Whilst this is obviously very good news for Rovers i can't help thinking they would have been better off redeveloping the West Stand rather than build this new North Stand.

Does anyone have any idea how this new stand is likely to look and what facilities it is likely to have??

This is out of the old pdf, not much info.



It came with this brief quote;

=#FF000012 months according to press releases issued yesterday.
=#0000FFPossibly reduced by 400 if the Golf Stand goes to the South end, the loss of 1,600 spaces on the South Terrace being offset by the additional 1,200 in the extended East Stand.

As your club can't muster 1,200 to East Hull, I fail to see how this could affect you.

12 months sounds long, Wakey and Cas will have a shiney new 12000 capacity gound up in that time. I'd have thought around 7 would be about right.

Quite amusing.

What's the point of repeatedly asking this question when you've stated on about three threads that it's going to take seven months?

You're clearly going to be the one building it so can I put in an early request for it to be painted a nice pink colour with pale blue polka dots.

Well you will be promising the RFL that it will be open for the start of SL 2012, so you better get cracking, I think it'd be wrong to lie to the RFL again on a SL application

Construction pics just in

Obviously not preparing for the Derby (the 4th chair wouldn't be necessary!).

Whilst there are plans to re-develop the West stand IMO it was essential to commence with the building of a North stand to increase the capacity, more covered seating and improvement in both Corporate and Community facilities, and it was much needed to meet the requirements of the RFL when issuing future franchises.

The facilities to be provided were identified by consultants as being lacking in particularly East Hull. From memory it will include up to 40 new workspaces comprising a mixture of offices and workshops and will include training facilities for learning and apprenticeships in partnership with Sirius who work closely with The University of Hull and KCDL.

I have viewed the current plans of the impressive looking North stand ( which again from memory) i believe will join up with the current West stand upon completion and i am sure they will be on view within some HCC department and probably shortly on line.

I think I am right in saying that the average attendance for Hull SL went up quite considerably when they left the Boulevard to go to (council funded) KC stadium. If one of the parameters of them being allowed a tenancy was their average attendance I doubt if they would be allowed to sign the lease. I can only hope that with better facilities at CP we will get a better crowd. Isn't that what Hull SL hoped as well? It is worth remembering that due to anxiety of Kath Hetherington (whatever happened to her?) and "Fatty" Richardson to get their money out of Gateshead/Hull FC they did not invest in the SMC. Another brilliant decision by the "Gateshead 2".

I don't remember there being any other worthwhile projects being sorted before the priority of a new home for you and City. It was decided then it was a good project for the City and thats why it was done. Pretty much the same as has been decided now I would think. Personally I agree with another poster, I would rather have a new west stand but its not my decision, maybe thats next?

We were not in the financial situation then as we are now: council jobs being slashed, libraries closing, basically very skint!! KC shares ring a bell

Think 'we' need to consolidate and assess before even thinking about taking on any more loans. The board have done wonderfully to forge partnerships with Sirius, Hull Training and the NHS. Looks like we're going to have a 13k+ capacity stadium with some really good facilities - job done IMO.
I'm not saying we shouldn't give the west stand a lick of paint, but can't see us looking at anything on this scale.

Good idea, job sorted. Use the KC money and build a proper community stadium in East Hull which after all was what the KC was supposed to be but isn't!
Who knows, we may even get amateur finals on it!!

Oh dear, I feel a rather cyclical conversation coming on.

Come on guys and gals - let's prove the goose-man wrong.

=#BF0000Edited by GML
No Need for such a comment

Thats possibly why Rovers have in essence been granted a 30 year loan rather than a handout like your club got....note the difference

I'm not so sure. In FC's case we pay anywhere between £0.5m and £1.0m annually to the SMC, depending on who you believe. I would say that's a commercial rate to pay for the standard of facilities we get and over 50 years we will therefore be paying between £25m and £50m.

Rovers case is different. Hull City Council repurchased the freehold of Craven Park when Rovers went into administration to allow Rovers to continue in business, then put in place a peppercorn lease arrangement of 250 years length. So what you have now, you've basically got for nothing, apart from the improvements made since (assuming they weren't funded by grants etc). The NHS and the RFL are essentially funding the East Stand extension. The arrangements for the North Stand seem to be a grant for £2.3m (to be approved), then £4.2m which comes from central government via the council. From the report in the HDM, payments will be virtually nothing until 2016, then an increased more commercial rate will apply [uif [/uRovers' attendances increase. What the contingency arrangements are if the attendances aren't met is not clear, but it may be a possibility that the council has to find the difference to central government?

Set of barstewards Rovers improving facilities and actually paying for them to be done instead of begging the council to pay for it

Or

Ser of Barstewards Rovers are playing in that dump and not upgrading facilities

I'd be delighted if Hull KR were insulated from the risk of disappointing crowds, in the same way Hull FC are rumoured to be. There is a downside to this of course (a 'millstone', the ever erudite Kingston Droolers calls it), but I'd definatedly take it. Not seen any evidence that is case though - which bit of the reports are you referring to? I'll just check if there is a new one...

How odd, you were discussing this with Paul M earlier, as he mentioned from the HDM report: "Also who is paying the interest in the first four years, as Rovers are on a basic rent during this time." This part of the report, which said Rovers rent would be nominal for 4 years then would increase "as and when attendances increase" seems to have been pulled. Very strange.

Full of if's, buts, assumptions, HDM report and possibilities.



One could say, as usual, that your post is based on guesswork, made up assumptions and general heresay but that would be cruel