No

when the stadium was set up it was clear. We have a minimum level of guaranteed income, which "protected the club should gates fall below 7500"

Lower attendances means lower income which means worse squad, less investment in youth, etc. Can't see that maintaining or improving our performance in the league. The logical result is a slide into relegation. Teams with lower attendances that regularly perform better than us do so with additional income streams that we lack - notably a rich owner or board.

It doesn't need 'nobody' to turn up to threaten the club with closure. All it takes is Pearson to run out of cash or get fed up. I don't have the figures to hand but we didn't have 'nobody' watching us when we nearly closed before the merger.

First I've heard of this. Where does this income come from? The council? The SMC?

The only reference I'm aware of to the 7500 attendance figure is how our rent/charges scale.

I think he's saying that we only have to share gate receipts with the SMC if the attendance exceeds 7500. If its less than 7500 we keep all the receipts.

I don't know whether this is correct or not.

I think you'll find the south end at Poorhouse Lane is very very far away from the pitch.

Which reminds me, when is Hudgills leaving do? afterall he cant afford any more for Rovers, not with his expensive move to Larndon town

Didn't we pretty much break even last season? I'm sure that is what the club announced. Add in an extra £600k SKY money and surely we can't be anywhere near as bad as is being made out?

Exactly, it's not footballers wages, super league as a salary cap for a good reason! Business mistakes, bad calls are the problem. Make good business decisions , get a team playin consistently well, and Pearson won't have a problem. To easy to blame the fans and previous regimes

... and too easy to blame AP ??

We are very lucky enough to have a core support that can maintain income levels at a level good enough to stay in SL, I don't think anyone can argue with that tbh. Obviously if we can't afford to spend full cap because we don't have the gates then so be it, where other teams have found difficulty is because their owners have tried to 'fill the void' and then had it back fire on them. That's the sort of mis-management I doubt Pearson will be involved in.

I think saying things like 'financial problems' & 'crippling the club' are scaremongering statements when you don't clarify what it means.

It would appear so.

I think the most significant thing AP said was "a large batch of supporters for whatever reason, are not renewing their pass next season".
It sounds like he is just being realistic. Income from pass sales is decreasing year on year, and needs highlighting.

Maybe those that jumped on the FC bandwagon after the move to the KC and the subsequent small taste of success of 2004/05/06 have jumped on to the City bandwagon?

I think that is very close to the truth IMO,plus the quality of rugby has not been great.

I suggest you read the accounts, then. FC’s direct costs are reported as £1.2m. Poor effort.


They’re not the same things, clearly. But they are the same number.


Well, actually they do. You know we’re talking about “direct” costs, and not the separately reported overheads/expenses line, right?

Sure. Mainly in the separate £1.9m expenses/overheads line you’d think.

Direct costs varying in line with activity you’d say.


I have no idea what that comment means.


City service around 450k customers a year, us just 130k. That’s a ratio of 3.5 to 1. The direct costs of the clubs are £1.812m and £1.224m respectively. That’s a ratio of 1.48 to 1. I take the point on part fixed/variable costs, but that’s still a very significant disparity in my opinion. Like you, I can’t comment on the accuracy. But I do find it odd that if you look back to the 2010 accounts, the P&L schedule showed FC’s direct costs were £0.2m. Assuming like for like definitions that would be a six-fold increase in our direct costs on reduced gates. Or going from a positive direct contribution to the SMC in 2010 of +£0.4m to causing them a net loss of -£1.2m in 2014. Have the underlying finances really shifted that much? Perhaps the basis of cost allocation/reporting definition has changed…

I'm not really blaming ap, I think most fans appreciate the money he as put in and what he's trying to do, but I just think this all stinks of a bit of a pr stunt to sell more or try and sell more season tickets, I think most hull fans struggled last season , it was a bore fest, I personally think, we will get plenty of walk up fans next season, I'll be one of them, and if the team perform well, people will then consider buying for the season after. It's not rocket science

Careful, your being a realist. Cant have that.

He'd shift another couple of thousand passes if he binned radford and brought in a decent coach.

Comprehensive ownership there Mrs B. Never argue accounts with an accountant or law with a lawyer.

"Keith" reminds me of Vicenzo.

But crowds are down - to just over 9500 (actual in ground) for last season, plus no Wembley appearance.

Pearson's already invested plenty of his own funds, no doubt envisioning the success he predicted would negate that by now. In fact, the opposite has happened and he's simply running out of cash. Corners will have to be cut - no blame, just fact. The slippery slope then beckons.

Agree about Radford, but it's a bit late for another radical change and new start, financially-wise. I'm sure Radford is well aware of the situation and his expected role. We'll just have to pray he can rise to it.

We lost out on CC money because of the p!ss poor effort from the players and the p!ss poor coaching. We lost more money due to our position in the league, again down to the players and the coach.

But actually how much money has AP actually 'lost'? Yes he's made investments but you think he isn't taking any money back from our income, or do fans think every outgoing cost is a direct hit on his wallet/bank balance, it clearly isn't.
Of course he isn't going to be making huge sums if anything at all but all this talk of running out of cash and it costing him wads of money is just nonsense.

It shouldn't be about 'cutting corners', it should be about looking at efficiency, and if some don't like that well that's tough. Shape up or ship out as they say. AP should be taking direct responsibility on this front or get someone in whom he knows can do this job.
I still think we lack someone like James Rule to maximize our sales and marketing potentials

Unless we make a decent start I think sub 10k attendances will be the norm for next season

Got a good look at both, not looking to argue but there is a lot of hype surrounding certain players and it was sneyds turn last year. I think he is a good player but the expectation at Hull will be the acid test. Don't raise the bar too high for the lad. Pryce is 33 so he is not a long term solution.

The point I was trying to make is your issues are on the field but have the potential to start off it. Fix the on field issues soon and off the field will take care of itself. Your fans want to believe so any improvement should get the fans back.

Oh and we are not the blue print for no half back (as several wigan fans were telling me leaving old trafford

) . We just managed to ride the wave from having good half backs. We were in a similar boat to you in 2013, it just shows how having a 7 and a good prop can improve the confidence of a team. Hull are capable of turning things around just as quickly.

Fair points I'll be happy if Sneyd has a good season as it will be better than most of our halfs the last few years. He mainly does the basics, decent passing and kicking, which is what we have lacked, although he does have some magic in his play as we saw a few times.

Pryce be 33, big a big improvement on Horne, will help bring the likes of Abdul and HTW on who aren't ready for a full season yet.

You just have to stick with Sneyd for a bit even if he does have a rocky start. Having an experienced player next to him should in theory help him bed in.

You were unlucky with holdsworth, he should have been a good signing for you. That sort of controiling player is what you need.

You were a bit quick to quote me I was still editing