Millions, if not billions of public money is spent every year in the UK on private businesses by both local and national government. This is hardly a new phenomenon.

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 898260.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 898260.stm

dude you are a hypocrite mate
.. fact
kc paid for by 43million of public funding from the sale of shares from kc owned by hcc.
this was then public funding.
43 million was then spent on the building of the kc.... fact
two teams use and have earned profit from the use of this stadium.... fact
both these two teams are private businesses...FACT
so both teams have earned profits on the back of public funding..FACT
...........
DID HULL FC PAY FOR THEIR OWN EXPANSION ?
no they didn`t...... fact
...............
so please before opening your mouth do think things through.

Very one sided.

Hull FC have paid for their own expansion. Not one penny of Taxpayers money has gone into Hull FC via the KC Stadium. Hull pay for the use of the facility. FACT and Rovers rejected the same offer.

FWIW I think the council should invest in Craven Park. But the WHOLE Stadium should be for public and community use and a committee similar to the SMC should be set up to run the facility.

did hull fc pay for their own expansion in 1999?

of course money goes into hull fc from taxpayers via the kc....... and it generates profits.... its called gate receipts or had you forgot about this.
sp please dont give me the "Not one penny of Taxpayers money has gone into Hull FC via the KC Stadium."

Public money being wasted on private companies, I don't know. Shall we turn a blind eye on the 750k that was spent on the Boulevard for the council to buy the ground, which was the amount to a penny that Hull Fc had debts of before the merger. The self same Boulevard that has sat for years serving very little purpose before being sold for a loss to someone trying to turn it in to a dog track, before someone had the bright idea of, tell you what, lets knock it down.

All the clubs in this city have had help from the local authority and it appears it's now Rovers turn again on the 'circle of life' of handouts.

[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_league/998647.stm[/url

Private investors wouldn't have been likely to offer a similar deal to tenants though, I think it is fair to say, so it was a [ide facto[/i subsidy. Rovers did reject the same offer, and if that offer remains on the table, it does make the case a little less compelling. While certainly the cheapest, Rovers moving to the KC doesn't strike me as the best option - and not just from Rovers' POV - I think it could very definately be a case of three's a crowd. Still, it is a strong argument for a impoverished council, if they renew the offer - either in good faith or playing chicken.

If thats the case then Rovers have been dealt excactly the same cards, only they have not had the skills to take advantage of them. CP has had hundreds of thousands of pounds of council cash thrown at it over the past few years with very little in the way of return for the taxpayer.

Hull merely took advantage of a facility that was always going to be built and thanks to clever managment and marketing have made a huge success of it. A success which the taxpayers of Hull now get a return on.

The bleating from the east is nauseating.

Now that would be interesting

Are you suggesting that the profits the KC generate for the council make it a good investment for Hull's taxpayers, judging it purely as a business? Even including barely tangibles like increased visitor numbers, I doubt it. What is the annual return?

Anyway, if it is such a success, surely that strengthens the case for something similar being done in East Hull...

bugger off back west then