Was never going to happen, easy money at the goosemakers...



Do I detect a not all together serious stance?



Could see it a fathom off, completely having a giraffe.



I'll officially declare myself out of the debate at this point (although I do reserve the right to re enter if I feel an "Officially Endorsed (As Authorised By The Pride Of East Hull) Certificate Of Gormcloptitude" should be awarded) as numbers are not high on my agenda of fun.





BTW, Loving your genetic work on The Sin Bin, no idea what it's about, all seems very heroic. Great to read though.

I miss you, I think we've fallen out. If I apologise about the cereal box and the chair and the holding hands and the "Are you sure about this" and the "Trust me, it's art, lovey", can we be nemeses again?

"An application has been made?" What does that mean - that the £2.3m's not actually in place yet?


So the council are paying back the prudential fund at say 3% interest (average for central government funding), Rovers and friends pay the council a nominal amount until attendances rise in 4 years, and the council isn't disadvantaged by this cashflow shortfall? OK then. And "as and when" attendances don't go up? Who guarantees the repayments? Ah, yes, the Hull ratepayers.



Why are you not questioning the fact that HCC poor return in the investment made on the KC Stadium. If memory serves me right they are a paying a fortune to rent some offices within the stadium.

FC pay a commercial rent - not our fault the SMC is so inextricably linked with City that you can't see the wood for the trees - the council should have better (or some) controls in place. Of course, there's also the astonishing return the council get over 250 years on the freehold interest they had to acquire in Craven Park to stop Rovers going under when they were in administration. Why are you not questioning that?

Do you share my belief that that statement carries around a very large caveat tucked under its arm?

"As long as City don't go t1ts up"? you mean?

From what Rule and Sutton have said, we pay a base commercial rent plus further operating charges as crowds exceed a certain level. Not as if we paid virtually nothing for the first 4 years of tenancy, that would be unacceptable, clearly.

Are you referring to the 8000 rule? If so, it hasn't had to kick in yet. The SMC - not the council - are doing well out of us, and will continue to do so.

Just noticed your post count Yorkie, catching up aren't ya.

Bet most your posts have (like mine) been made on this board eh.

And you base this on.............?

Hull Daily Mail yesterday. Before it was removed - was referenced by other posters too before you suggest I made it up.

The HDM....font of all knowledge

You didn't make it up Mrs B, that statement actually went to print, I'm reading it now in yesterdays paper. Looking forward to reading Charlies retraction tonight

Yes, although we (or certainly I) have a policy of not discussing its specifics, for fear of getting into trouble.

I accept that Hull FC have made a tremendous success of their move to the KC. And they pay the [uequivalent[/u of a commercial rent. If that [urumour[/u is accurate, then they do not IMO have a commercial rent agreement. Or at best, it is unusual and [uwas[/u generous - given that your average in your last season at the Boulevard was [iseven[/i thousand. Of course, as I say, you grabbed a golden opportunity, to the extent that it is perhaps now a 'millstone'. I hope Rovers can to some extent emulate that. Imitation as flattery and all that.

As far as I'm aware, and despite the information that was allegedly removed from the HDM report (missed it myself), Rovers have not got an equivalent deal. The council are just showing us a little of the faith they showed in you.

I'm starting to lose track of the beef here. Are we ripping off council tax payers, or are we getting a more favourable deal compared to Hull? Who brought Hull's deal into this? Why?

When I consider the way the city council toss money around, I don't care if we have taken £4M out of the purse, although this would appear to not be the case. As long as we get improvements to the ground, I'm not bothered. I pay more taxes (nationally & locally) than the GDP of some African nations, its about time I saw something other than the odd dustbin collection for my hard earned.

I don't care if this upsets folk, I dont care if we pay "peppercorn" rent, I dont care if we have had a hand out or a leg up or any other anatomy-related jibe. We are getting a better ground, that's the end result, and it still wont persuade some Hull fans to attend derbies at Craven Park ("I'm not giving Hudge a penny of my cash"icon_wink.gif. Well 3,000 Rovers fans thankfully didn't take this attitude to the testimonial last January. Small minded?

In a nutshell, I think you'll find the general consensus is that Rovers fans begrudge anything hull achieve and hull fans begrudge anything Rovers achieve. It's a recurring theme...

You are probably on the money there. I don't begrudge Hull the KC personally, why would I? Its a nice ground, smack in the middle of their traditional territory. It would now appear the same will be true for Rovers (although we could debate the location of NCP as its not where it should be!).

The 3,000 Rovers fans weren't asked to pay nearly double what was asked of fans from all other clubs for their seats.

True, but that's not what I'm referring to here. I agree that the South Stand is bobbins, but I am referring to several comments passed since Monday that imply that even with new facilities, they won't be setting foot inside Craven Park (examples below). Do you consider that continuing attitude small minded?

Hull requested the south terrace because they wanted more tickets than Rovers' normal away allocation (2/3 of the north stand). I'd like to think Hull's reasoning behind this was to provide more tickets to their fans, but the cynic in me thinks the extra rake off they'd earn from the ticket sales might have made the decision a little easier. From Rovers' point of view, they didn't want to be out of pocket by selling hull fans 50% more tickets but charging 50% less for them.

Personally, I didn't think it was particularly fair on the fans, but I can see why both clubs thought it was the only way to go. End of the day, it's another reason why it's high-time Craven Park was brought up to scratch and hopefully these issues will be a thing of the past.

I'm wondering how long it will take Hull fans to realise this £4m is a loan and HAS to be paid back over 30yrs by all parties that use the new stand. The following £2m is going to be coming from private funding of which I believe has already been saught and all it will take is a few signatures before all funds are available to use.

So as much as the west want to believe it is a hand out it really is not and the money we pay back every year will go back into the fund to help other local innitiatives. The ground will also benefit the community and East Hull villages, create employment opportunities not just at the ground but also in the businesses it helps to start up.

I just hope we use local builders and suppliers.

Playing devils advocate, what would happen if Rovers defaulted on the loan? Hull City Council have borrowed the money for you from Central Government so if Rovers defaulted then who would be responsible for paying it back to Central Government, Hull City Council?

Before anyone suggests I wish this to happen, I don't, just a genuine question as to who would be responsible.

The money will have to be paid back to the central fund. If Rovers and/or Sirius and/or Hull Training get into financial difficulties or are disbanded for example, who makes the repayments then? ATEOTD the council have sought central government funding on behalf of a private limited company (Hull Kingston Rovers Football Club Limited) and have committed the council to underwriting the repayments for said private limited company. As for the "repayments paying for other local initiatives", that's just nonsense. It goes back to central government to repay the loan.

Not sure if acknowledging you're playing Devils Advocate is the correct prelude to a genuine question but I'd suggest you'll struggle to get a definitive answer to a hypothetical situation.

I'm sure however, such a hypothetical will be covered in any contracts - again tho' it's unlikely anyone here will be reading any such contract or be able to disclose the info even if they do see the contract.....although I'm guessing some will offer up some theory.

You was going well up to that point.

Thats just classic political speak used to justify public funds going to private enterprise. Its sounds good but the reality is that 99 times out of 100 it becomes something completely different.

I wouldn't be worried about Rovers defaulting on any of their payments or of going bust, they have survived far worse. But i would be worried about the other two 'partners' whoever they may be. My experience of these sort of schemes is they tend to be very short term and i would wager that within 5 years this 'enterprise hub' / 'training centre' has been closed down and taken over by some black lesbian folk dancing club paying about a tenner a month rental.

IMO Rovers are the least likely of the three 'partners' to cause the council any short, medium or long term problems with this deal.