Mild Rover wrote:Hypothetically, would you swap the benefits of the KC for a similar level of 'subsidy'?
While Hull pay good rent, isn't it tapered/crowd dependent so that the risk was loaded on to the stadium company/council? That could be wrong, but I'm sure I read it somewhere.
Now of course, Rovers could have/(still?), get the same deal, but would Hull fans have accepted playing in the east? Mind, as most of them are from east Hull, probably. Would have been the best location with hindsight, unless the Tigers' fans are 90% west Hull.
Nope, I probably wouldn't, but then again I'm not the one claiming that the council has done nothing for east hull or rovers when that obviously isn't true. I've also always thought that the tradeoff of paying a chunk of money to the SMC was well worth it given what we are getting in return.
Regarding the rent, IIRC it was originally set at a certian percentage of gate sales over a specified figure. That figure was derived from historical attenances at the Boulevard. So, if the crowds ever dropped below a set figure we'd be paying nothing, if (as happened, damn those glory hunters
) the crowds went up we'd pay proportionatly more. There have been rumours that the agreement has been renegotiated since the original one, so I;ve no idea if that is still how it works.
As for the East/West thing, I'm pretty sure that sites were looked at in the East, Sutton Fields keeps getting mentioned (that would have suited me, almost staggering distance), Also the east/west divide is probably not as relevant today as it once was, and finally, wouldnt Rovers be returning to their really really historical side of the city if they moved west.
