I wouldn't have any problem with the council upgrading CP providing it represents value to the taxpayer. The KC was built from one off funds and wasn't built purely for Hull City and Hull FC but the wider community. If HCC are to fund any stadia improvements then imho the land and buildings must be wholly owned by HCC and the whole facility must be run by an independant management committee along the same lines as the SMC with the remit of getting VFM for the ratepayers of Hull.

On top of this the work must be carried out by local contractors and materials must be supplied by local companies in order to assist the local economy.

Hull Stingrays? How can you compare a team from a sport nobody in this country let alone Hull is interested in with a team in the City which has the potential to attract an average of 10k crowds. An investment in HKR would be a far more solid investment then any money thrown at the town’s ice hockey club.

As for increasing crowds I’ve no doubt it would be harder in the current financial climate but we can't afford to wait, moving to the KC did FC and the Tigers crowds no end of good and I’d expect it to boost rovers average attendance too.



Rovers like a lot of teams in Superleague are struggling to fulfil commitments, would it be that bad for the council to help Rovers with a boost from King Comms money, improving facilities for everyone who visits CP. Nobody is asking for a mini KC and 40 odd million.

I'm sure Rovers made that point the previous half a dozen times they've taken cash off the council.

Probably we started out on Holderness Road.

The fact is Holderness road was never going to happen. West park was the more logical choice. If they wanted to pick East Park and spend hundreds of millions on road links then I'm sure Hull would have been happy to move there. Afterall FC are a club from all of hull, More than half our season pass holders live east, don't you know.

I can see the political attractions in that from everybody's POV, but it could be dangerous. Firstly it'd have to be done on a nod and a wink, because it'd be illegally protectionist. If Hull-based firms don't represent best value to the taxpayer that could kick up a different type of stink, especially if any have links to councillors. And if Hull gets a reputation for this sort of thing, it could disadvantage its firms when they bid for contratcs in other cities.
I'm not saying don't do it, just to be careful, sensible and not use it openly/officially as a selling point.

I’ve no idea how many times HKR have had money from the council, but whether it be once, twice or a hundred times how much will it really equate too when compared with the 40 Million spent in West Park...

A local stadium for local people.

Still can't do pictures.

That would break pretty well every procuremnt rule in the book.

So, Hull have sole use of the stadium, all the offices, all the surrounding sports pitches and every other facility at the stadium, for free? If thats not the case then its a bit of blairesque spin to say Hull have had 40 million spent on them.

Local councils can and do require that contractors meet certain conditions. There is nothing wrong with Hull City council requiring that some or all of the work be carried out by local contractors. The value requirement would still exist but it would be which company, after deciding all those which meet other criteria (location, size, competence, timescales etc.) will charge the lowest price.

There is certainly no need for a "nod and a wink" basis for selecting the most suitable contractor.

No, but there is if you have predetermined that you are using local contractors, irrespective of whether they are most suitable. You can define suitability in such a way as to make your desired outcome more likely, but this requires at least a little subtlety. What you can't do is come out and openly guarantee the work to local firms - as I understand it, anyway.

That £40m was spent on a facility that would benefit the city as a whole. Its location is irrelevant.