They certainly weren't in the second season, you could pay on the gate in the north stand in all but 4 or 5 home games. Even the games that did sell out, tickets were still available on general sale in the weeks before.
I didn't say we couldn't sell out the extra seats, we would for the big games, however there wouldn't be sustained demand for those extra seats, they would get used for 5 or so games a season on the provision that we actually get promoted. This is all assuming we are a premier league team, which we are not, we need to get promoted, stay there and maintain near capacity crowds to justify any extension.
True, but surely that just reinforces why we don't need a bigger ground, crowds are fickle and a club of our size and stature will always struggle to maintain a position in the premier league that would keep those floating fans coming back.
forget filling the stadium, as has been said a few times by the Allams and others, in business terms, we need the stadium as an assett for the club to own.
We were only allowed to sell about 20,000 season tickets in either season. Weren't the North Stand seats being available more as a result of away teams not taking as big an allocation in the second season as they did in the first? (with it not having the "new ground to chalk off" demand)
And the fact it's costing the Council money year on year, and they're not prepared to borrow against it means it is not an asset for them so there's no reason not to be prepared to sell it.
The upkeep of the stadium doesn't cost the Council a penny - that's why the SMC was set up in the first place - thus the reason also the Council have never earn't any money out of the KC (Superstadium). A total non story. The Council are not prepared to sell it because it costs em nowt to run it and it was built with £43.5m of public money. The fact that most of the Labour controlled City Council are eggchasers and the KC provides a virtually rent free home to Dull FC is a different issue.
I'll change the wording of my last post. "...no good reason..." Sutton, they may have zero operating costs for it, but they have £43M of capital tied up in it. Owning the stadium makes them no money, they're not prepared to borrow against it to invest in other projects, and they're not prepared to sell the stadium to release that capital for other projects. In no way does it represent an asset to the Council as they aren't making money from it now, and nor will they in future. They should therefore be looking to sell the stadium, with covenants put in place if necessary so that investment can be made in other projects elsewhere in the city to bring further benefits from the KC share money. Even if they sold it for £20M and left the money in the bank collecting interest it would be a better use of their resources than it is now, and the rugby doesn't need to worry as they've already established the leases are watertight.
It's a different issue because you've just made it up! They pay a lot less than city, granted, but they also play half as many games. As a percentage of the clubs income FC actually pay a lot more than City, hardly rent free is it!?
Ricardo - I follow your thinking in fiscal matters but I'm not sure that any monies raised from the sale of the £43m capital invested in the then superstadium project could merely by put back in the Council coffers. And if they were they would at best be ring fenced to spend on capital and not revenue schemes. In any event the Council are I reckon happy to own and thus control matters that relate to their public assett - money spent from the part sell off of Kingston Communications under Pat Doyle's tenure as the then Leader of the City Council. Keeping their assett in public ownership certainly prevents being locked out by the likes of David LLoyd - I for one certainly don't want to go through that again as a City supporter.
It would be ring fenced for capital investment projects. But are you trying to say there's nowhere in Hull that a capital investment would produce either a revenue or community benefit greater than them sitting on their arses doing nothing on this subject is? They've already established the leases are unbreakable by a landlord, so who ever owns the ground the clubs would just have to meet their current terms to be safe in there for the next 40+ years. They could also provide the sale with covenants in place saying that those leases can't be cancelled even by mutual agreement between the clubs and the stadium owners unless they also support it. I just find it really annoying that there's someone wanting to create jobs over a number of years in constructing and then operating a bigger facility at the KC, which will release funds for the Council to do something similar elsewhere in the City, and yet the Council has gone on record saying they won't even consider selling the ground because of Hull FC who had no objection (actually I wonder what AP would say now if they repeated that interview) and because of a market that seems to only serve to keep trading standards officers in a job. I'm not saying they should definitely be selling it, I don't know how much the Allams are offering, but since they've said they don't want to talk it won't really matter.
One word - Politics!! The fact is that a relatively few nobodies with the casting vote in some marginal wards across the city are more important than the future of the city itself as a whole to those who run the Council. I just hope that Dr Allam can get the funds for this Melton Project in the medium term. It would ensure a continuation of affluent East Riding development and population movement out of the creeping ghetto that the City of Hull is becoming.
We need to own our own Stadium one day in my opinion. It wouldn't bother me if the Allams relocated but I can imagine quite a few moaning on about NOT going to travel the Huge distance from Hull to Melton. I think Ricardo need to get voted onto the council and sort out the deal regarding the sale of the KC to the Allams
Before City even contemplate doing anything with the stadium the club need to sort out decent training facilities.The existing site in Cottingham is just not adequate and it's already been stated in certain quarters that it doesn't impress when trying to sign players.Having the younger players training at County Road South is detrimental to their progress as none of the senior coaches can keep an eye on how they are doing.
What is this with your fixation to move from a 10 year old stadium that pound for pound is the best of its kind in the FL to Melton ffs. As for Hull becoming a creaping ghetto - as a resident proud to live in the city I find that offensive and way off being the case. The fact that the affluent west Hull suburbs that are essentially Hull (whatever the Haltemprice reactionaries say) should have been part of Hull as long ago as WW2 (successive boundary reviews since the war have stated that there was an overwhelming case for Hull to extend its boundaries) are in a jumped up East Riding that was brought about by a Tory administration on the demise of Humberside, merely distorts the true picture. The population of a 'thined out' city has always moved outwards but in Hulls case this has been to areas oustide an artificially tight city boundary. If you are so disparaging about my home city perhaps you would want to support a football club based in Melton with a suitable name change that does not include the name of Hull in its title? Perhaps you might have a different mindset when Hull begins to regenerate as the hub of sustainable energy in this country in the next decade. Sorry for the rant but some people are so ill informed it infuriates the fook out of me.
