I remember it. They wanted him removed from the SMC because it was a conflict of interest as he was also the owner of Hull City. They also wanted a 15,000 capacity stadium, be able to swap ends at half time, black and white seating, not to move to the KC in the first place, then they didn't want to merge with Gateshead Thunder. Now they don't want to pay £4.25 a pint because the silly bastards think it's going straight into Aseem Allam's back pocket. Which is exactly the same thing they said about Adam Pearson when he was City's owner.
Do you think we could do with the acute business brains of Terry Geraghty and Steve Brady running the SMC?
The stadium was a gift to the City. Well more a gift to Hull City and Hull FC at that time both had rubbish grounds if i remember City didn't even own theirs. As it turned out City got to the Premier League and Hull FC got to well i don't actualy know or care. It could have been that City stayed in Div 2 and FC became the most sucsesful rugby league club in the country. The point i am trying to get at is that both clubs were given a stadium that neither could afford. Now when times have changed it would be good if even as a token jesture some of that gift / goodwill could be returned. But that is extremly unlikely when the SMC is not independant.
They also wanted the East Stand, a stand in a £30million stadium, named the Threepenny Stand. I have contacted RH a couple of times, when expanding the stadium has been discussed, to ask them to contact Vince Groake and Jim Gardner to ask for their comments after all RH and theHDM gave them plenty of space when they lead the campaign for a 15,000 stadium. They could have reminded them of their statements about 15,000 being large enough as that was alright for FC and City would never get that many. In fact Groake said they wouldn't get that many in the next 100 years, one of them said the only way to fill it would be to ask Leeds United to play here. They both said it would never be full and a white elephant. They could also be asked why they wanted a stadium which meant we would never have internationals of both codes and no possibility of a PL club as long as it was OK for rugby. They are two examples of the insular, small time thinking which has held Hull back over the years.
There were limitations on what the KC windfall could be spent on. Does anyone know what others projects the council considered spending it on before deciding on some housing refurbished and the community stadium?
So it makes a loss and you'd still fancy a rent reduction? What happened to the capital cost of building the thing btw?
Thanks. It was two pages back when you suddenly asked that though, and you didn't quote him, that's why I asked 'am I missing something?' It was paid for up front by the council from selling it's shares in KC.
Hull FC needed to spend millions on the Boulevard. The council had let it remain open when a lot of work needed doing and there were serious concerns over the issue. The council purchased the Boulevard for £750,000 which,by an amazing coincidence was the amount FC were in debt, when not long before the owner of FC would have accepted £350,000 for the Boulevard and the team. Strange when Pat Doyle had declared he couldn't help City as "sport plays no part on my agenda". The main motivation for some in building the KC was the continuation of top flight rugby league in Hull. There were something like 6 or 7 meetings with FC fans to discuss aspects of the stadium they wanted to see and 1 with City fans. No doubt the architects designed itbsomrugbynfans could happily walk right round the concourses as rugby fans had told them they swapped ends. Something which has had repercussions as it gave no thought to segregation and toilets and catering didn't match up to anything. This has cost seat a fortune as up to 500 seats at a minimum have remained empty whereas Swansea lose 17 seats.
Lol, you just chose to wade in without reading the thread properly and somehow that's my fault, hahaha, well done As for the stadium, if the capital cost was written off your rent therefore reflects this, as if the Stadium company was carrying the debt burden of the build you'd be paying far more to play there, same as you would if you'd funded it yourselves, which was my point really, as you've benefited from a council subsidy in essence.
How can make such a statement without having detailed access to all the costs? Also, how do you apportion the cost of a new pitch and floodlights? 50/50 split between football and rugby or do you calculate the number of games each team plays per season and use that basis? We'll never have an unbiased statement from the SMC because of Allam is not neutral on the subject of the stadium.
It's an assessment based on a number of factors, including the width of the exit, access to it, it's condition and management. It's not necessarily about getting out of the ground, more a case of getting from your seat and joining the queue through the concourse. These can be subjective, so a look at the factors could show a degree of latitude in the final numbers. There are a few elements in the stadium that arguably show a degree of flexibility from the guidance.
Does it include time spent negotiating your way around the police and stewards lounging around blocking the exits instead of standing to one side?
Yes, they're only supposed to be there for operational reasons, and even then, they're supposed to position themselves out of the way. Some guidance is more strictly applied than others.
