Another thread descends into a Hull v Rovers bitch-fest.

Perhaps if we get any assistance in the North Stand build, the council will rent a broom cupboard for £50K pa (in the interests of maintining east-west balance)?

or maybe Rovers should stop moaning to the council like jealous smaller neighbours when they pretty much got Craven Park for free from said council?

Fingers crossed, we will.

You come to that conclusion how???

As follows, I'd guess:
1989 - Rovers purchase freehold for new CP from Humberside County Council allegedly at a pretty reasonable price.
1992 - Humberside County Council agree to release the restrictive covenant on part of the land fronting Preston Road, which allows re-development for retail purposes
December 1999 Hull KR are in administration. Hull City Council agreed to proceed with the acquisition of Hull KR’s property interest in the New Craven Park. From the limited information that is available it is a reasonable assumption that the agreement with the administrator was to enable Hull KR to trade and to facilitate other commercial and community uses.
June 2000 The City Council grants a 250 year lease to the Gaingroup (now Kingston Community Developments Limited). A premium is paid to the Council upon completion of the lease under a peppercorn annual rental is payable. The lease is conditional upon KCD granting a sub lease to Hull KR in respect of the new Craven Park stadium.

So, in summary, the council paid Rovers for the freehold of NCP and engaged in a peppercorn lease arrangement which is ongoing. As already said, in the meantime FC pay half a million a year to the SMC, as do City (at least) . The Rovers "hard done to" stance is therefore a bit disingenuous.

Relatively hard done to.

In summary. Rovers bought the land from Humberside Council. A restrictive covenant was revoked - whoopee-do.
The land was sold to Hull Council and leased back on favourable terms. The council gets very little directly from this but at least it didn't cost them £40+ million to get there. As the SMC makes no money, Hull's rent seems to just about cover the running and maintenance of their share of the stadium, offering no return on the council's very large 'investment'. If the new North Stand were to get the go ahead, it would be reasonable, based on this precedent for them to expect HKR and any other tenants to cover the stand's running or maintenance, or have them pay rent to a break-even SMC, so the people of Hull's liability is limited to the initial build costs. I'd be content with that.

Lots of wishy washy nonsense there Mrs B

It seems the 'hard done to' stance is just a figment of your imagination and the fact that most of your points are guesswork with very little in the way of verified figures kinda backs this up.

This whole thing isn't about rovers v hull, only an idiot would try to go down that road, its about whether the council is safeguarding the interests of its local taxpayers and getting vfm when spending their cash. It seems at both sides of the river this patently has not been the case and in these times of austerity people are rightly asking questions.

HCC invested £53m in the KC stadium and have spent a further £580000 in the facilty, but get a return of less than £47k. Even a idiot can see thats a terrible deal.

Er, I've given you dates and facts, direct from the Council, which articulate that the Council bought back Craven Park to allow Rovers to continue in operations, and that a peppercorn rental arrangement is in place.


Neil Hudgell had a moan that FC were enjoying "Subsidised first class facilities" in his programme notes. In his online interview he said "If we don’t get help in achieving that the longer term picture isn’t great. The club is very important to the people of east hull, and the politicians and others of influence in this city need to pay due regard to that." The context, of course, is that Rovers have already been assisted. By the council. Bit of bleating going on there IMO. A "hard done to" stance, if you will.



It's not, but the wailing at the top of the thread was about the taxpayers interests re the KC. I'm struggling to see how, in principle, this is so very different from the arrangements re Craven Park. Council owns asset, council grants lease with conditions, council gets no return. The only real difference appears to be the peppercorn vs commercial lease terms.


Indeed. And it seems the Craven Park deal wasn't entirely different.

Thats exactly the point. Rovers moaning about getting nothing from the council and demanding support to build a stand is a bit out of order when looking at the fact above. Maybe it's not on the scale of the KC stadium but it's still a fairly sizeable handout, you guys should still be grateful!!

Over the course of this debate (and I have to admit, I had a little look on the Hull board yesterday and found myself agreeing with The Dentist Wilf posting.php?mode=quote&f=34&p=15622129) I've perhaps changed my mind. I suppose it all comes down to whether you believe that KuHCC got best value from the sale of KC shares or not, and then we're back into the minefield that Rovers were offered the chance to play at the KC... Still, I don't live or pay taxes in Hull so it's really rather easy for me to unequivocally say KuHCC should definitely build us a new North Stand, otherwise it's a West Hull conspiracy.

Over the course of this debate (and I have to admit, I had a little look on the Hull board yesterday and found myself agreeing with The Dentist Wilf posting.php?mode=quote&f=34&p=15622129) I've perhaps changed my mind. I suppose it all comes down to whether you believe that KuHCC got best value from the sale of KC shares or not, and then we're back into the minefield that Rovers were offered the chance to play at the KC... Still, I don't live or pay taxes in Hull so it's really rather easy for me to unequivocally say KuHCC should definitely build us a new North Stand, otherwise it's a West Hull conspiracy.