I think that the main motivation behind the proposed North Stand development is to further boost Rovers corporate and commercial activities which currently run close to, or upto, capacity week in week out in the restrictive Roger Millward stand.
Would you not take that into account in your investment appraisal, flower?

Shame on you then.

Was you dropped on your head or what ?

The fact that it was windfall money is irrelevant, if we are judging by investment-return criteria.

We aren't trying to provide the best commercial opportunity to Hull Council, but they are not a commercial business. Their investments need to be providing value more than profits. All the complaints about how bad things are at Craven Park are surely evidence that there would be value in improving facilities.

The case for improved facilities/bigger capacity is unproven, but how can it be proved? Only by providing the facilities.
At best we can try to make a compelling case. Hull fans admit to staying away because of poor facilities. If we could fill a 14k capacity stadium just once a season for the derby, that would add about 400 to our average attendance by itself. Hull themselves saw a dramatic increase in attendances when better facilities were provided. I don't get to as many games as I'd like, but that isn't mainly because of the stadium. However, if I could go up at short notice, confident of getting a seat in a covered stand with an unrestricted view, it would be easier and more tempting to make the effort.

In principle I don't think public money should be used to subsidize private business - but what is good for the goose...
And I'm talking about a contribution towards building one stand - it'd be nowhere near the £40m+ spent on the KC.

As you are using your professional status to add weight to your argument, are you seriously presenting that bit at the end as a balanced, non-partisan argument, where facts have not been chosen (and discarded, in the case of the Salford/Murs double header) to fit a personal agenda? Or did you just forget the ?

Not at all. The most compelling business cases in the sector I work in are where you have maxed out operational capacity and if you do nothing you are throwing growth away or offering it to competitors. My point here is that Rovers capacity is 10,500, or 9,000 adjusted for the South Stand, and you're not at capacity. Nor is crowd growth going in the right direction, even after Rovers best season in decades. In fact averages were slightly down in 2009 and have slipped again in 2010. My point is that whilst there is the possibilty that ground enhancements will lead to increased crowds, it's not a nailed on certainty, and the reflection of this risk in what may be a marginal business case might make it unattractive.

As for Olly Murs, there was much backslapping on here over the marketing genius that got new people in to sample the Rovers experience. It's not my fault that this increase hasn't been sustained, so with it being a blip in the trend, it's reasonable to exclude it.

**Without counting your saints game this season**

Despite the obvious tedious points scoring going on here, I am concerned about an average drop in like for like attendances (its actually a drop of 486 over the 4 games so far).

I'm sure there are plenty on here who are happy to speculate the reasons for a drop, but as far as I'm aware, only the Hudds game actually had East Stand tickets for sale up to the day of the game, so the demand for that stand is clearly there. I know of people who will not attend if they cannot get in the East Stand. This is lost revenue for the club.

At the end of the day, the decision to develop the East Stand as a priority rests with the Rovers board and not with members of an internet forum. Thank god for that!

Is that a response to my first or second question? Or deliberately ambiguous? You're just going to write 'yes', aren't you?



Just in case there are any 9 year olds old Hull Council, what Mrs Barista is guilty of here is 'selection bias'. What we should really be comparing is Hull KR's attendances in the 3 year periods between 2004-2006 and 2007-2009. What this much larger, and therefore more representative and powerful, comparison shows is a dramatic upward trend in attendances. Extrapolating inappropriately we can see the Rovers will be attracting crowds of 20k or more by the end of the decade, if the facilities are in place to cope.

Back to serious me now. What we have to bare in mind, as well, if we are using a business model is that businesses must face regulatory as well as commercial imperatives. A restaurant might need a kitchen re-fit, not because it will necessarily increase cumstomer numbers, but because otherwise health and safety (or whoever inspects restaurants) might shut them down. The RFLs franchise criteria, might not make strict business sense (though personally I think they are right to try to drive standards up), but that is not Hull KRs fault.
Having Hull City in the PL has been good for Kingston-upon-Hull and I would argue that 2 teams in SL is too. By good I don't necessarily mean profitable. There is no profit, and therefore no commercial case, in the NHS keeping pensioners alive - they are a drain on the exchequer, but it is still 'good'. Okay, I stopped being sensible there, but its not like anybody is still reading is it?
I assume everybody wants to see Cas, Salford, Wakey and Saints get there new grounds, as it would be good for the sport. Or are we all so caught up in rivalry or in fear of losing a franchise spot, that our judgement is twisted?

Have to agree with this, i know quite alot of people who will not attend as it means they would not get to stand next to family/friends in the east stand. Its all well and good improving the away stand but its not like many teams bring big numbers accross to East Yorkshire, and im pretty sure FC fans can confirm this...? So would you rather we increased the East stand so we might get 100/200(?) more HKR supporters or improve the away stand for 50 more away travellers? (without counting the none existant Catalan/Quins)

Aye, that is true. Attendances have been down generally on average though(Hull's buck the trend I think, just to save somebody having to clarify my statement). Times are tough. Better facilities would likely make attendances more resilient. It is about improvement as much as expansion. That people are willing to buy ticket to sit in an uncovered stand is testament to their desire to see Hull KR, IMO. I'll stand in the rain, but not sit.