set of criteria such as accessibility, existing infrastructure and cost-effectiveness for example? They've recently assisted a £10m East Park "facilities" upgrade for example, so which area do they "owe" - or have you just made up the area that's a 100 yard radius around Craven Park?
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
Mild Rover wrote:The fact it was windfall money makes no difference in principle. It does in practice, but I'll come back to that. When the issue of Rovers taking up the offer to play at the KC is raised by Hull fans, is it just forum points scoring, or do you really think we should we should? As it happens I'd like to see it for the derby, but that is very much a minority opinion. Which brings me back to Rovers negotiating position. Ideally the council would build us a swanky new £6 million stand. But we need to be realistic - there isn't cash knocking about like there was back when the KC was built and it might not be possible. If it really isn't Rovers should be magnaminous, IMO and accept a smaller tidbit. Use of the KC community stadium once a year for a token payment perhaps. 18k at that one game would drag us up much closer to the 10k average we apparently need. Image rights - I honestly don't know. But if it was a cover up to hide big losses it either didn't last very long or if lies are being told it is been done pretty half-heartedly.
The derby idea is a good one as you don't seem fussy where you hand us our @rses so there's no such thing as home advantage
Joined: Sep 18 2005 Posts: 8742 Location: 2017 City of Culture
Mrs Barista wrote:None of which alters the fact Rovers have already been offered the chance to play in a premium stadium gifted to the city by the council on the back of huge cash windfall, and chose to go it alone. It's therefore a bit disinengenuous to start making out the council now owes you one because living the dream has put you £3m in debt.
They might as well have been offered an option to play home games at Twickenham, the overwhelming majority of Rovers fans would not tolerate home games in deepest, darkest West Hull. The decision was taken pre-Hudge anyway, but that doesn't stop the flak heading his way.
Lets not forget that the debt is to 2 Rovers fans, not a bank, or a loan shark, or a hard-faced businessman/woman.
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
Vicenzo wrote:So when Hull SL pay an annual charge to the SMC plus a percentage above a certain attendance what do you call it, a charitable donation perhaps?
Take another look at what was being claimed.
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: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
Gordon Gekko wrote:Would the Hull fans be happy in the North stand and West stand upper??
Only be 600 anyway. We'd boycott in protest of your boycott of Richard Horne's testimonial, because we charged an extra £1 for Children in Need at the last KC derby, because you charge an extra 70% for the CP derbies.
Joined: Mar 11 2007 Posts: 5659 Location: Next to Ramsgate Sands c.1850 in West Hull
Gordon Gekko wrote:Would the Hull fans be happy in the North stand and West stand upper??
Honestly, Michael/Daniel, compared to the South "stand" at CP, or the condemned plastic alternative - are you SERIOUS?
Very happy to actually get to view an Away derby from North/Upper West at the KC. The stampede for tickets would crash Rover's computers within the first hour. Or would you be borrowing our ticket office too?
I reckon if Pearson eighth's the price Duffen wanted to charge for the loan of the stadium to the RFL for the International, you may be able to afford the initial outlay.
Hudge should, because the income would more than compensate. (Seriously do think Rovers should consider this, actually.)
Philip Larkin wrote:
There ain’t no music East side of this city That’s mellow like mine is, That’s mellow like mine.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 86 guests
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
