I get why people would think it works out that way, but there will also be what could be described as a standing charge, as without City paying for those 23 games FC would have no chance of even being there, plus there are the things that City add in order to meet FA/Premier League requirements that FC get the benefit from, as it attracts fans and sponsors for no outlay on their part.
First part of that is definitely right, but I really don't think FC are bringing in additional sponsors or supporters due to the stadium having LED lights and Hawkeye cameras.
It's been commented on in a few areas of discussion, including supporters of other RL club forums and TV coverage that it's attracted crowds, and with that comes sponsors.
The stadium would never have been built just for one of the clubs , it's a shared stadium . I understand some people on here really hate Hull FC but in reality if they weren't there all it would mean is Hull City paying for everything.
Totally agree. I’m not a rugby league fan but many on here seem to think it’s “our” stadium, it isn’t, it’s a shared asset. The sharing has worked for the last 20 years why change now??
Our owners seem prepared for that? Don’t they? They issued the statement saying they aren’t going to carry on paying for them not me. So we will, if they leave, be like the majority of clubs in the championship and pay just for us.
Just a question off I may, not to cause angst.,... but why were HKR never offered a share of the stadium or did they receive some financial gesture?.. Genuinely dont know...,
I think we forget that our Academy play at the Stadium relatively often, which FC don't. I don't even think FC are allowed to train on the pitch at any point. Also, they have had to play on the pitch after concerts, polo tournaments, with next to no grass on the pitch as a result, so they don't get as sweet a deal as some people believe
Im sure I read somewhere that all 3 clubs were initially offered use of the stadium. I may have very well made this up however.
Is it actually a shared asset? Is there a covenant that says it has to be shared and FC (or City) have a legal right to occupancy? Just asking as I really don't know. From what I can see, it isn't a shared asset. It's an asset that is run by the SMC, and both City and FC have leases. City appear to run the SMC, therefore have effective control of the asset. Anyway, as has been said, it would be stupidity to want to be rid of a paying lessee, but there needs to be a reasonable and proportionate contribution to shared costs, with costs attributable directly to a team, charged to them.
Good fundamental questions being asked. It's called a community asset / stadium. Anyone on here know what that actually means in practice? What actually are, in this context, the legal constraints (ideally in a nutshel!)
You can tease the bits out of the cases cited within this, but it's not 'black and white'. Clearly, they can't declare it has to be for Hull FC, as they have existed in a number of guises over the years, as have City, albeit to a less extreme extent. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b2897d12c94e06b9e19bb16
That would be bad news for us in a lot of ways. The hype in Turkey around Acun owning us could be really handy if it can be harnessed. Be ****e if we were immediately overshadowed there by Chelsea having a Turkish owner too.
