You do realise that only about 1% of Hull FC supporters post on RLFans? Hardly a representative sample.

Of course the attendance would have been higher at the KC, although undoubtedly lower than previous derbies at the stadium.

The size of a sample isn't necessarily the best indication of how representative it. Internet access, if not yet universal, is far from the preserve of a wealthy or techie few nowadays. There may, I admit, be a bias towards people unable to maintain normal human relationships due to spouting boring cack like this.

why does anyone care what the odious little to55bag has said, it told us eveything when limpdick said cheating us out of two points was their "Grand Final", leave them to their pathetic little club, their rediculous "10-5" bar and their crappy ground, they've had a £1m handout and still can't pay their bills.

Remember, Prescott follows this club, not the honourable, brave, corageous and giving Steve Prescott, but "Lord" (I f'd my secretary in Admirality) hypocrite Prescott.


IMHO, of course.

Nail,Head and i'l bring the Hammer.......

I think rovers are losing the plot,fancy wanting to play the match in front of their own fans,ridiculous an absolute joke.! As wilf and bet say it is their cup final where as for us its just 2 points,I mean since they came into superleague they have only beaten us 11 out of 18 matches and after the 1st season when they nearly went back down we have finished higher than them once,which shows league positions dont matter to them its just beating us.If you sky plussed the match our fans were bouncing and chanting with a minute to go and after the hooter they stormed out of the ground blaming ganson,the few that stayed looked in shock,as you say it was just 2pts.I think its a credit to our club we are such good losers,maybe its because we get so much practice.!

Thanks for that, could you please supply us with an accurate figure for the attendance and it will make the calculations of the feasability of a venue change much easier, assuming you're also privvy to the hire/stewarding etc costs Rovers would be subject to.

He might have been and a brick hit him on the head so he has forgotten ps from his own fans

You're right, no one knows. But Hudgell is saying he's foregoing a financial benefit for home advantage and bragging rights, is he not?

When do the repayments start on the £2m+ stand element of the North Stand project? If it's soon, and you'd imagine it would be with the works progressing,a bit surprising that financial upside is being turned down. Interestingly Hull City Council were granted a loan of £6m from Central Government just days after they approved the proposal for the North Stand project which is costing, net of ERDF funding, around, er, £6m. Now, it may be an entire coincidence. However, if that funding was for the North Stand, the terms of it are over 7 years. Ouch. If Cllr Webster's claim that it would cost the Hull taxpayer nothing because Rovers were matching the repayments is true, that would be some annual wedge over 7 years. Confidence of a 10k average must be sky high.

The council loan will also be for the business units. From memory, rovers element was circa £2m payable over 40 years with little or no interest. Must be hellishly impressive business units to be costing twice what the new stand and teh wrap around corner bit will

The original cost was £6m, around £2m for the stand, £4m for the rest. Funding was from ERDF (£2m, on the non stand bit) with the the council borrowing £4m for the rest from PWLB central funding. We were told this would be cost neutral for the taxpayer by Cllr Webster as Rovers, Hull Training and a yet to be appointed business enterprise tenant would be effectively making the repayments.

Of course there were material errors in these costings and IIRC, the bill will be closer to £8.5m. If the ERDF element remains the same, the council would need to borrow £6m from PWLB. Just saying that coincidentally, the council have recently borrowed £6m from PWLB. The term, though, is 7 years. In the unlikely event that this £6m is the same £6m for the North Stand, that would represent a very poor deal if Rovers have been granted a 40 year term, and would render Cllr Webster's assertion incorrect. Pretty sure it's all just a coincidence though, if Rovers have a 40 year deal, that must be the same terms the council are getting and passing on. All more punitive than a peppercorn rent, clearly

Says the merged muppet. Hypocrites springs to mind.

It's a building site?. It must be one hell of a improvement then.

from someone that goes to a circus every other weekend, I guess we should be flattered!!!