I have been saying your team is garbage for years now and finally some are starting to see it lol

The Crocker incident did show you up to be full of it though!!!

Anyway.

Rumours....

I can't see anymore players coming in for this season, so we'll probably announce some signings when we get knocked out of the cup, lose to hkr, get knocked out of the playoffs (if we make them).

Can't wait!

the only rumour we want to hear about is when Agar is going to be clearing his desk, Kath f**ks off back to Leeds and Rool gets demoted to tea boy.

well if thats it for the season regarding signings then im pretty sure that we are nowhere near the full salary cap which isnt good enough for this club and i feel the transfer fees that were paid out maybe used from the cap

You'll be waiting along time for it.

I could put your team was garbage for 20 years but that would be the same drivel you put on here everyday.

i know, u can but dream,

Don't take my word for it, t'was only a guess.

A few years ago. When we sold the Derby out really quickly and could have sold a lot more. I asked the question to the SMC. How much money has Hull lost with not being able to sell to capacity, and was told Hull had lost nothing. It was the SMC only that had lost money. So either we pay a set figure or we get everything below a certain figure and the SMC get everything above that figure

As far as i`m aware i believe we pay nothing to the SMC for a crwd upto 7,500, after that we pay a percentage to the SMC (about 3% i think)

That was the old deal. It would also mean that not to be able to sell KC to capacity would have effected Hull financially. like I said Hull didnt lose a penny for that game, despite the KC being over 2000 short of capacity

30%?




So you're saying that above a certain level [iall[/i the money goes to the SMC?

That would seem to be a strange way to structure a deal - for both parties. Perhaps they meant Hull FC get a rebate, when they can't use the full stadium?

As far as i remember from when it was set up the deal is something like:

Hull FC retain all ticket income up to a total, something like 100,000 for the year.

Over that the ticket take is spilt 50/50

So the figure of 7500 has changed as our number of home games changed, so its currently an average of 7692.

So basically if we sell out the first 4 games of the season 25k then every ticket for the rest of the season is split 50/50

Thats why the deal is a millstone round our necks, we get 182000 through the gate a year, we cant do quid tickets, cos half would have to go to the SMC

As for "booze n food" (both used in the loosest term) we get everthing up to our levels of sales from the Boulevard days as dead cert income, aftert that we get a tiny %age

That is pretty much in line with what I thought - might have been you that told me, in fact. Millstone is one way of looking at it - on the other hand Hull FC are pretty well insulated from a downturn in crowds. Given the situation now, I can imagine a different deal suiting both parties - politically and/or economically. All off-topic speculation anyway...

Pretty much why any boycott is pointless if your motives are purely economic.

interesting to read www.rugbyleaguetoday.co.uk/henja ... e-to-hull/

interesting to read www.rugbyleaguetoday.co.uk/henja ... e-to-hull/

Quote ="dandaman"interesting to read www.rugbyleaguetoday.co.uk/henja ... e-to-hull/'" Nothing on Dico's site should ever be taken seriously.

Quote ="dandaman"interesting to read www.rugbyleaguetoday.co.uk/henja ... e-to-hull/'" Nothing on Dico's site should ever be taken seriously.

This was definitely renegotiated a couple of years ago. To what, though, I don't know.

nothing to read into then

according to another thread,it's going to be Ricky Stuart!!!!!

His 'exclusive online poll' consisted of a whopping 631 people. How seriously would you take the result?

The rest of the piece is just recycled from here - some of it appears to have been copy and pasted off recent threads.

It's shockingly bad.

Do you see it being negotiated to our favour at the expense of the SMC?

Certain it was more favourable to Hull - absorbed that much at the time.