Still loving the fact FC fans hate that we are in SL .

Computer swallowed my reply to this. Here are the highlights:

Licensing criteria - Cas, Salford, Wakefield. Covered seating at CP currently sold out. Deal structured on similar principles to Hull FC's at KC would limit Rovers' exposure - and also the benefit they might receive, admittedly.

You keep repeating the point on covered seating but this doesn't change the fact that gates are actually down vs 2008 and 2009 despite 2 years of play-off calibre performances. Does this not concern you in the slightest?

No, it does somewhat. However it is my belief that improved facilities help attendances. There is a decent amount of precedent for this elsewhere in SL I believe. On my rare trips to CP, I see that the East and West stands are essentially full, the much maligned South is shut, leaving me with a choice of the Well and the North stand, which are both open to the elements. I choose the well, because if it rains, I prefer to stand.
There are all sorts of other factors that will influence attendance - on field performances (or maybe the level of hope/anticipation), the wider economy etc, but improved facilities is bound to be positive. The scale of that benefit is difficult to predict - but even if it was a complete white elephant, the RFL is demanding clubs improve.

We're discussing attendances on the FC board ATM and there are only 4 of 14 clubs with increasing attendances this year - Hull FC, Wigan, Warrington and Crusaders, with the biggest decrease at Bradford and Catalans, so a very clear correlation with on the pitch performances in the short term. Got to be a worry for the RFL.

True, but I think the rise in attendances have been one of the great achievements for RL in the last decade. As a demographic, RL fans are not always awash with positivity and the increases aren't uniform - but only Bradford have gone backwards in a big way, and that is recent and for obvious reasons.

Clubs that have improved the most tend to have been those with good/improved facilities. There are other factors at play of course.

The argument against the council funding it - I can see that. The argument that it wouldn't be good for Rovers - hmmm. Let's be honest, if it was going to be that bad most of the Hull fans on here would be all for it and pushing us down the gangplank.

Disagree. Only 3 teams have won the competition in the last 11 years and all have poor grounds IMO. The tipping point for Warrington's upturn in form was getting Tony Smith in. The point here is not that it's not a good thing for Rovers to upgrade their facilities - the 8,000 or so regulars will have some cover and maybe a seat if that's what they want. It's that Rovers are already pretty successful in the competition but are consistently 2,000 short of capacity. FC's resurgence in gates has been enabled by the KC, (and as importantly by improvements on the pitch in 2004-2007), but AFAIK only takes attendances up to what was approximately the maximum in the club's heyday. Have Rovers ever consistently averaged more than 10k? No idea, but would be interested to see the numbers (as always )

Let's leave aside for the moment the obvious contribution a new stand would bring to the licence application, and look at this from a purely financial point of view.

A scheme where the Council would take a cut of the income from the stand could completely undermine the fundamental reason for it's construction in the first place. Hudge has publicly asserted that for Hull KR to remain a viable business proposition crowds need to increase to at least 10,000 to generate the sort of income necessary for the board to prevail.

Campaigners are asserting that the way to do this is to build a sparkly new covered stand.

The question is: Will this definitely produce the desired increase in crowds?

If "yes", and the extra 2000 use the new stand and Rovers keep all the newly generated income than Hudge and the board are happy.

If "yes", and the extra 2000 use the new stand but the council take, say, half of the newly generated income than Hudge and the club are still well short of target, and still in a potentially non-viable position.

If "no", and 2000 of the 8000 regulars merely shift their position from, say, the Well to the shiny new stand cos it's nicer, but Rovers keep all the profit from the new stand then the board is in the same position as they are now - perilous.

But - and this worst case scenario is likely if crowds do not significantly increase as anticipated - 2000 of the 8000 regulars shift their position to the new cool stand and the Council are taking, say, half of the income from those 2000 regulars (from whom Rovers previously solely benefited) then that would be a financial disaster with completely the opposite effect to that hoped for.

So, to reiterate the question, are you absolutely certain that the new stand would generate the necessary 2000 crowd uplift? Because if not, or even if so but the Council have a share, this would be a White Elephant of dangerous proportions.

Could this be why Humberside are claiming Rovers have distanced the club from this campaign?

Any right minded human would distance themselves from the campaign, it is utter rubbish. Too much to do now that the School Holidays are here. The kids programmes take over the tv leaving these scratters with nothing to watch so they get a smartprice notepad from Asda and decide they are going to look for other ways to get a handout

Those same arguments would also apply, probably more so, to Cas', Wakefield's and Salford's endeavours to get new/improved facilities - do you think them similarly unwise.



What is your rationale for ignoring what to me seems to be a very pertinent point?



You have to be extremely risk averse to be absolutely certain of a positive outcome before doing anything - you'd never leave the house for fear of something bad happening. FWIW, I'd be pretty confident this would be positive. I don't think the club have distanced themselves, to use RH's words. More likely they chose not to openly endorse it because wheels are already in motion and it would have been impolitic.