[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/hull_kr/8898260.stmMore southern taxpayers money asked for for t'norf????[/url

Why don't you just ground share????

There aren't any Union clubs quite close enough and to be honest the name Ionians RL doesn't appeal to me.

I do appreciate the part the southern taxpayers played in making our local telecoms company such a success though.

Apart from the fact it is very specifically 'K-u-Hull money', it isn't like London never gets any public investment is it? The government never even considered backing an Hull bid for the Olympics - harrumph.

you muppett



didnt think you bothered on here anymore?

Haven't any of your fans noticed there's a recession on?

far more important things for public cash to be spent on, and I'd include HullFC's training ground as an 'unnecessary' use of public funds also before anyone pipes up. The KC was built after a very unique sell off of public shares, and in a far different economic climate.

Most ironic post ever.

As a point of pedantry, the UK returned to positive growth at the end of last year. The country is still skint, though, and there is the possibility of a double dip.

To be honest, I don't mind Hull fans objecting (ideally on the Hull board, if they are going to be [ivery[/i sour, which tbf your post isn't). What galls me a bit is the combination of a 'should have taken the offer to use the Casey', with 'a missed the boat', 'had their chance' attitude that suggests, to me, you'd prefer Rovers not to play a better stadium - perish the thought.

just had a similar arguement with my father who is staunch fc, and he too is of the the opinion that we made our own bed and should lie in in it.
this is a all too common attitude, one which i believe to be wrong.
anything that contributes to making the city of hull better should be fully supported.
and having 3 top flight teams(or close to in city`s case) should be maintained and have backing,
city failed in their first foray in the prem for a few reasons, but some of which was the backroom politics that control our city.
hundreds of thousands was spent and wasted on a huge big screen tv(now removed)
hundreds of thousands was spent on daft 2ft high frogs..... Why?

the list can go on and on as where money is wasted .

Indeed, but I don't see in these challenging times what the compelling business case is for a new stadium for Rovers. Your crowds have stagnated, despite what the graph in your commercial brochure suggests. You can say "build it and they will come", but when looking at capital investment, you need to assess risk. Say the council spends £20m on a new stadium and crowds don't increase, which is a reasonable possibility given historical crowd sizes. It would be an extremely high profile embarrassment for the council. I suspect the council will step in to fund current plans as Rovers are unable to fulfil what they promised in the franchise application, but would be staggered if they chose to build a new stadium.

I can understand why Rovers chose not to use the KC, the location was completely unsuitable. And to be honest you'd have probably experienced declining gates if not gone bust altogether. The Rovers 'revival' was built on all the 'Pride Of East Hull' stuff...something you coulden't have done being based in WEST park.

Rovers do have to take some of the blame though, the predecessors who built a completely ridiculous ground (2 stands facing the wind, a school pitch without drainage, out in the middle of nowhere) are the real villains of the piece. Had Rovers built a 80's version of the Halliwell Jones this whole issue would have been avoided. Glanford Park is of similar age and size but has lasted much better.

overall my issue is that while cuts are being considered to the Police, education, health etc I find it completely inappropriate for a council to be handing out cash to a private sports club.

Sorry. I have to take issue with this.
















They're toads.

Aye, the late eighties Wright Group were the absolute villains of the piece as far as we're concerned.

Hull can't surely justify spending money on our ground.



I haven't seen any of them yet, I like the idea though, might get one me sen with my slapped arris face on it.

Hey, leave Rolf alone!

I'd agree with that. Crowds have stagnated, but have done so at close to capacity of the best bits of the ground. The further extension of the East Stand will provide 'more' and the new North Stand would provide 'better'. That would represent a very positive result IMO.

I definately see the arguments about the principle of public 'gifts' to private companies, but as rival RL clubs have benefitted, and with altruism so rarely trumping self interest, Rovers would be very unwise to make themselves the exception.

I think if the council funded the new North stand and a better arrangement at the South (not sure what but closer to the pitch and covered)that would be a great result and nowhere near the £20m bandied around. Rovers do not need a new stadium and council funding for one I think would be extremely unlikely.

The council could stipulate that a certain percentage (say at least 80%) of the work must be carried out by local companies, thus keeping the benefits of the investment in the local area providing/sustaining jobs and helping to keep council tax coming into the council's coffers.

