The SMC might be a more commercially attractive proposition - for as long as City are in the PL. I don't want to relegate them before they are even up, but establishing themselves in the top flight will be very tough. It is an interesting one, and if you start a thread on the FC board, I'd contribute - I'm loathe to go into it in too much depth here, beyond the general point that the council always risks being left holding the baby.

As far as the North Stand goes, there were political imperitives in place. We both felt the risk should have been minimised - I thought it should be a gift (with a rent to be paid to cover upkeep, obviously), but in this climate that was probably unrealistic. I assume you felt that they just shouldn't have done it, but that absence of support wouldn't have looked too good. They could have offered 'support' in a different form, such as re-opening the offer to use the KC - I know FC have a veto and 3 teams would be borderline unworkable, but as KR fans would have been dead set against it, it would have got the council of the hook. From a Rovers pov, fair play to them for doing something real.

We're not in administration yet and unless we go Newco, any contract would stand - though a prospective new owner might attempt to re-negotiate, I suppose. If we end up outside of SL, the White Elephant issue is probably as big as the cash itself. If we stay in SL that would clearly be better all round, so I'm sure you're hoping just as much as I am that a new backer comes forward - I'm doing it for selfish reasons, you for the tax payers of Kingston upon Hull, so fair play to you.

O/T, as you say, but I'd imagine that his making a realistic cash offer would be both cheaper and simpler than starting from scratch. The prospect of subsidising an ageing facility has got to be unappetising one from a council pov, and cash, even rig-fenced cash, quite attractive. The stadium would still be there and as long as there were guarantees for both tenant clubs it seems like a sensible option. It relies on a on them making a realistic cash offer though - that might be more likely if they get up, but as I understand it, it hasn't happened yet.

Flesh out the specific "looming danger" you're so adamantly chipper about, then, with projected timescale of its manifestation. Otherwise you look like a, er, fool.

I thought you would have seen it mrs b.
Its been all over twitter.

From memory, the SMC didn't really post much profit last time City were in the EPL. Also, in addition didn't the council pull out their rented area just recently too? Possible pitch improvement(s) on the way? Doubt any profit will be forthcoming.

Any idea who is paying for the new £1 million+ pitch?
Is it the SMC or are the tenants expected to foot the bill?
Also, would they do it after the football or Rugby season is finished?

I don't know, only those privy to the full user agreements between all parties will know. You would have to assume only City will be the ones pushing for a new/improved surface however. I would highly doubt if the SMC was a independent party would agree to pay for such luxuries though. However, seeing as them and City are more or less one entity - perhaps it will look better (against the back drop of the Council vs Allam) if the SMC stumps up the cash and continues to make 'big' losses.

Any improvement can/will only be done in the summer months. This also, inconveniences his (Allam) apparent other target - Hull FC I guess.

In all truth, a brand new surface isn't necessarily needed IMO. The surface is alright but like most pitches really struggles around January. This obviously is when FC also start to use it and that recently has followed a busy home period over Christmas for City. Tigers fans are correct to say the pitch deteriorates when FC start. It's only natural given the time of the year and state the pitch. A new pitch won't solve this regular occurrence though. Should City achieve promotion then the usage of the pitch will drop by 4 league games, so that will help. A fancy new heat/growing lamps will probably achieve as much as a new pitch would long term.

The blue cladding will stay then

Will look nice with the pink tower !!!

sorry folks i did mean re cladding stands just meaning its better to smarten up old grounds then lose there licenses.

Does the new colour comply with the original planning permission, when I built my house I had to give ERCC samples for approval and had visits from a compliance officer to ensure I had stuck to the permission I had been granted.

No, still here!

But as you say maintaining a dignified silence (until now)

There has been a lot said about the stand, I personally think it's the wrong colour, but the cost to change it would be an expensive one because they are all self cleaning panels and all guarantees would be lost, the cost to change them would be £400k, to paint them (losing the guarantees and self cleaning properties) would be £100k and to just paint the pitch facing panels would be £40k.

The towers are to be red, the seats white with ROVERS spelled out in red seats, so what we have decided is to see what the finished build looks like, get the world cup games out of the way and then asses if any changes need making before the new season to the colours or indeed anything else.

People need to realize that now Rovers are not taking an active part in the project board that decisions still need to be made to get the stand open we cannot just stop.

And for the record myself and Neil remain friends, and talk all the time, so anyone that thinks there is a personal spat is wrong, this whole thing revolves around who agreed what with whom, which is not always as easy as it may appear, Neil actually thanked ourselves on sports talk but was quite damning towards our partners, his remarks today although not helpful is to be expected considering what he has given to the club and I full understand his frustration towards all of us.

Phil

Who agreed the colour of the cladding and why was no consideration taken towards the existing colours of the ground?