nice seeing you in a hull shirt radders

Right, first off I don't think for a minute you will leave the KC. I don't think Hull City even want this particularly. The KC can cater for two clubs, especially when their seasons only overlap a bit at each end.

However, if City did want the place to themselves (again, I don't believe they do), they could offer FC, what by RL standards would be a massive amount of cash. Redeveloping the Boulevard probably wouldn't cost much more than a good Premiership striker. I just think City would rather have the the good striker than the KC empty during the summer.

The atmosphere in the away end when we are there is great. But thats the whole point some seem to be missing, its not the place its the people there who make the noise.

Hand on heart Chewie, but when was the last time the 3d really put the frighteners up the opposition on a regular basis? There was always the odd one off, but not since the very early 1990's has it been that imposing.

A return to the Boulevard would mean an entire redevelopment of the site which would mean it wouldn't be the old Boulevard so many seem to crave.

Exactly, there is no benefit for Hull leaving the KC for Hull City as it would instantly up their costs.

On the other hand, if City want a 35000 seater stadium why don't they move out and build one on Boothferry Park.

They can have their spiritual home back and their train station and we can enjoy ourselves at the KC.

I dont think it would up their costs as they pay rent and im sure they have an agreement on the lease

I think it's ridiculous that the club feel they have to comment on every half @rsed rumour on here and out-of-context quote in the HDM. It's getting to be a full time job.

It is odd how the Club Captian was asked for his thoughts on the matter, why not just say "nah it wont happen end of, would be nice tho"

But What Radders said sadly puts him up for a public flogging on here, but why?

I'm sure if Gary Neville went in the media and said "i wouldn't mind a 39th prem league game to be played in Dubai" he would not be expected to be sacked as Club Captain of Man U or the club itself would not feel the self importance to comment on the matter.

So is this Hull FC's board testing the water?

Possibly rebuild Boulevard back to 15000 (lets admit at the current prices we have hit the crowd max for us i'd say) and play 2 derbys a year in a 35000 capacity KC so us and Rovers can get the maximum income from the minimum effort? Rovers could stay as they are as 9k is probably their max crowd so no more redevelopment there.

2 monster games a year?

70000 watching Hull v Rovers a season?

Me too.

Using what money?

Think it's about time Hull supporters stopped listening to Fifth Columnists that think that much of us that they can't seem to use their own forums.Stop looking back and look forward,the K.C. is the future, the Boulevard is the past.Don't let nostalgia cloud your judgement,the Boulevard would just be a millstone round the clubs neck.Stop listening to the Bandwagoners who love to come on here and try to undermine the club.Try and say anything on their site that they don't agree with and you are immediately banned.

If we left the KC, the SMC would have to pay off 20 years of a lease.

Afterall we know it's confidential and nobody here knows any terms or conditions

you may find out that radders was stitched up with the mail article,whats to say he said all of it the way the daily mail put it?

That's what my thoughts are on the matter. Nearly mail misquote from an off the cuff remark. Par for the course if you ask me.

When you say they would have to pay off 20 years of lease, you really need to clarify the fact that they would simply have to cover the shortfall of the rent they receive from Hull (and as the SMC and Hull City are effectively the same thing, thats why I said City's costs would inclease).

Hull would not receive anything if they left the KC voluntarily. Even if we were pushed out it would take a court decision to ratify it, and that simply will not happen.

when the KC stadium was first mutted was n't there some thing mentioned that it would only be built to home at least 2 professional clubs and if either did n't want to move in it would not have been built. i was also under the impression that Hull city council owned the ground (not Hull city) and it is managed by the smc so i wonder what the councils stance would be if ever the club did want to move?

wasnt the terms of the lease re-negotionable after five years anyway? sure i heard the club was in talks with the smc last year.

Thats what i thought .

Think you're confusing the lease with the rental/operating agreement.

Does anyone seriously believe that we would have made it to 3 finals in 4 years if we had stayed at the boulevard? The KC has given our club opportunities, commercial and otherwise, that the boulevard simply doesnt. The boulevard will always be sacred to every fc fan, but the ground was a dump. The 3d stand hasnt been intimidating for many many years. People need to stop looking back through rose tinted specs and see why we left there in the first place. A move back there takes this club back 20 years.

Loving the comments on the official Hull FC site this morning...





Its almost as if they'd love to come and say so on the forums instead the way they word it!



It seems the only person who was casting a doubt in everyone's minds was Radford!

As far as I can see the players on the pitch wearing a Hull FC shirt got us to the finals, not our ground. And I'm sure if you look at our expenses you'll see the KC is not a glittering gold pot for us, it is for others. It has become a bit of a mill stone, do you think wigan or hudders pay £2500 per game to use the scoreboard?

So if it has brought untold riches why do we have a £2 million debt with an annual income of £5 million?

The stadium was the catalyst. Look at the league tables pre and post move. The players played there part, of course they did. The same could be said of hull city. They would be playing in league 2 now if it wasnt for the move and the increase in revenue it also afforded them. There are other examples too, look at sunderland and Bolton. We wouldnt have got the crowds at the boulevard to enable us to spend the full cap and therefore afford the players that got us to those finals. The debts were well publicesd before the move too.

That debt is historical though isn't it, rather than being piled up year on year? Because there will always be a demand from fans that any profits be reinvested in 'their' club (even after the salary cap is reached, you can always spend more on coaches, youth development, cheap season tickets for kids etc), I think that debt will hang around until ownership of the club changes hands.

As far as I can hear, its the fans that make the noise, not the ground



We don't have debts of £2m

As per the last accounts we had total liabilities of £1.7m and after netting that off with the current assets its net current liabilities of £728k.

You have mentioned in the past that the company has no assets. Ignoring the revaluation of players with goes against the accounting standards, there is a further revaluation of a tangible asset (£280k). This could only be land and buyings as its the only real assets which will have appreciated in value from original purchase date.

Earlier in the thread you claimed Hull have lost home advantage as we don't train at the KC.

Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea don't train on their home ground and it doesn't seem to have adversley affected them.

But, why let a few facts get in the way of your hatred for those who run Hull FC