We deleted all the Mickey Mouse's/ Ben Dover etc etc, as for people getting involved...did you offer??

We continually kept asking for help...but no-one came forward....and until you even attempt to do something like this, I don't think you appreciate how hard it is....we are grateful for your signature and your support, but find it very dis-heartening that you criticise our efforts....

Why have the club distanced themselves from this petition?

I'd have thought they would be keen to be involved

The club haven't so much distanced themselves as they are very much behind us....but, whilst they are, and have been for a long time in negotiations with the HCC, they could not be seen to be backing our campaign, they cant ask the council for 1 thing one minute then start saying they wanted something else as well, we have known from day one that we were on our own with this and had no problem with that....we did the petition from a supporters point of view not solely from the club's.

My gut feeling is that Rovers are not associating themselves with his campaign because they don't want the council to pay for a stand.

The reason being, if they did, a cut in profits generated from the stand would have to go to the council. The council would own the stand, like they own the KC. The justification for the investment to the government and council tax payers would be that the council partially reap the rewards.

Problem is - this doesn't fit with what Rovers as a club need commercially. A scheme where the Council would take a cut of the income from the stand could completely undermine the fundamental reason for it's construction in the first place. Hudge has publicly asserted that for Hull KR to remain a viable business proposition crowds need to increase to at least 10,000 to generate the sort of income necessary for the board to prevail.

The Campaigners are asserting that the way to do this is to build a sparkly new covered stand.

The question is: Will this definitely produce the desired increase in crowds?

If "yes", and the extra 2000 use the new stand and Rovers keep all the newly generated income than Hudge and the board are happy.

If "yes", and the extra 2000 use the new stand but the council take, say, half of the newly generated income than Hudge and the club are still well short of target, and still in a potentially non-viable position.

If "no", and 2000 of the 8000 regulars merely shift their position from, say, the Well to the shiny new stand cos it's nicer, but Rovers keep all the profit from the new stand then the board is in the same position as they are now - perilous.

But - and this worst case scenario is likely if crowds do not significantly increase as anticipated - 2000 of the 8000 regulars shift their position to the new cool stand and the Council are taking, say, half of the income from those 2000 regulars (from whom Rovers previously solely benefited) then that would be a financial disaster with completely the opposite effect to that hoped for.

(I posted a lot of this theory on another thread. Apologies to thaose who waded through it the first time.)

east hull neither needs nor deserves a new super stadium.

And you neither need or use your brain.
It still doesn't stop you posting totall bollacks though does it

Well said, what the head is Bighead giving it

Actually meant what the hell is Bighead on about...

It was a tremendous achievement and a fantastic effort from yourself and your father in law to get the second largest ever petition in Hull. As in all walks of life you get the detractors and the backtrackers but a big well done.

Think you will find Big Head that East Hull are more likely to be playing in a very good stadium than Hull FC will be when the Etheringtons pull out next year, Remember this post osser

Who the hell are the 'Etheringtons' and why would a National Conference side want to play in a stadium bigger or 'very good' in comparrison to the KC?

Bizarre post. And you missed the 'T' off Tosser.

Why? Hull FC have a 25 yr lease, not the Hetheringtons.