Quote ="Mild Rover"I[u'd agree with that. Crowds have stagnated,[/u but have done so at close to capacity of the best bits of the ground. The further extension of the East Stand will provide 'more' and the new North Stand would provide 'better'. That would represent a very positive result IMO. I definately see the arguments about the principle of public 'gifts' to private companies, but as rival RL clubs have benefitted, and with altruism so rarely trumping self interest, Rovers would be very unwise to make themselves the exception.'" I thought attendances had stagnated, but oddly the club's official literature paints a different picture of continued growth to an average SL attendance of 9,000 in 2009, an increase of 500. The 2007 number (7,157) and 2008 number (8,554) are as per this link www.slstats.org/t15/Hull+Kingston+Rovers/ but the 2009 number in the brochure (Page 11) is unrecognisable: www.hullkr.co.uk/_clientdocs/%20 ... Visual.pdf

Quote ="Mild Rover"I[u'd agree with that. Crowds have stagnated,[/u but have done so at close to capacity of the best bits of the ground. The further extension of the East Stand will provide 'more' and the new North Stand would provide 'better'. That would represent a very positive result IMO. I definately see the arguments about the principle of public 'gifts' to private companies, but as rival RL clubs have benefitted, and with altruism so rarely trumping self interest, Rovers would be very unwise to make themselves the exception.'" I thought attendances had stagnated, but oddly the club's official literature paints a different picture of continued growth to an average SL attendance of 9,000 in 2009, an increase of 500. The 2007 number (7,157) and 2008 number (8,554) are as per this link www.slstats.org/t15/Hull+Kingston+Rovers/ but the 2009 number in the brochure (Page 11) is unrecognisable: www.hullkr.co.uk/_clientdocs/%20 ... Visual.pdf

More chance of me landing on Mars.

As Im the topic of conversation on here......would just like to say we are petitioning for ground improvements for our beloved club......Im very proud of what we have achieved and will continue to work hard for our cause!

I have had a very long day amidst a media frenzy....well almost

so I shall retire now safe in the knowledge that i got off my backside along with my father-in-law fought for something we believe in!

So its good night from him....and its good night from me

Well done to those who are campaigning and got some good media coverage that has put this in the debating circle.

Ground improvements are the way to go, a new stadium would have no chance of getting off the ground and funding would be almost impossible to justify. The wider public would have the view that we should just move in the KC and save the cash.

IF there was a business case that allowed the council to invest in the north stand plans that showed a return on investment for them. (offices, community development, education etc..) then I think this becomes viable. I personally don't think the council should just hand rovers the cash, the climate of todays politics just wouldn't allow it. This has to be handled on a business basis then it might be a goer.

As some have said, Rovers don't need a new stadium. What they should be doing is what they have been doing, and that's upgrading Craven Park.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but over the last 5 years or so they've extended the East Stand, bought new floodlights, brought in the golf stand and sorted out the pitch. That's way way more than Wakefield, Castleford, Salford and Bradford have done in that time.

It's completely the wrong time to be asking for handouts. Also, I think a point is being missed regarding the KC - it's making money for the council! If the council were to give money to a private organisation, they have to be getting something back - not necessary money, but perhaps healthcare or educational facilities.

The point about the KC stadium being a money spinner for the council strikes me as a bit disingenuous. When will the council start to see a profit on their initial 40-odd million pound investment? To Baristarize you - was there a compelling business case?


I'm not sure there is a bad time for the local community to request spending - there may well be better and worse times to get it though.
Otherwise, I agree.

Asking the Council to help a business increase their profits by handing them millions of tax payers money? Yep, well thought through campaign this.

I wonder if the guy who owns Moby Dicks is considering asking for a brand new state of the art restaurant in order to compete with his much bigger rival Bob Carver?

Surely if business can go to the Council and demand hand outs to help them put right years of bad management then Mr Dick has as good a case as Rovers.

Why can none of these thick prats who signed the petition see that HKR is a business, not a public service. Why would thousands of tax payers want their money funding a stadium for a club that very few of them care about? It is a no brainer. Either move into the KC or pay for your own improvements, Hull is not big enough to need 2 stadiums.

If they need a loan to build a new ground then surely the gnome has some contacts he could call upon now he has gone global (well Leeds)?

Can I point out that the people moaning that there is a recession, police cuts, health cuts etc etc. The funding for sports and entertainment comes from a different sector. Build or not, the police still get cut, the health services still get cut etc etc.

The ones to blame for the police cuts and others are the short sighted people who voted Labour out by voting Conservative or particularly the ones that chose to sit on the fence with the Libs, who in all fairness haven't a clue about running a country.

If they were spinning it like that, then I'd agree it'd be foolish. But they have stressed the community aspect of things. Council's and local authorities the world over have been effectively subsidizing private sports clubs for a long time - from Real Madrid downwards. It is ultimately a political, not a business choice.

Remember as well (how could you forget?!), that Rovers need to cut their losses before they increase their profits - it isn't like some fat cat will be making tons of cash from the much-loved local treasure that is Hull KR, in the forseeable.

Tbh, if it comes down to a choice between playing at the KC and becoming a community-club in the Championships, I'd look at the former - but how many sports stadia host 3 senior clubs? Offering to help out at CP, in return for their own facilities, maybe a share of rent/income and a community commitment (share with an amateur RL club, or a RU one perhaps), has got to be a decent option for the council, if the price is right.

To some extent, I think the option of a switch to the KC is worth leaving open for now. Hull fans, who'll form a political counterweight to this campaign, don't want Rovers moving in, I suspect. If that is the alternative way to secure a SL licence long-term, this might seem more palatable to them - as it is for Rovers, and everyone is happy.

I think it's one we keep in the back pocket if ultimately we don't get the funding.