Debt doesn't have to be paid back, just ask the former creditors of hull kr who had to accept a CVA not so long back.

The interest rate on directors loans is capped I believe at a much lower rate than current bank rate would likely be, plus is there any evidence that the Hull FC shareholders are charging interest on their loans?

You enjoy it like my avatar says

I don't have the time, effort or energy to pull your pathetic post to bits.

Have a day off from talking out your @rse.

I agree, loved it that much I have been waiting to use it

I have no worries about fc, they appear to be doing well financially. I am imputing into a discussion, I have a lot of friends in rugby who support both clubs, I would not want to see rovers get in to seroius trouble that it threatened their future..So my friend you need to get of you high horse

No I do not personally know the poster, I am amazed a former public figure decided to post what he did, I am even more amazed reading further down the thread



Most kr/fc posters are fine and will banter and wind each other, however some are arrogant, ignorant and egcotistic, unfortunatley he is one of them imo

None of which alters the fact Rovers have already been offered the chance to play in a premium stadium gifted to the city by the council on the back of huge cash windfall, and chose to go it alone. It's therefore a bit disinengenuous to start making out the council now owes you one because living the dream has put you £3m in debt.

It's not about the council "owing the club" it "owes the area".

Whilst that simple idea doesn't fit in to your inane fixations, it's common sense that council tax payers money is distributed accordingly.

Have a day off from talking out of your @rse.

The fact it was windfall money makes no difference in principle. It does in practice, but I'll come back to that.
When the issue of Rovers taking up the offer to play at the KC is raised by Hull fans, is it just forum points scoring, or do you really think we should we should? As it happens I'd like to see it for the derby, but that is very much a minority opinion.
Which brings me back to Rovers negotiating position. Ideally the council would build us a sy new £6 million stand. But we need to be realistic - there isn't cash knocking about like there was back when the KC was built and it might not be possible. If it really isn't Rovers should be magnaminous, IMO and accept a smaller tidbit. Use of the KC community stadium once a year for a token payment perhaps. 18k at that one game would drag us up much closer to the 10k average we apparently need.
Image rights - I honestly don't know. But if it was a cover up to hide big losses it either didn't last very long or if lies are being told it is been done pretty half-heartedly.

I think you should be allowed to play your derby there, nearly all the fans would be accomodated, your average would be raised, every-one is happy.

Fine. But if it is established that East Hull is short of facilities, and the council wants to prioritise their provision, surely it's right that they appraise all possible locations in East Hull against a set of criteria such as accessibility, existing infrastructure and cost-effectiveness for example? They've recently assisted a £10m East Park "facilities" upgrade for example, so which area do they "owe" - or have you just made up the area that's a 100 yard radius around Craven Park?

The derby idea is a good one as you don't seem fussy where you hand us our @rses so there's no such thing as home advantage

They might as well have been offered an option to play home games at Twickenham, the overwhelming majority of Rovers fans would not tolerate home games in deepest, darkest West Hull. The decision was taken pre-Hudge anyway, but that doesn't stop the flak heading his way.


Lets not forget that the debt is to 2 Rovers fans, not a bank, or a loan shark, or a hard-faced businessman/woman.

Would the Hull fans be happy in the North stand and West stand upper??

Take another look at what was being claimed.

I should imagine we'd all boycott the game.

Only be 600 anyway. We'd boycott in protest of your boycott of Richard Horne's testimonial, because we charged an extra £1 for Children in Need at the last KC derby, because you charge an extra 70% for the CP derbies.

Dependant on league position, of course!

Honestly, Michael/Daniel, compared to the South "stand" at CP, or the condemned plastic alternative - are you SERIOUS?



Very happy to actually get to view an Away derby from North/Upper West at the KC. The stampede for tickets would crash Rover's computers within the first hour. Or would you be borrowing our ticket office too?

I reckon if Pearson eighth's the price Duffen wanted to charge for the loan of the stadium to the RFL for the International, you may be able to afford the initial outlay.

Hudge should, because the income would more than compensate. [size=75(Seriously do think Rovers should consider this, actually.) [/size

Yep.someone claimed to know of a possible increase in rent and you said there was no rent on the KC. Hence my response...is that clear enough for you?

I love it when FC fans bang on about this as if moving away from a teams core support and grabbing it with both hands is in anyway a good idea never mind into their rivals fanbase.
It is utter bull you know it and I know it.
So do yourself a favour and wipe your chin.

It's clear to me that your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.

Try reading the original post again. Slowly. Maybe it'll sink in.

Here's a clue - I didn't say that FC don't pay rent.

Nighty night.

!!!!! what, you were serious

I'm sorry for not taking it in. Then again I suspect you didn't either!