Bertie wrote:Shame on you then.

Was you dropped on your head or what ?

blakeysrobin wrote:bit sanctimonious. So if we have a ground with a 20,000 cap we dont get dibs on concerts and sports events in the east then?
on making them work, it depends on whos running it and availability. We dont have football landlords.

R.B.A wrote:He must have been dropped on his head at some point because it is a little known fact that the Major was a Rovers fan as a child so it could explain his defection to the west....

very red robin wrote:**Without counting your saints game this season**

Mild Rover wrote: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?

Mild Rover wrote: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?

WormInHand wrote:I just want you to know right now that I always read every word you post.

And I think you're getting a bit het up because your usual exemplary spelling and grammar slipped a bit in this post. Old fire belly, you.

Did you find out how much the Golf stand cost? I know it's not a permanent solution, but another at the South end offering seating facilities close to the pitch may attract more fans. It'd certainly sell out for the derbies and be useful if you did well in the cup/play-offs.

You mentioned that the better facilities generate better gates argument could not be proved until those facilities were in situ. Would this be a cheap way to test the theory before taking the investment plunge? A sort of pilot scheme?

Mrs Barista wrote:Of course with sporting clubs there are criteria other than profitability (unless you're Hull FC, where this is our point of difference with the rest of SL).

But the point here (I think, I've lost track of the bickering TBH) is that from a purely financial viewpoint there may be other more compelling investment opportunities elsewhere and as said earlier in the thread, even if you regularly got an extra 1500 people in through a new stand, that's still only impacting 1500 people 13 times a year for an investment of presumably a couple of hundred grand -ish. If you were lobbying the council, let's say, for this money, they'll have non-financial measures as well as financial ones to appraise the investment against, in which case you're looking at only 0.5% of the population impacted and basically all you're doing is letting them sit down under cover for 17 hours a year as opposed to sitting in the rain. I'm sure the council have a huge list of bids and would guess this isn't a "no-brainer" decision, otherwise it would have been made ages ago.

Mild Rover wrote:Do you really mean a couple of hundred grand - ish? Sorry, a theme is developing here.
That would be a derisory sum IMO.
If I was the council and didn't think a significant (7-figure) contribution towards the north stand was financially and politically viable, I'd look at other options altogether. Calling Rovers' bluff and offering the KC again would be one option. But Hull City look likely to have 4 more home games next year and Hull fans are always keen to point out that their club would have a veto, so even the offer might not be feasible - which is probably good from a Rovers POV. Free use of the KC once a year (for the derby essentially) until such time as funding for a new stand at CP could be found, would be another option, and although it is very much a minority view, one Rovers should take if it is the best offer on the table.

scarrie wrote:Not especially. I'd feel the same way regardless of who occupied the KC. TBF I reckon you could probably make a decent case that the KC wasn't a great use of council funds either.

Neither do we.