I would say that Arsenal is less fan friendly but much better designed and stylish. Arsenal museum and surrounds are all private land as far as I know (not council owned like Man City), and the Emirates is clearly a massive statement of intent almost like an 'Arsenal town'. The issue is not the size of the Etihad against the KC, or the 'wealth' - it's the effort,pride, thought and imagination that has been put into it. Our Council limit themselves to those massive drab 60s communist sports figures depicted at the back of the West Stand. I don't think the Allams see any need for any form of adornment or 'statement'. So we're just stuck in a functional nondescript soulless stadium that the people who run/administer it are clearly clueless about. We are struggling to get a foothold at this level as a credible member of the elite. We ain't got the silverware (yet) but the pride, identity, sense of self and confidence seem utterly absent. I think this transmits itself to visiting fans and journalists who come to Hull for the first time. They see no evidence of a vibrant proud club: just a ticket office full of council workers, a League 1 level club shop bereft of quality or interesting items and a little office with 'Hull City Tigers' above the doorway. It could be so much better......
Agreed. A lot who go aren't proud of City or Hull, the city itself, that's why. Most of the new lot (and to be honest, we've had a lot of newbies buying tickets this year) are here to watch the other teams.
This is indeed the case but as part of that the club cannot use the Etihad as capital on which to borrow money. The City Council would as far as I know allow the Allams use of the land surrounding the KC under conditions that it is always used for sporting activities, but they will not give them the KC to use as collateral to borrow against for that development. That's the stumbling block & the reason why they are so annoyed with the council. Personally I agree with the council as in the event the sports village etc failed the City could lose access to the KC Stadium if the mortgage against it was defaulted on & if that debt were put in the clubs name then it could also mean the death of Hull City AFC
That's simply not the case, Walton Street Car Park was never offered, apparently some pikeys need it one week a year, so it 'a non-starter'.
You would think someone from the council and/or city would see the Etihad and think "Let's seek out the personnel from Manchester City Council and the football club who work together so well, and learn some important and valuable lessons from how they've contributed to the success of the Etihad." Crazy outlandish wild idea I know.....
there is absolutely no reason why the council should give AA land for free - AA's attitude to the Council stinks - his attitude to the fans stinks and now it looks like his attitude to other clubs stinks - he's quickly becoming the sheepskin clad used car salesman of the Prem - so please tell me why he should be given something for nothing - the owners of Man City add value to the City - he adds absolutely nothing except threats of name changes and moving out of town
