mr pearson will be glad your not working for his club you would get your usual 10k against leigh nearer 20k for a in form hull side in a derby does he give the 100k extra income to charity as for the pick of the youth most of the young players you have picked up over your superleague years were east hull lads and played for east hull youth teams relegation and misfinance caused us to have no pulling power to these lads so it was oblivion until the debts were paid back .we didn't sell our identity and name hence you benifited from us not being in superleague you sharks

personally would just love rovers to go down, BUT it is better for the town if we have 2 teams in SL and I believe it benefits hull fc,

Can someone please translate into English for me? Ta

As I said, purely from a business point of view, all things considered (not just the gate receipts), Rovers in SL doesn't benefit Hull FC. Rovers compete with us for the same finite resources in an area not exactly rich in those resources (players, new fans, corporates, sponsors). From that business point of view, they're better in the Championship and staying there.

And it's exactly the same the other way round.

As a fan, I want them in SL. It makes for a more interesting season.


As for the £100k gate receipts the bloke writing gibberish is going on about, that we'd lose if Rovers went down, it could be easily be made up by Hull's gates going up by around 400 on average, easily achievable. Even the Warrington game this weekend will be a good 5/6k above our average, there's a 100k right there - battling at the top of SL would far outweigh any loss from Rovers going down.

what a clown, rovers in superleague dosent benefit hull fc, you compete with the bigger budgeted clubs for players not just rovers who have a far lesser pot to spend as for new fans east is east and west is west thats how it will stay and so will the sponsors who will back a successful side

oh dear. go give your mouth a wipe and re-read what I'm writing. This isn't a go at Rovers.

To address your points:

- Competing for players - I obviously meant youngsters mainly, but it also applies for players currently at the clubs. A Hull player could move to Rovers much more easily than to say Warrington, where they may be put off by having to move home. The battling for players also inflates their wages, from youngsters all the way up, as well as backroom staff.

- Competing for new fans - if Rovers weren't in SL then it wouldn't be East or West would it, as evidenced by your crowds the last time you were outside SL. Also, Bransholme is a predominantly black n white area, always has been.

- Sponsors, you're right, they'd rather attach themselves to a better team/product, but we're still battling for that finite marketing budget. A firm could pay us £20k to be our collar sponsor, but if Rovers are wanting£20k to be main shirt sponsor, then they'll go with that as the audience is pretty much the same (RL fans), but they'd get it seen. No Rovers = no competition for that marketing £ pot.

I have wiped my mouth and still think you are a clown who makes it up as he goes along

I'm an FC fan and definitely do not want Rovers to go down.

Firstly, I love the Derbies, the rivalry and the history.
Secondly, it's good for the City of Hull if all our three teams (City too) are in their top leagues as it attracts more away fans, more tourism, more spend in the city etc
Finally, from a Hull perspective, an extra 8,000 fans that a Derby at the KC generates compared with a crowd of 10,000 v Huddersfield/Salford probably generates nearer £200k revenue pa when you include entrance, programmes etc.

When you bear in mind we will win £100k tomorrow night if we lift the LLS, then double that amount from a Derby each season is not to be sniffed at.

Good luck on Saturday and we'll see you on Good Friday.

Are you a maths teacher? Only your maths seems to be on a par with the idiot who teaches my son

great post pal same to you best team consistently all year hence you deserve the rewards

As per my other post, I don't agree.

Based upon a Derby generating a crowd of 18,000 v 10,000 (v other M8 opponent - not Leeds) then we immediately lose 8,000 fans per season which equates to 571 fans per game (based upon 14 guaranteed home games). So immediately our avearge crowd is down.

Increasing crowds is not 'easily' achievable. Tomorrow night's game is an exception. We have not played a match for the League title since 1983. That crowd is also being swelled because Warrington will bring an above average following to the KC than others would do for a league match (Rovers/Leeds excepted), in addition we also have the feel good factor from our Wembley win.

Hull's crowds have been in a slight, gradual decline for a few seasons despite Adam's constant efforts to maintain interest and attendance.

Yes, I'm sure this season's achievements will help increase our season tickets and attendances for next season. However, this average will be c571 higher if Rovers are also in the Super League.

That ain't gibberish, that's just maths.

No Jake, I am not a Maths teacher, but do commercials as part of my job.

Check the KC Derby crowds if you like. Can't recall many Derbies below 18,000 and some have been over 20,000.

Typically Hull v Huddersfield or Salford would get a crowd of just over 10,000.

Therefore, a Derby uplift of 8,000 X £23 average match day admission = £184k plus other match day spend = c£200k

£200k is double £100k (LLS prize money)

I'm happy with my Maths and assumptions. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with your son's maths teacher after all.... maybe it's just his Dad.

Some things to consider in those workings:

The average ticket price won't be anywhere near £23. The most expensive ticket available to Warrington fans tomorrow for example is an adult at £21. Kids are £10, or free if they have a season ticket.

Also, with most people buying through their own club, their club get a kick back, which knocks that average down further.

We get nothing from the food/drink sales, and how many people bother to buy programmes these days with everything being available on the Internet?

