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

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.