Disgusting. There is no need for this sort of personal abuse on here. 7 day ban for this i would say.
Have you seen how it will be after conversion? No further away down the sides than the KC and other stadiums are further away behind the goals.
For me the difference is the KC was funded by the people of Hull for the benefit of a team which represents Hull. Although I can understand those in the East being annoyed at their money being spent on helping FC out. The entire country paying for a specific club's stadium, when money is tight and all that, seems way wrong to me.
Pretty much cancels out the bailout and virtually rent free tenancy Hull KR have thanks to the rate payers in the West then.
On the BBC program they stood on the running track to show where the stands would extend to it looked much further away from the pitch than at the KC. I suppose its hard to judge until its actually finished though.
KR were offered the chance to use the KC, but declined for obvious reasons. As the other poster says, KR have had plenty of assistance. City were the only ones who weren't the recipients of council largesse.
The country didn't fund a specific club's stadium though, they funded an Olympic stadium, which now needs to find a new use. Not using it for a football club would be utterly ridiculous and and an even bigger waste of taxpayers money. The only issue for me, is that West Ham should have been forced to hand over their existing stadium, as part of any deal for the new one.
These pictures give a better indication. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ook-represent-club-s-claret-blue-colours.html
Looks like the corners are much closer to the pitch than the centre, but both look closer than the program implied which is good. It seems like absolute madness that the council are paying to replace seats that have only been used a handful of times so they match the colours of one of their tenants, what a waste of time and money!
They are at the KC and other modern grounds as there is a slight curve on the stands to give better sight lines.
Now forgive me if I am wrong here but it was paid for with the sale of a Hull Council taxpayers asset. It belonged to the Hull taxpayers so therefore the KC was built with taxpayers money
It didn't belong to Hull taxpayers, it was a council asset which local people, in and outside Hull used. People not in Hull used Hull telephones, not just residents of the city. Some people used Hull phones and moved. Some people who used Hull phones didn't pay tax. The council decided to use proceeds of the sale to build a facility. They were actually limited in how they could spend the money as there are quite a number of things they couldn't spend it on as they are under the control of central government. But they did use it to provide a platform for local teams to progress. It made City an attractive proposition for Adam Pearson who saw an opportunity no local businessman seemed capable of seeing and saved FC who would have had serious problems if Pearson hadn't bought us and signed up to the KC project. The Olympic Stadium was built using money from taxpayers all over the country.
The shares were owned by Hull City Council. That's why they got the money when they sold them. The fact others paid into it is academic. I buy stuff from Asda, it means sod all to the shares.
Rather depends on how pedantic you want to be about tax payers. For simplicities sake I'll say yes, it was as meaningless and irrelevant as comments about who bought things from KC.
Now over 20,000 votes registered. Link below with info & reasons. http://www.thstofficial.com/thst-ne...t-ham-lldc-deal-for-rental-of-olympic-stadium
