Just a thought as I was walking up to ground the lack of colours on the outside of the ground! I was walking behind some WBA fans and I thought to myself that we could be walking up to any stadium. I know the blue & yellow frontage is council colours, but I do think we could do a lot better then one flag and a tigers head!
It's a council facility like Costello and Woodford. The 1960's Eastern Bloc representations of a footballer and a rugby player are shamefully inadequate for a stadium that hosts sporting events shown worldwide. No wow factor, no pride, no sense of home. This pre dates the Allam era although the present 'Cold War' has done nothing to improve things. It really needs someone from the Corporation to grasp the nettle and realise that they are missing a trick to boost the city and council's image, by giving the external parts a makeover. Update it, spruce it up, give it some class etc you name it. How about a neon sign on the south side visible from the railway line so that visitors by train are made aware of what the stadium is and who plays there? Learn from Arsenal's ground as seen from trains into Kings X.
When the stadium was built I worked away so only first attended well into the first season. Remember walking to the ground with great anticipation, only to see white, blue and yellow - first though was L**ds United. I know it's the HCC colours, but it's never really sat right with me. Still, they have statues of 2 ex City players at their ground, which eases things - A LOT.
said this years ago...used to love the way at the old Bp that everything was painted in black n amber the Kc needs a similar lick of paint !
It's like renting a council house and never decorating! AA is harping on about the TIGER image, but what would prospective sponsors think on first viewing the stadium? Get some f'king stripes on it if needs be.
Fat chance of that given his 'tabula rasa' appraoch to the corporation. Build bridges not walls. Someone tell him how to run his business before it's too late!
The stadium was built on the cheap and it's showing a bit, despite it's brilliant design (compared to other stadiums of it's era) the materials used means it has a lifespan of about 20 years tops before it needs a serious facelift. Problem is, a worthwhile facelift would probably cost more than the stadium itself.
Not sure how much a make over costs per shop frontage on Springbank and Angleberry Rerd , Im sure the owers would welcome some kind of club colour frontage as they would snap up the chance to help integrate into the local community . A venture between our dim owners and our arcane council could come up with something to line the walks to the stadium.
Problem with colour schemes is that the stadium still belongs to the council as a community asset, it does not belong to Hull City AFC any more than it does to Hull FC, and I'm sure none of us would want a black & white colour scheme !! Maybe with a stadium sponsor with naming rights there could be a facelift to that companies colours
It doesn't have to coloured like a ****ing wendy house. Just suitably tasteful and appropriate. Given the corporation's ludicrous past decisions to paint Anlaby Rd's high rise flats blue, green or red to render them more 'fun' and 'interesting', don't get your hopes up.
I'm not basing it on any secret knowledge, just observations. There's a lot of bare concrete and corrugated steel around the stadium that's looking tired already, considering the stadium's still relatively new it all seems a bit "dingey" doesn't it? The other comment was based purely on speculation too, £43m was daft cheap for a stadium, and I don't think there's been another similar stadium that's been built since that's been anywhere near that. If the stadium was to be given a facelift that'd significantly improve it (rather han patch it up) it would surely cost more than that. On a related note, Toronto FC are soon going to be sharing their ground with the Argonauts (CFL team), but the owner of the ground has said he'll make sure that there's no trace of the other team visible when one team is playing, that would be the first thing I'd try and sort out at the KC, I'm not a fan of seeing Hull FC related facts and fiures around the ground, but it must be even more annoying for FC fans going into the "Tigers" toilets...
At the time of construction, it was said a million pounds per thousand spectators was the rule of thumb cost-wise. We have 25,500. The 43m covers the indoor stadium, the all-weather playing surfaces- the whole complex.
Really? I remember watching a Football Focus complementing it on how cheap it was, especially compared to Wembley which was either being constructed or being delayed at the time, I can't quite remember. Anyway, I was about 10/11 when it was being built, so my recollection might be a bit sketchy.
I would say the stadium was particle cheap. Darlington Arena opened at the same time and has the same capacity cost £25m. Cardiff City's stadium cost £48m and that was opended 7 year after the KC.
So we want the stadium to look as though it belongs to 'Tigers' but we don't want to rebrand ourselves highlighting ourselves as tigers, mmmmmm.. I think we are all a little confused!
