They would have to give at least 3 years notice, and in those three years City would probably get relegated anyway, meaning it was an expenisve and pointless exercise.

Buying the stadium, land (including Walton Street) etc. would be at least £80m, FC would want at least £250k compensation for every year of the lease left remaining (the full lease, not just the period until the next negotiation), so at 85 years around £20m (to pay for the new stadium).

Then there would be the inevitable legal challenges, the fact that the FA could no longer be seen to allow Man U use Old Trafford for Rugby, or Wembley for anything other than football.

More chance of getting DoDo burgers at Catalans away.

As you say, it's highly unlikely but not impossible.

To be honest, it must be a slow news day or something, well, at least for sports writers!

1) The stadium can not be sold the council tied it up very well

2) There are two joint main users Hull city and Hull FC, they are protected by the user agreement from each other and anyone else.

Its someones attempt at stirring

1) They'll find a way if they need to.

2) Yes they are protected which is why we've been discussing compensation for one of the users.

If City do stay up and it’s a big if one obstacle to finding someone to buy them is the fact the KC doesn’t belong to them. If the City Council did agree to the sale of the stadium this could make the purchase of the club an attractive proposition. Would the Council then upgrade the Boulevard with a portion of the proceeds?

There is a point at which the probability of something happening so closely approaches zero that to all intents and purposes it can be considered to be impossible.

This is getting into that territory.

Is it? Why?


Again, why? City have lost money hand over fist without the cost of a single-use stadium hanging round their necks. If anything outright ownership of an expensive stadium that can only be used for soccer would make the club significantly [iless[/i attractive.


If the council sold the stadium we wouldn't [ineed[/i an upgraded Boulevard - we could afford to build our own stadium if we so wished.

KC Groundman has already stated that its the Football that causes most damage to the pitch, not the rugby.

The fact that Hull City hasn’t any assets is an obstacle for any prospective buyer.
The present owner of the club stated in the past that he needed to develop the stadium to make it a more viable proposition.

Wouldnt stop the premier league throwing it's weight around.

Agree

Nothing story in a rubbish newspaper, with one not very interesting quote. Wouldn't lose any sleep over it.



Purely hypothetical, but could you really? You'd be looking at maybe £20m. I doubt you'd get anything like that as compensation.

A stadium is only an asset if it brings in more cash than it costs. The KC would not do that as a single occupancy stadium.


A more viable proposition how? If he was talking about getting more punters in he would need a team capable of competing. And he'd need a pretty big crowd increase to match the income from having FC play there.

But if/when City go to the wall, we will be sole occupiers of the KC!

(unless grimsby move in

)

Nobody is. It's quite good fun stringing the poor Rovers troll along though.




Take a look at Standee's calculation, and bear in mind that we would be in rather a strong negotiating position. A figure in that order would be quite possible, which is one of the reasons why a sale would be so unlikely to happen.

25 year lease for hull fc

50 years for wigan warriors.

SIMPLES.

if they dont want teams sharing then city and latics have worring times.

His intentions were to develop the stadium and the surrounding area. I don’t think he ever mentioned a single occupancy stadium.

Nope, City have over 85 years of a 100 year lease remaining.

In the premier league city what is the percentage of income from the stadium anyone know ?

If the FA dont want city sharing why there in the prem..then the only solution is to move them and latics to the championships.

they have 0% power when it comes to the rugby teams

your situation is different to ours though, doesn't Whelan own the stadium, whereas ours is owned by the Council, as landlord, Whelan will have more right to serve you notice (or price you out) than the Council will have in Hulls case.

To be honest, I cant see either wanting to kick a fee paying user out.

Just reading the article again it says that guy mobray will be commanting on his 1st live engalnd game for the bbc when england play usa. That game is on itv so I'd imagine the rest of the article is of a similar poorly researched standard.

Dave Whelan was only allowed to build the stadium on the basis that it was for both the football and rugby teams IIRC.
If the football league are not happy with both wigan warriors & hull fc sharing stadia with their beloved football then i'm pretty sure that a £20million severance fee per club would suffice. Otherwise both Hull City & Wigan Athletic need to find alternative venues, funded of course by the football league.

Exactly.