Wasn't a new drainage system put in something like 10+ years ago. And then the supposedly world leading grass system came later. All supposed to solve the problems. Seems the club have been sold duds.
The costs of the stadium are never going to be 50/50 I can only suggest a proportion of income, turnover or profit. City should have paid more when it had the Premier league money.
Maybe just something that needs refreshing every decade or so? Tan used the phrase 'life expired'. Most things need refreshing once in a while. You wouldn't expect a new kitchen to last the entire life of a new property, probably a similar scenario with pitches and stadia.
and city play more games at the MKM, never going to be 50/50. I’m happy to help out a struggling minority sport, it’s like doing missionary work
Sorry but I disagree with this, it should be worked out on a % of games played on it ONLY. It shouldn't matter what division we're in to the amount spent on it. Did they pay more whilst they were in their top flight and we were in the 3rd tier?
The Premier League have minimum requirements for press and all sorts of other things, we had to spend a few million in the first season to meet them, Luton just had to spend £10m to meet them, why should a rugby club be expected to pay towards them (particularly when you've just been guaranteed £135m to make sure you can easily afford the changes required)?
Factor in also that rugby can be played on a cabbage patch and it's the football that requires pristine turf - if the tubbys are happy with a mud bath then pitch quality is solely our requirement and not theirs.
https://x.com/HullCity/status/1755297877600145673?s=20 The club name dropping the council in tweets, probably trying to gain favour
Do they have a seperate press room like the changing rooms or are benefitting from our outlay from being in the Premier League? You failed to answer my second question as well 'Did they pay more whilst they were in their top flight and we were in the 3rd tier?' As all of our Premier League money had run out by then. Didn't Tan say they'd have to pay their way more and City wouldn't be subsidising them as much going forward?
It's quite possible that city in the 3rd tier of football get crowds of 20,000 whilst Fc in their equivalent 1st tier get crowds of say 5,000. What league the clubs are in has nothing to do with their ability to pay. I think for some games FC only opened two stands to reduce costs of stewarding etc. As I said a proportion of income, or turnover or profitability should be a starting point for calculating contributions.
When both teams moved in they were paying a rent, not a large one, and 50% of ticket sales based on the average the season before the move which was 8,000 for FC and 12,000 for City. Given our higher crowds and more games then City have been paying in more most of the time.
Why is Pearson trying to get more favourable terms for his club sharing the stadium ? Are City also asking the council for a reduction seeing as we are 'losing £21m'?
"We continue to liaise with the stadium management company over development proposals to improve the stadium and the surrounding area. Contrary to some reports, these meetings have been taking place for some time as the club continues to develop its plans. "The council is engaging with the aim of maximising the benefits for the club and the local community, but the process is not straightforward because the plans impact on a public park and a small part of the operating area of Hull Fair, which is granted under a Royal Charter. The council remains committed to working with the club to support it with its plans, which would also provide significant investment for the area. "As is the case with many developments, the proposals will also require planning consent and the council will work to assist the club through that process."
