Before our first game at the KCom on 8th Jan, City had played at home 11 times and lost 5 of those matches, winning only 2.
Since Jan 8th FC have played 4 games at home, during that same pitch share period City are unbeaten in 6 home games, winning 5 of them. Facts show City perform better on a pitch sprinkled with FC magic dust.
TBF, I don't think his comments are out of line. From that isolated article I don't think he is saying Hull FC shouldn't be able to use the KCOM, just more sensible scheduling should be considered. He might even accept that the argument cuts both ways, Hull FC as a Professional Sports Business should not be playing on a pitch with less than 24 hours recovery time as well.
If you are interested in Building Information Modelling (BIM). PM me.
Joined: Aug 31 2005 Posts: 8546 Location: Location Location
Everyone knows football damages pitches more than rugby, but I get his point re turn around time. However, he just just shut it and get on with winning matches. City are a turgid terrible side, and if the pitch was a mud fuelled trench it would not have any bearing on how they perform. FWIW I really hope they stay up, but this anti rugby nonsense grates on me
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Is that what they call "Fake News"?
