True, and the same circumstances would apply in this respect on a smaller, local level although perhaps less directly since taxation on income (or profits) does not go to the council.

Sorry i'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. The only return HCC could get is on income from lease or rental, be it from Hull KR or any other organisation that could make use of the facilities.

The only way any stadium improvemnts could work imho, is if an agreement similar to the one at the KC is put in place.

Indirectly, the development could increase income to the council by providing jobs (people off benefits and paying council tax) or safeguarding jobs (people not needing to claim benefits). Helping to keep businesses in business and paying business rates.

Are we now saying that the whole future for Hull, economically speaking, rests on the council buliding Rovers a new stand?

WTF? So we own the KC now do we?

Where have I said that, the fact is that you are in a stadium at ratepayers expense that IF the same rules had applied as some posters are suggesting they should, with regards to attendances at CP, then back when it was built the KC should NEVER have been built so big as according to some FC fans on here its would be impossible for a club to increase attendances by 25% (let alone by 100%) with a new ground with improved facilities, when in fact it's been proven that it can be done (by yourselves) when attendances increased from an average of around 6,500 to almost 13,000.

The other inference being made is that we cannot fill the one we have got, so why should we have a new ground, well once again, you were not even half filling the Boulevard for the preceding three seasons to the KC move, while we are at 80% capacity each game.

I am therefore arguing that it would be relatively easy for Hull KR to go from 8,100 average in a ground with below avarage facilities to 10,000 average in a new ground with excellent facilities. I realise there will have to be some payback to the council as there is with you and Hull City, but we at least deserve the chance to progress seeing as the other two professional clubs in the city have been given the chance to at an initial capital cost to the ratepayers of ALL of Hull.

However...... go steady on the crowd increase topic, you see only Rovers fans come out the woodwork or jump on bandwagons...... apparently!

Yes, that's right. That's exactly what we're saying.

No, we are in a stadium at our own expense. The KC stadium was built as a community project for the whole of the city that should eventually pay for itself. You seem to be forgetting the other team that also pays to use the stadium. One last time, the KC stadium was not built for Hull FC so why would you use Hull FC as the basis for your arguement? The stadium has hosted International events so always needed the extra capacity. IF the stadium had been built just for Hull FC the capacity would have been nowhere near 25000.

The council provided a stadium that was made available for use for all 3 professional teams in the city. The fact your club refused to use it doesn't mean the council should then have to fork out yet more money so you can have your own private upgraded facilities with no real "payback" to the council.

1976-77 average 3,860
1977-78 5,112 (last time Rovers had a higher average at 5,352 )
1978-79 6,853 (in the second division, higest average in either division)
1979-80 10,021

The SINGLE sub 1,000 attendance against Huyton was in 1974.

Or what about in 1997 in the NFL when we got a few 8,000 attendances?

How did American Football go? Never liked that paint they put under their eyes me...Sinister.