Can you clarify on how this works. Are you saying the Council wouldn't have funded it without both teams? From my understanding, the amount they contribute in rent is nominal (<£5k per year), so the only benefit made would be food takings, corporate sponsorship and stuff. To be fair this goes for Hull City as well, although I have no clue how much rent they pay.
Exactly, the plan was always for community stadium, all three teams, (City, FC, Rovers) were asked if they wanted to be involved, had only Hull City agreed it simply would not have been built. Where do you get that rent figure from? They pay slightly less than City do per game (running costs are lower) and only have 13 games there a season instead of the 23 city have but they still pay a 6 figure rent.
This is correct a merger is a ridiculous suggestion, you never see people calling for a Man Utd/Man City merger so why should this be any different. There is no reason for a city fan to want Hull FC booted out of the KC, if you don't like don't watch. (Cue someone trying to blame the KC pitch on the rugby again despite the parasite explaination that has now been given)
