True, but I think the rise in attendances have been one of the great achievements for RL in the last decade. As a demographic, RL fans are not always awash with positivity and the increases aren't uniform - but only Bradford have gone backwards in a big way, and that is recent and for obvious reasons.

Clubs that have improved the most tend to have been those with good/improved facilities. There are other factors at play of course.

The argument against the council funding it - I can see that. The argument that it wouldn't be good for Rovers - hmmm. Let's be honest, if it was going to be that bad most of the Hull fans on here would be all for it and pushing us down the gangplank.

Disagree. Only 3 teams have won the competition in the last 11 years and all have poor grounds IMO. The tipping point for Warrington's upturn in form was getting Tony Smith in. The point here is not that it's not a good thing for Rovers to upgrade their facilities - the 8,000 or so regulars will have some cover and maybe a seat if that's what they want. It's that Rovers are already pretty successful in the competition but are consistently 2,000 short of capacity. FC's resurgence in gates has been enabled by the KC, (and as importantly by improvements on the pitch in 2004-2007), but AFAIK only takes attendances up to what was approximately the maximum in the club's heyday. Have Rovers ever consistently averaged more than 10k? No idea, but would be interested to see the numbers (as always )

Any right minded human would distance themselves from the campaign, it is utter rubbish. Too much to do now that the School Holidays are here. The kids programmes take over the tv leaving these scratters with nothing to watch so they get a smartprice notepad from Asda and decide they are going to look for other ways to get a handout

I would emphasize the the community benefits and what having two teams in SL brings to Hull.
If the council was a for profit organization I'll admit there would be better ways to get a £ return on their capital. But it isn't.

This was how plans for the North stand were introduced in 2008.
rlhttp://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/localnews/Hull-KR-goes-for-more.3943858.jprl

Now that turned out to be overly optimistic as 5 months laterhttp://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4761892.ecerl
Mind, it was probably Clint Newton's fault. Like a butterfly flapping its wings in the amazon, he didn't buy that ham and mushroom slice, unleashing a massive global financial storm. Chaos theory, innit?

ATEOD you won't get nowhere whilst your not selling out what you currentley have.

I'd support the idea of you having a new ground though, I just feel the way certain supporters have gone about it is absolutely pathetic. Your club has had attendances as low as 1000 average over the past 20 years, so you have no right to go demanding a new stadium on the back of a little bit of success.

Ergo, we will get somewhere?

The ground isnt selling out but the East and West stands do. Is it coincidence that these have the best facilities? I think not. The North stand would hopefully attract the extra 2000 from away support knowing they are going to be dry and people wanting a better gameday experience ie the prawn sandwich brigade. May hate them but they pay good money. We are blatently missing out at the moment because of lack of dining and drinking facilities.
As for people moving from their usual spot, sure there may be a few but the majority would remain in their favoured spot. I would not give up my seat in the West stand as it feels like home on matchday.

Councils and government across the UK routinely support businesses financially or otherwise without requiring a financial "return" on the investment. It is completely missing the point to assess such support in purely financial terms. Not for profit organisations like a local council can place a value on such social externalities because they are not for profit. What financial return did the big screen or the toads make? Or firework displays or libraries or God knows what else councils spend their money on.

The car industry through the decades has had 100's of millions in support from the UK government, businesses are often encouraged to relocate (inwardly invest) by offering subsidies or preferential rates for land etc. This is the norm rather than the exception and the decisions are not tied to specific financial returns.

Clearly the council has an obligation to get the best value (however that's defined) from our money that it spends and there is a valid argument whether best value could be obtained elsewhere. Personally, I don't think a new stadium would be good value but if the council as a minimum could provide enough input to get the North stand done (the balance coming from other sources) then that would make CP more than adequate as a SL venue and should result in higher crowds (particularly higher numbers of away supporters) making HKR more viable long term. The social benefits of which are obvious.

In this instance the car industry gives its return to the taxpayer in jobs, which generates income from taxation on the employees as well as profits from the business.

You got a 25k stadium you are never likely to fill apart from a derby on the back of some appalling attendances in your SL years at the Boulevard, check the stats, you had attendances WAY below anything we have had since promotion, this is when you where in the top 6 on a regular basis, in fact your attendance virtually doubled as soon as you moved to the KC.

To be so arrogant as to think that you can get a 100% increase with a new stadium with good facilities, but we couldnt get what would amount to a mere 25% increase to reach a 10k average with similar facilities is typical of the deluded attitudes of some FC fans, probably most of whom have never seen the inside of the Boulevard.