I don't think there would be any surprise if any part of teh complex funding package had fallen through TBH and rovers have no ther option do they? Sounds very plausible to me. Of course, your club owners would say it was only for a limited amount of time initially but then change their tune to talk about you returning to your west hull roots

Well, since i've been a supporter for about 44 years, since i was knee high to a Grasshopper so to speak, i guess you can count me as one of the older brigade and although i wouldn't see the situation as ideal, i would be able to see the bigger picture.
If the North stand development is going to take even longer than anticapited and Craven park capacity is going to be reduced for a considerable period of time as a result, then it makes financial sense for Rovers to use the KC for a season or so until the North stand development is completed once and for all.

Staying away just because you're set in your ways or simply because you dont like traveling to that side of the city, doesn't make sense imo, that kind Parochial attitude doesn't pay the bills at the end of the day, what would people sooner have the club do?, stay where we are for the next year or so and see the team play in a reduced capacity stadium, which would in turn reduce the gate money, thus adding to the clubs debt.Or, put up with the club playing in a stadium where we could get the number of fans through the turnstiles which would benifit the club financialy in the long term?.
I know which one i would prefer, so on that basis i would Watch them play at the KC for a period of time that was nescssary, for the benifit of the club in longer term.

One thing is for sure, you cant have it both ways .

So are we saying it's temporary not permanent playing there

They'll pretend it's temporary but the funding for the north stand will fall through whilst you're at the KC making a return to caravanan park unviable

As someone has mentioned already, its unlikely it would happen as I'm sure City would block it to safeguard the playing surface, and this journo is a bit expansive with the truth and little info, so their may be nothing in it anyway?

However this guy has touched a raw nerve and if the financial problems could be life threatening, then in all seriousness a shared stadium may be the only way forward for this old club to carry on.

Assuming City okayed it (I'd be amazed) then at least there will be something of a future for KR if the Craven Park ground situation is hemorrhaging money. Of course FC would have to Ok it too but I think that may be easier.
There were would deffo be continual complaints from most City supporters, but that may be a sour pill they would just have to swallow, if Allam makes the decision on their behalf than its done. (I'm a pass holder at City too.)

At FC, many supporters left the Boulevard with a sad heart and many reminisce about the old days, but we would we really go back ? I think not. 1 toilet to share amongst 500 and no handwash,is not the way, and that was just under the threepenny's. Modern Stadia are the way forward, even with its downsides, we should embrace it.

Young and old can adapt as I'm sure many Rovers/Tigers supporters did when City moved from Boothferry Park. And both FC and City saw a dramatic upturn in support at the KC, it tends to be the way. It should be no different for HKR's support. The survival of the the club is far more important than fickleness over travelling. Many FC supporters travel from OPE and Bransholme and I'm sure it's done out of love for the club, we'd all like a club on the next street but life's just not like that. If we really support the club we go to where they play, be it 1 mile or 5 miles or a 100

Some FC supporters may feel "agrieved" at our home being shared with our arch rival neighbours, but in the end I believe it would be accepted and that it would be better for us to have 2 teams in the city rather than losing 1 out of stubbornness on both sides. Our rivalry is brilliant and the envy of all the RL and many other sports too. We can shout at each other for sure, but we are both stronger with the arch enemy in our faces rather than not there at all. We need each other.

All this may be a false start fuelled by a sensationalist journo, but if, just if, The KR board have not been fully open with the truth, for sure there is a life after Craven Park, and it may well be a better one than you've ever had. To dismiss the KC so rashly, without a real plan B, you may just be signing the death knell of the club you love.

I always said we would be merged by 2015. Reckon it will happen. (and I am being serious)

It's going to be an interesting week or so for both sets of fans.

Probably the same places that All your extra fans came from when you left the Boulevard.

I agree, about time we swallowed up another smaller club

We've got less attending now than we did in the early 80's at the Boulevard

Why does the merger word always enter the equation just because there is talk of sharing grounds,
There are some football teams in Europe and in fact the world that share grounds, they do so simply because financialy it makes , especialy in these time we live in.

Really?

Do you seriously think they'd support Hull KR as well as Hull FC?

Remember, you'll be paying a damn sight more rent than you are currently, your ticket prices would have to increase. And you still reckon they'd rock up in droves?

Talking from a serious standpoint, there's been talk between Pearson and Hudgell about working closer together. You do wonder if they could broker some kind of deal that would have them both getting a cheaper deal overall. You'd think the operating costs of the stadium would come down having three clubs there.

Then when you think of things like the possibility of double-headers for some of the lower supported games like Catalans and London to save money (as well as create a bit of atmosphere in one of the more dull fixtures of the year) and it could work out pretty well for both parties.
Yeah, I know there'd have to be some logistics to sort out like who gets priority where, season tickets, etc. but they aren't exactly unsolvable. 50/50 on the corporate sections. East Stand pass holders for one club get the upper tier of the West, South Stand pass holders for one club get the North Stand. Two double headers a year means both clubs have fans moved at least once. Two games for the price of one and a full house for a usually dead game or two.

As for merger talks, mergers are only for teams that are struggling. If we're both doing well in the same stadium, why would the RFL want two of the better clubs in the league to merge? What would your license grading be if you was at the KC? They wouldn't want to lose a highly placed club.

At the end of the day, I'm an RL fan before a Hull fan, and I think if the move is better for the game, it would be great. I'm not one to cut my nose off to spite my face. It may help Rovers a lot (even if it is temporary), but Hull should be looking to see what such a move can do to help them in as many ways as possible and if it can help us cut costs then we should be in favour of it.

Your average gates during the early eighties were around the 11,000 mark, in fact i was only looking at an old Hull fc programme recently, (old programmes something i used to collect once upon a time) it was Hull fc versus Widnes 1984 and the crowd was just under 11,000 that day with widnes been a top side then and bringing a decent contingent over
with them, as far as i can remember back in those days, it was usualy Hull getting beween 10 and 11000 on average at their peak and rovers getting around 9000 on aaverage at their peak, plus if i remember correctly Hulls crowds just prior to their departure from the old Boulevard were between 6 and 7 thousand, though im sure someone on these boards will have the exact figures at hand.