Quote ="ccs"Maybe I (as an unbiased Hull FC supporter for 55 years) should try to respond.
snip.'"
It is plausible. The thing is we have incomplete information and people seem to want to compete to control of the 'truth' rather than find the facts. And because it is easier to attack a position rather than defend, a fair bit of mud is flung and some of it sticks - to Rovers, to Hull FC, to City and to the Council. Everybody loses. We're fed snippets (and grab onto them those we like), that suit each agenda - but in a wider context, they're close to meaningless.
So yeah - Hudgell comparing payments to be made by Hull KR, not to payments made by Hull FC, but to the profit/loss they make for the council/KC SMC isn't fair or sensible. Pearson talking about paying the highest rent in SL, without mentioning extras such as free stewarding and guaranteed ticket sales, or (if it is true) the loss each fixture costs the venue, is misleading. You've got Ehab Allam giving the word 'commercial' yet another kicking and ignoring a clear (if possibly expensive) conflict of interest. The council playing the 'community' card when it suits - see also everybody else - or wading in, then swiftly out of the Whiteley-gate thing. Unusually, the only people whose repuatations are on the up are the MPs - which says something in itself, I think.
