Ergo, we will get somewhere?

The ground isnt selling out but the East and West stands do. Is it coincidence that these have the best facilities? I think not. The North stand would hopefully attract the extra 2000 from away support knowing they are going to be dry and people wanting a better gameday experience ie the prawn sandwich brigade. May hate them but they pay good money. We are blatently missing out at the moment because of lack of dining and drinking facilities.
As for people moving from their usual spot, sure there may be a few but the majority would remain in their favoured spot. I would not give up my seat in the West stand as it feels like home on matchday.

Councils and government across the UK routinely support businesses financially or otherwise without requiring a financial "return" on the investment. It is completely missing the point to assess such support in purely financial terms. Not for profit organisations like a local council can place a value on such social externalities [ubecause[/u they are not for profit. What financial return did the big screen or the toads make? Or firework displays or libraries or God knows what else councils spend their money on.

The car industry through the decades has had 100's of millions in support from the UK government, businesses are often encouraged to relocate (inwardly invest) by offering subsidies or preferential rates for land etc. This is the norm rather than the exception and the decisions are not tied to specific financial returns.

Clearly the council has an obligation to get the best value (however that's defined) from our money that it spends and there is a valid argument whether best value could be obtained elsewhere. Personally, I don't think a new stadium would be good value but if the council as a minimum could provide enough input to get the North stand done (the balance coming from other sources) then that would make CP more than adequate as a SL venue and should result in higher crowds (particularly higher numbers of away supporters) making HKR more viable long term. The social benefits of which are obvious.

In this instance the car industry gives its return to the taxpayer in jobs, which generates income from taxation on the employees as well as profits from the business.

You got a 25k stadium you are never likely to fill apart from a derby on the back of some appalling attendances in your SL years at the Boulevard, check the stats, you had attendances WAY below anything we have had since promotion, this is when you where in the top 6 on a regular basis, in fact your attendance virtually doubled as soon as you moved to the KC.

To be so arrogant as to think that you can get a 100% increase with a new stadium with good facilities, but we couldnt get what would amount to a mere 25% increase to reach a 10k average with similar facilities is typical of the deluded attitudes of some FC fans, probably most of whom have never seen the inside of the Boulevard.

True, and the same circumstances would apply in this respect on a smaller, local level although perhaps less directly since taxation on income (or profits) does not go to the council.

Sorry i'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. The only return HCC could get is on income from lease or rental, be it from Hull KR or any other organisation that could make use of the facilities.

The only way any stadium improvemnts could work imho, is if an agreement similar to the one at the KC is put in place.

Indirectly, the development could increase income to the council by providing jobs (people off benefits and paying council tax) or safeguarding jobs (people not needing to claim benefits). Helping to keep businesses in business and paying business rates.

Are we now saying that the whole future for Hull, economically speaking, rests on the council buliding Rovers a new stand?

WTF? So we own the KC now do we?

Where have I said that, the fact is that you are in a stadium at ratepayers expense that IF the same rules had applied as some posters are suggesting they should, with regards to attendances at CP, then back when it was built the KC should NEVER have been built so big as according to some FC fans on here its would be impossible for a club to increase attendances by 25% (let alone by 100%) with a new ground with improved facilities, when in fact it's been proven that it can be done (by yourselves) when attendances increased from an average of around 6,500 to almost 13,000.

The other inference being made is that we cannot fill the one we have got, so why should we have a new ground, well once again, you were not even half filling the Boulevard for the preceding three seasons to the KC move, while we are at 80% capacity each game.

I am therefore arguing that it would be relatively easy for Hull KR to go from 8,100 average in a ground with below avarage facilities to 10,000 average in a new ground with excellent facilities. I realise there will have to be some payback to the council as there is with you and Hull City, but we at least deserve the chance to progress seeing as the other two professional clubs in the city have been given the chance to at an initial capital cost to the ratepayers of ALL of Hull.

However...... go steady on the crowd increase topic, you see only Rovers fans come out the woodwork or jump on bandwagons...... apparently!

Yes, that's right. That's exactly what we're saying.

Thanks for the clarification.

No problem. I take it your full support is behind council funding for the stand.

Only if they build Sheldon's Special Slide in time for the weekend. In truth, I'm not sure, at first glance I did think that it's not something local authorities should be getting involved in, however I do think there's been some compelling arguments put forward over the last couple of pages in favour.

One thing I do know is that both the NHS and the council find it almost impossible to contact and educate the male over thirty fives population of the city when it comes to alcohol and tobacco, this could be a possible in for them.

No, we are in a stadium at our own expense. The KC stadium was built as a community project for the whole of the city that should eventually pay for itself. You seem to be forgetting the other team that also pays to use the stadium. One last time, the KC stadium was not built for Hull FC so why would you use Hull FC as the basis for your arguement? The stadium has hosted International events so always needed the extra capacity. IF the stadium had been built just for Hull FC the capacity would have been nowhere near 25000.

The council provided a stadium that was made available for use for all 3 professional teams in the city. The fact your club refused to use it doesn't mean the council should then have to fork out yet more money so you can have your own private upgraded facilities with no real "payback" to the council.

1976-77 average 3,860
1977-78 5,112 (last time Rovers had a higher average at 5,352

)
1978-79 6,853 (in the second division, higest average in either division)
1979-80 10,021

The SINGLE sub 1,000 attendance against Huyton was in 1974.

Or what about in 1997 in the NFL when we got a few 8,000 attendances?

How did American Football go? Never liked that paint they put under their eyes me...Sinister.

I meant NFP. (Or Not F***ing Playing as the joke went in 1999).

Lets hope Rovers get some support from the council to improve facilities, then perhaps the dullers who travel in their hundreds to the derby will need another excuse for not following their team to Craven Park.

Mind you after two derby wins against us this year, the " faithful support" for the 2011 derby at C.P. could even reach four figures.

You'll get nothing from the council, you've had enough and you turned down the best opportunity you've ever had, as for support, if you had a 25,000 stadium where the away fans could see what was going on and be charged the same as everyone else, we would out number you which would be a bit of a showing up now wouldn't it.

It's too dull and predictable for me to even be bothered to pick up the mouse to click an emoticon.