Quote: Kosh "The stadium would not have been built for City alone, so it works both ways. The whole point is that the project was only viable, and to an extent remains so, with both clubs using it. Something that both you and Duffen appear to have either forgotten or arrogantly chosen to ignore.
I normally steer clear of these arguments as I'm not really bothered about City one way or the other, but you're doing them no favours on here with your defence of the indefensible.'"
You are partly right in that it would be better for the stadium to be in use all year so FC would use it during the summer . However if only FC had committed to the move to the KC and City had elected to remain at BP then the stadium would not have been built. I know of several councilors who worked on the stadium project who said that Hull City had to be involved or the KC would not be built , but it would have been built if City had been the only professional tenants.You do need to be bother about City because without them FC would still be at the Boulevard playing in front smaller gates than at the KC .
