: Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:36 am  

Loving the comments on the official Hull FC site this morning...

Hull FC have no plans to leave their KC Stadium home and return to the Boulevard - that’s official.

When Hull FC moved to the KC Stadium they entered into a 25 year lease. Following an article in Friday’s Hull Daily Mail, this suggested a possible move back to the Boulevard, Hull FC wish to make it perfectly clear that they are not moving anywhere.
Despite any suggestions to the contrary they have absolutely no intentions of leaving the KC Stadium and any media stories to the contrary are pure speculation and COMPLETE NONSENSE.

Its almost as if they'd love to come and say so on the forums instead the way they word it!

It seems the only person who was casting a doubt in everyone's minds was Radford!

: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:18 am  

As far as I can see the players on the pitch wearing a Hull FC shirt got us to the finals, not our ground. And I'm sure if you look at our expenses you'll see the KC is not a glittering gold pot for us, it is for others. It has become a bit of a mill stone, do you think wigan or hudders pay £2500 per game to use the scoreboard?

So if it has brought untold riches why do we have a £2 million debt with an annual income of £5 million?

: Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:15 am  

Hull Kingston Convicts wrote:

As far as I can see the players on the pitch wearing a Hull FC shirt got us to the finals, not our ground. And I'm sure if you look at our expenses you'll see the KC is not a glittering gold pot for us, it is for others. It has become a bit of a mill stone, do you think wigan or hudders pay £2500 per game to use the scoreboard?

So if it has brought untold riches why do we have a £2 million debt with an annual income of £5 million?

The stadium was the catalyst. Look at the league tables pre and post move. The players played there part, of course they did. The same could be said of hull city. They would be playing in league 2 now if it wasnt for the move and the increase in revenue it also afforded them. There are other examples too, look at sunderland and Bolton. We wouldnt have got the crowds at the boulevard to enable us to spend the full cap and therefore afford the players that got us to those finals. The debts were well publicesd before the move too.

[Mild Rover]

: Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:59 am  

Hull Kingston Convicts wrote:

So if it has brought untold riches why do we have a £2 million debt with an annual income of £5 million?

That debt is historical though isn't it, rather than being piled up year on year? Because there will always be a demand from fans that any profits be reinvested in 'their' club (even after the salary cap is reached, you can always spend more on coaches, youth development, cheap season tickets for kids etc), I think that debt will hang around until ownership of the club changes hands.

: Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:04 pm  

Hull Kingston Convicts wrote:

As far as I can see the players on the pitch wearing a Hull FC shirt got us to the finals, not our ground. And I'm sure if you look at our expenses you'll see the KC is not a glittering gold pot for us, it is for others. It has become a bit of a mill stone, do you think wigan or hudders pay £2500 per game to use the scoreboard?

So if it has brought untold riches why do we have a £2 million debt with an annual income of £5 million?

As far as I can hear, its the fans that make the noise, not the ground

We don't have debts of £2m

As per the last accounts we had total liabilities of £1.7m and after netting that off with the current assets its net current liabilities of £728k.

You have mentioned in the past that the company has no assets. Ignoring the revaluation of players with goes against the accounting standards, there is a further revaluation of a tangible asset (£280k). This could only be land and buyings as its the only real assets which will have appreciated in value from original purchase date.

Earlier in the thread you claimed Hull have lost home advantage as we don't train at the KC.

Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea don't train on their home ground and it doesn't seem to have adversley affected them.

But, why let a few facts get in the way of your hatred for those who run Hull FC

: Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:38 pm  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

As far as I can hear, its the fans that make the noise, not the ground

We don't have debts of £2m

As per the last accounts we had total liabilities of £1.7m and after netting that off with the current assets its net current liabilities of £728k.

You have mentioned in the past that the company has no assets. Ignoring the revaluation of players with goes against the accounting standards, there is a further revaluation of a tangible asset (£280k). This could only be land and buyings as its the only real assets which will have appreciated in value from original purchase date.

Earlier in the thread you claimed Hull have lost home advantage as we don't train at the KC.

Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea don't train on their home ground and it doesn't seem to have adversley affected them.

But, why let a few facts get in the way of your hatred for those who run Hull FC

Thank god for a voice of reason.

: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:56 pm  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

As far as I can hear, its the fans that make the noise, not the ground

We don't have debts of £2m

As per the last accounts we had total liabilities of £1.7m and after netting that off with the current assets its net current liabilities of £728k.

You have mentioned in the past that the company has no assets. Ignoring the revaluation of players with goes against the accounting standards, there is a further revaluation of a tangible asset (£280k). This could only be land and buyings as its the only real assets which will have appreciated in value from original purchase date.

Earlier in the thread you claimed Hull have lost home advantage as we don't train at the KC.

Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea don't train on their home ground and it doesn't seem to have adversley affected them.

But, why let a few facts get in the way of your hatred for those who run Hull FC

So are u happy with us being balance sheet insolvent? We do know know we have an asset, the gym on Gordon st. But that's something the board didn't even know about. As for man u and arsenal, u think Fergie and Wenger would be happy with one hour a week on home turf? Besides, those grounds have atmosphere

: Mon Dec 15, 2008 4:23 pm  

Hull Kingston Convicts wrote:

So are u happy with us being balance sheet insolvent? We do know know we have an asset, the gym on Gordon st. But that's something the board didn't even know about. As for man u and arsenal, u think Fergie and Wenger would be happy with one hour a week on home turf? Besides, those grounds have atmosphere :wink:

So does the KC when were playing well. People seem to be under the impression that the boulevard was constantly a-sway with noise and cheering. It wasnt. Some of the best atmospheres Ive seen in my 25yrs of going have been at the KC. As for atmosphere, old trafford didnt have much at the grand final. I take it by this post that you think the boulevard will become an asset, despite it haemoraging the club money in its final years. Of course, for something to be an asset, you have to own it, where we going to get that kind of money from. The boulevard is a once great ground that should be left were all once great grounds should be left, in the past.

: Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:33 pm  

as someone not blinkered by the pre threepenny redevlopment boulevard i going to say that the place was atotal s**t hole. The amazing atmosphere was non existent, even in the "world famous" threepenny stand it was just a few drunks shouting . the ends were as bad as anything at odsal and the east stand shoudl have been shut on safety grounds 15 years ago.

the day hull go back there they will lose thousands of the newer fans, people arent going to keep going in the numbers they currently do to a bodge job version of the halliwell jones which is the most hull would get built for them if they went back

: Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:47 pm  

Hull Kingston Convicts wrote:

As far as I can see the players on the pitch wearing a Hull FC shirt got us to the finals, not our ground. And I'm sure if you look at our expenses you'll see the KC is not a glittering gold pot for us, it is for others. It has become a bit of a mill stone, do you think wigan or hudders pay £2500 per game to use the scoreboard?

So if it has brought untold riches why do we have a £2 million debt with an annual income of £5 million?

Attendances more than doubled when we moved to the KC. Even given the general rise in SL crowds over the last few seasons should we still be at The Boulevard we'd be getting crowds of around 7-8,000.

Without the move to the KC we would have struggled to reach three finals and would have got a "C" grade licence at best. At worst we may have gone into administration.