Is it? Why?


Again, why? City have lost money hand over fist without the cost of a single-use stadium hanging round their necks. If anything outright ownership of an expensive stadium that can only be used for soccer would make the club significantly [iless[/i attractive.


If the council sold the stadium we wouldn't [ineed[/i an upgraded Boulevard - we could afford to build our own stadium if we so wished.

KC Groundman has already stated that its the Football that causes most damage to the pitch, not the rugby.

The fact that Hull City hasn’t any assets is an obstacle for any prospective buyer.
The present owner of the club stated in the past that he needed to develop the stadium to make it a more viable proposition.

Wouldnt stop the premier league throwing it's weight around.

Agree

Nothing story in a rubbish newspaper, with one not very interesting quote. Wouldn't lose any sleep over it.



Purely hypothetical, but could you really? You'd be looking at maybe £20m. I doubt you'd get anything like that as compensation.

A stadium is only an asset if it brings in more cash than it costs. The KC would not do that as a single occupancy stadium.


A more viable proposition how? If he was talking about getting more punters in he would need a team capable of competing. And he'd need a pretty big crowd increase to match the income from having FC play there.

But if/when City go to the wall, we will be sole occupiers of the KC!

(unless grimsby move in )

Nobody is. It's quite good fun stringing the poor Rovers troll along though. 2.6767578125:10