Personally i'm also trying to work out how a £650k investment and then charging £30k per year for 20 years is good business for the owners of craven park, by my maths that will only get them £600k back in 20 years and still be down not even counting interest.

Surely this backs up the pitiful rent and the lenience shown towards KR by the miffed council officials?

Rovers landlords paid £200k plus £100k invested in ground improvements.

Quote: Gordon Gekko "Rovers landlords paid £200k plus £100k invested in ground improvements.'" Edit, ive re-read what youve said. Rovers landlords gain group put in 200k towards buying Craven park, i agree. Hull City council also put in 450k and then leased their share back to gaingroup for rent. This meant that gain group were and are effecitively paying off 650k. They also invested 100k for ground improvements. Whatever happens the sale of craven park was £650k, the return on that is 30k per annum which means it's a pitiful rent. Oh and i found this. www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 17196.html

Quote: Gordon Gekko "Rovers landlords paid £200k plus £100k invested in ground improvements.'" Edit, ive re-read what youve said. Rovers landlords gain group put in 200k towards buying Craven park, i agree. Hull City council also put in 450k and then leased their share back to gaingroup for rent. This meant that gain group were and are effecitively paying off 650k. They also invested 100k for ground improvements. Whatever happens the sale of craven park was £650k, the return on that is 30k per annum which means it's a pitiful rent. Oh and i found this. www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 17196.html

No i'm saying the £30k rent Rovers pay goes to their landlords. Their landlords are not HCC.

See my point above. The 30k goes to Rovers landlords, who then have their own rent to pay to HCC for the share that HCC have leased back to the landlords. 30k does not cover the borrowing so is therefore very favourable for rovers.

The lease to KDC is for 250 years and providing Rovers stay at the stadium it remains a very good long term investment for the council who will still retain ownership of the land when the lease expires.

The council now have a great opportunity to reinforce their initial investment in CP by helping to improve facilites both in the immediate area and to the stadium itself making it a community based facility for the residents of east hull in pretty much the same way the KC is in west hull. Funding is available from many sources as you know.

As for being favourable to Rovers, Hull have had plenty of help from HCC also, including the ridiculous purchase of the Boulevard for way over the market value. So let those without sin cast the first stone

I very much doubt the SMC will net £2m+ profit per year



With £600k in rental payment made within the first 20 years of a 250 yer lease.



HCC wouldn't be putting any cash into Rovers they would be investing in facilities that they part own on land that they own outright which would enable Rovers as the only pro sporting club in that area to expand its business thus further develop interest in community facilities for the residents of east hull. (fook me i sound like a politician )

I personally don't see why anyone would be against that as a point of principle. After all isn't that what has happened to City and FC??? and before anyone asks i'm not suggesting a second £53m super stadium either!!!!!

would be nice though!

HCC should be helping out all the sports clubs in the city, They are an integral part of the fabric of Hull and form a major part of peoples lives in the city. On top of that they have the potential to positively affect a whole range of issues the council should be investing in so what's the problem? As long as there is equuity and a good return for the people of Hull as a whole then that is what the Council should be there for.