Then there's the biggy, the deal with the SMC taking a huge bite out of your £200k. I'd estimate it to be nearer £65-£70k taking all that into account. Not a small amount by any means, but that wasn't the point I was making originally. There are many other factors to consider when figuring out if we really benefit from Rovers being in SL from a business point of view (and visa versa). This is one of the benefits definitely, but plenty of negatives too.

Some fair points.

I used the average match day Adult/Concession price, but appreciate that some match offers are sometimes in place.

Forgot about the SMC deal, which I think still takes 50% of any gate over our original pre-KC average.

Other match day spend will still benefit. Know we get nothing from the food, but programmes still sell and shop sales must also benefit on Derby day.

Personally never felt that Hull have had to compete with Rovers for sponsorship, players etc. Historically, Hull have had the bigger support and since the KC was built, better facilities with more corporate potential.

As for players, I can't think of a local player Rovers have had over the past 10 years that I wish had played for Hull. As for non local players, it's a Super League market. For example, a few years ago we wanted Dobson, but lost out to Rovers, however we could just have easily lost out to Warrington, Castleford or Huddersfield.

I see the laws of supply and demand applying. For example:

Player x is a youngster in Hull looking to sign his first professional contract. If both Hull clubs want him, it'll inflate what he's worth. If there was just one club he'd likely take whatever offer was on the table even if it was pretty low. Good examples of this are the likes of Dean and Tyson-Wilson, reportedly on £35kish contracts each. Compare this to a comment made by McDermott at the start of the year about Lilley & Sutcliffe being on a combined £35k, and they have a lot more first team experience. Of course, that player could leave to join Leeds or whoever too, but I imagine most would want to stay in the city if possible. Therefore, costs go up.

Scott Taylor would be an example of a player we would've had for 6/7 seasons by now. Instead, during that time we were paying a premium to bring in props from elsewhere. It just so happens he found his way 'home'.

For non-local players, as you say it's a competitive market amongst all SL clubs, however, with Rovers being so close and being a lot easier for a player to switch to (like Cooke, Briscoe, Paea, Watts, McDonnell did for example), it makes them a more realistic threat than say Warrington or Wigan etc, as the player would have to move home 120miles away. The mere threat of it would be enough for agents to hike up salaries. Costs go up.


Sponsorship - the level of sponsorship is on a similar level to Rovers (predominantly local businesses), so we're competing with Rovers for the limited marketing budgets available in the city. You no longer get exclusivity when sponsoring a SL club in Hull, there's twice as much supply, therefore bringing price down with it. A main shirt sponsor will be seen by pretty much the same audiences over the course of a season, so the difference between the two is minimal, particularly if both the teams are floating around mid-table like they were for 10years. Revenue goes down.


Corporates - whilst the facilities on offer at the KCOM will be better, there's still a corporate market there to be competed for. Again, with Rovers in SL the supply of corporate boxes/hospitality has gone up, but the demand for it hasn't, it's probably actually gone down due to the economy in recent years and companies wanting to cut costs. So, the price will go down, and revenue with it.


From the clubs point of view, all of this is out of their control anyway, but any company should do the necessary risk/opportunities analysis on external factors, another SL club on the doorstep being one of them.

You are SmokeyTA and I claim my $5

Just a debate Craig, feel free to contribute if it's not all gone over your head.

Wasn't sure how it was relevant to the Albert Kelly topic?Rugby Raider has had you on toast .quite an enjoyable read.As for Kelly still no official club comments after the meeting Peacock spoke of on bbc.Must be complicated situation?

Glad you enjoyed the read at least.

Sometimes threads 'evolve' & go off on tangents. This one's a pretty big tangent admittedly, but there's only so many things that can be written about Kelly & what has/hasn't gone on I suppose.

I hope in the long run Kelly sorts himself out and returns to SL in 2017 the player we call know he's capable of being, whether for Rovers of anyone else. On his day he's great to watch.

No real fan of either side would really want to see there biggest rivals go down the derbies are to enjoyable depending who wins of course I'd like us both to mirror saints and wigan and be fighting it out for trophies like we were in the 80s

Fully agree. He's provided some great moments of skill and speed but also some dog turd moments such a wide range between his best and worst performance but it seems to me the battle is in his head.if he gets fully focused he is a high quality player and one I'd like to see again for us.

I'm glad you don't do commercials for me. Other than you've got your average ticket price completely wrong, you've ignored VAT and the SMC agreement, you're miles off with your thinking.

If there were only 1 SL team in Hull, they'd get increased sponsorship, increased fan numbers (I know quite a few rovers fans who regularly attended the KC for the bigger games before rovers were in SL), increased away fan numbers (who would only have 1 trip to Hull to make per year so likely travel in greater numbers) and the pick of the youth. Those benefits would far outweigh the drop in income from one match.

And my lad's dad's maths is just fine thanks

Also for any one game a sizable proportion of ST holders do not attend. For derby games a higher proportion attend so a lift of 1000 - 2000 may be ST holders who have already paid so there would be no additional gate money from these people.

THE 80s hope we bring them back those were the days to watch hull and rovers just dont bring back the snow and sleet and fog

Is this accountants anonymous...


Anyone who thinks the sharks will be financially better off with Rovers not in Superleague are daft. Tv ,advertising of every type, sponsors all want the derbies.

But of course 2 games against Leigh a season will create far more business for the sharks and superleague than 2-3 derbies.