Kingmaker wrote:Funny how the same people that deplore the apparent favouritism the council has for hull fc in providing them with a posh ground are probably the same who wouldn't even entertain the prospect of Rovers playing there.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Craven Park developed and expanded into a SL standard ground, and I think there probably is scope for the council to invest in some of the improvements or at least help open certain opportunities to gain funding, but all those who who are deluded enough to believe that we're somehow 'owed' a stadium from the council because we didn't fancy playing at the one they built, need a reality check I'm afraid.

hkrdavidhkr wrote:you are obviously not very well educated either
too make assumptions of a persons age and then throw insults based on this assumption is just sad and obviously a sign of a lack of moral standards due to a deprived upbringing.
to assume that no one outside of east hull gives a damn as you put is also a failed assumption on your part. for a start i don`t live in east hull.

and now lets go to the points raised in your last rant.
1 flooding
is this the responsibility of the local authority?
did the local authority make it rain hard for 3 days straight?
is the local authority responsible for the sewage system and water dispersal?

In part yes, in conjunction with several other bodies, but Hull City Council does have responsibility for flood & water management.

2 houses falling down
this is due to many years of bodged repairs etc made to these properties, plus added to this is the fact that houses were built to such poor standards from the 1960`s onwards.
even now houses are built to very low standards.

And?

3 pot holes
in part a local authority pays for the upkeep of the roads but it is also done in conjunction with the central goverment and if they don`t release funds to carry out repairs then repairs don`t get done.

The city council as highways authority is responsible for alll non trunk/non private roads. Leading on from that, are the council wholy responsible for providing new stadiums to any tom dick and harry that want one? If they can't get the funding what happens then?

4 dog crap
this is not the responsibility of the local authority but is in fact down to the owners of the animals themselves who should clean up after them.

Yes they should, but I think the local authority has a responsibility to maintain a safe/healthy environment.

5 children who need educating
this is a mute point in regards it can be put down to a multitude of of differing reason the biggest being kids nowadays having no wish to learn or be taught but rather add to the low social structure that exists all over the city.

that would be a moot point. I would also very strongly refute your claim that kids have no wish to learn, that may be true in some cases, but its hardly a new situation, and the vast majority do want to learn.

6 health.
again this is a mute point as the failure of the NHS can also be put down to many reasons, but still they throw countless billions into the NHS which ultimately gets wasted.

If you think the NHS is a faliue (I admit its not perfect, but its pretty damn good) go and try living in somewhere like the USA and see just how impressive their healthcare. (Its great, untill you actually get ill, in which case you better hope you are insured up to the hilt and don't fall foul of the exclusion clauses)

7 empty shops
again many reason cover this, but the biggest has to be the rise of the huge supermarkets offering cheaper alternatives to being forced to buy the same produce at extortionate prices as used by a lot of these shops.

People want nice things at cheap prices, only way to do that is buy in bulk, which small shops can't do.

............
and now to the topic at hand again.
yes the kc is owned by the hcc who formed the smc to run the day to day operations of the stadium rather that have to deal with the day to day operations themselves.

yes hull fc pay rent as they signed a very long lease which included paying a peppercorn rent for the use of the stadium..

.. Thats a new one on me, I was always told it was an extortionate rent, as I mentioned earlier.

yes hull kr were offered the same terms
AND RIGHTLY SAID NO.

the pitch is often left in poor condition now due to having two teams use it and a third would likely destroy it totally.
and as they cannot afford to relay it that often due to the costs then adding a third team would be bad for business.

The only time it is in poor condition is when the footy and rubgy seasons overlap, and the vast majority of the damage is in the goalmouth areas. I'll leave you to decide what sport causes most of the damage.

and now i`ll throw you a hypothetical question
.
if the KC had been built in east hull and it was hull city and hull kr that was the main tennants
would you abandon your teams own roots and go play in the same stadium as your closest rival knowing that this has been their home for many years?
and i would say that 90% of that teams supporters would say no just because of the bitterness that so obviously exists between the rival fans when it comes to their colours.



..
and now lastly...
of what safety standards are you referring
and be very carefull of your answer.
because as a frequent visitor to NCP i can tell you there is nothing wrong with the safety standards.

if you are refferring to the sign incident of a couple of years ago, then i can tell you for a fact that that was handled well and correctly. i was underneath that incident at the time.
and as someone who works in the sign trade, that is always a risk of using signs of any particular form or structure ranging from plastics to steelworks.
and that incident was caused by using a foamex plastic sign that in my opinion was incorrectly fastened for its elevation and a combination of both age and weather conditions contributed to the incident in question.
these same risks are encountered at every stadium and ground in the world that uses these sorts of signs and it can happen at any time also. this includes the kc stadium which also uses this type of plastic sign.

retro_muz wrote:Rovers’ playing at the KC was never going to happen and the club did the right thing in turning down the offer. As someone has mentioned before the rise of HKR in recent years came on a ‘Pride of East Hull’ campaign and idea, it wouldn’t have really worked if they’d played in West Park!!

How much money are Rovers/the fans of Rovers actually wanting here? I suspect a fraction of the 40 odd million spent on the KC, I was under the impression we were only a few million short of been able to give the North Stand plans the go ahead.

If the council were to help Rovers with a North stand then throw classrooms, conference suites, a gym or anything else that might benefit the local community into the design. A new North stand etc could not only benefit HKR but the people living around Craven Park, it becomes an investment in the area.

Schools need improvements, pot holes need filling and housing requires investment but I suspect all those things needed addressing when the KC was built too?!

As for Rovers currently being in financial trouble unfortunately it seems things aren’t exactly rosy on the books, but it’s been made clear we need to start averaging 10k gates and a new North stand would greatly improve the chances of us achieving that.

Digger_the_Dog wrote:I agree with most of what you are saying but when the KC was built the Council took into consideration how much of an impact it would have on the City, for example the offer to all three sporting clubs to play there, the conference facilities, the floodlit pitches for the community, the arena for boxing, basketball and other sports, the landmark stadium to attract pop stars and International games. All things for the good of Hull.

What would building Rovers a new stadium do that they have not done already with the KC except please about 7000 people who was not even that bothered about Rovers 4 years ago and will go back where they came from if Rovers went down or went bust?

Hull has a stadium, in a central location (unless anyone can think of somewhere more central) and it is a Stadium that can be used by the whole of Hull in one way or another. It is not the Councils fault that Rovers didn't want to move in.

Digger_the_Dog wrote::lol:

You forgot Number 8 .

8 - Hull KR, a club that has posted losses year on year. A club that has been given a stadium by the Council, way before the KC was built and built in the location they wanted it, East Hull. A club that since it's entry into Super Dooper League has decided to invest in playing staff instead of pay it's bills leading to CCJ's and various rumours of financial trouble.

I can see why you think the Council should be bailing them out again by giving them ANOTHER new stadium.

And finally, Hull FC paying a peppercorn rent? You really ought to research things before you post because if that is a peppercorn rent then I am a big homosexual.

red chilli wrote:It is HOME !!!, we are where we are on passion ,commitment , belief and most of all merit , i love Craven Park , i love Rovers and i love that the Hull fans hate the fact we are in SL and that ain't gonna change , they had their chance to bury us and they failed miserably ... Rally Round !!!!!!!