Because as it stands, we're subsidizing them. If there were no Hull City, FC would not be able to afford to stay at the KC. If there were no FC, it wouldn't make any difference to us, we could easily afford it. I hate ground sharing with a RL team, with our own grounds, we could do whatever we wanted to the whole stadium, all of the time. They could have a suitable sized stadium of their own too, which they could also do what they wanted to all of the time. They'd run the risk though, of not being able to afford it, even a smaller one, and for that reason I personally think HCC will make sure they keep the comfort blanket of us.
Good rant. But it doesn't answer my question. If FC were to leave, City would be paying for everything - no change. If FC stayed they'd get more use of the stadium and more income. I know the source tweet was not from a reliable source. But it seems that FC doing one is seen as a benefit. And I don't see it.
To be fair,and credit where it's due, I thought FC showed some solidarity with us by boycotting Wembley this weekend. Did they snub a Guildhall reception too?
We are subsidising FC - but if they move out it will cost us but we could easily afford it. Aye that works... It's an anti-RL thing. Ok I get that, I don't agree with it but I get it. But so we want the SMC making business decisions in the future based on that logic?
That is where this thread started, albeit with a badly phrased mumble. There would be no SMC if the new owners take lock stock and barrel to include the rugby club. Does a consolidated single company with ownership of two professional sports clubs in a privately owned and developed commercial site suit you - even if owned by private parties whose primary registration as an umbrella corporation is overseas and who are entirely unproved in terms of their attitude to two sets of supporters' "emotional involvement and relevance...."
Merging City and FC seems a step too far. Back in the day, after some hand wringing, I concluded that the council keeping ownership was the best thing for Hull City, the football team I support. I think I still hold that view and I've seen nothing from the new owners to suggest any change in that view. I've still not seen a compelling business reason why anyone would want FC out of the KC. It puzzles me! But I'm not going to let it worry me
Yes, I'll admit to a slight anti RL bias. I also think it would be better in the long term for both to be in venues that suit their potential. We need bigger, they do not. I'm not talking about a 55k seater, just 5-10k more, for the future. Regardless, it won't happen, we're stuck with the KC, and we'll end up fixing it when it starts falling down, FC won't.
Well that better not mean the athletic track is under threat, its the only one in the City and well used.
Thought there were 8 football pitches, 3 cricket pitches and 1 rugby league pitches there as well.Clubs turfed off?
He seems like some attention seeker quoting somebody off here as though it's official news. (or it's the same person?). No substance. Non story.
Why does the athletics track have to be under threat ? The old boulevard ground, which they all sing about, had a speedway track around it and the old Craven Park had a dog track around theirs. I don't see a problem.
Wasn't the SMC actually created in order to prevent anything like Hull City trying to claim exclusive rights to the KC ?? Isn't that what the stadium is deemed a community stadium.? OLM..........did the HCST manage to gain special community asset staus (or whatever it's called) Do we really want anyone else owning the stadium ? I remember people wanting to sell to the Allams....and look at what duplicitous arseholes they turned out to be !! I've no problems with HCC allowing the redevelopment of the area around the KC....for the long term security of the tenure of the stadium itself I'd prefer it to remain in council ownership I'm also not sure what the situation would be regarding any grants etc received by HCC from outside bodies (if there were any...which I feel sure there would have been)....and if we would be bound to repay any such grants in the event that the stadium ceased to be a community multi use venue
Someone from the trust applied to have the stadium registered on the local authority list of assets of community value, and this was accepted It means that before the asset can be sold, there's a six month moratarium for other groups to raise funds. A higher bid still doesn't guarantee or prevent a sale.
As the Hull City owner is also the SMC owner, they've always been in control of the stadium. As Dutch has already said, the stadium is now an Asset Of Community Value, but that was more about being informed if anything was going on regarding a sale, than it was about practically being able to bid for it. The stadium doesn't have to be bought for the development of the existing site to go ahead.
