: Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:43 pm  

Hull Kingston Convicts wrote:

Defo?

100%?
Never?

Funny, all those videos of the greats over the years must have taken place on the cobbles of Coronation Street with a computer generated backdrop of the Stretford end

Over the years ist he key phrase there. Just how far are you going back? Exactly what videos? Footage of old games or film shot for commercial reasons?

Manchester United DO NOT train on the Old Trafford pitch. Because of drainage, ventilation problems and lack of natural sunlight, they avoid the unneccasary wear and tear on their playing surface. Otherwise the pitch would need relaying every month during the winter.

HTH

: Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:46 pm  

Raggytash wrote:

You think that Leeds playing at Headingly is damaging their fanbase or on the field success? Has Huddersfield had unbelievable crowd growth and on field success since moving to Galpharm? Has international RL improved since the inclusion of Quins/Sheffield/Gateshead?

Hull's record attendance was set in 1936. 28798 were at the Boulevard. Why don't we get that many at the KC? Safety restrictions? Because of small minded people that don't like all seater stadiums?

Headingley is not a health hazard.

Why haven't Wigan beaten their gate record of 47k?

Strangely enough, times and attitudes have moved on over the last 70 years

: Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:01 pm  

Hull Kingston Convicts wrote:

It's a shame people disagree with you, as they tend to forget the salary cap max is only £1.8 million so it doesn't matter jack if our income is £10 million or £4 Mill.
A rebuilt Boulevard would command the same crowds as we have now, if not more (Rovers aside), due to the simple fact we would not HAVE to charge £24 a ticket to watch.

Your naivety is almost overwhelming.

If Hull turned over £4m, they would be heading out of business.

A rebuilt Boulevard would cast in excess of £40m. Just how do you think that would be paid for and then the interest on the borrowings.

It’s only in your opinion that a newly built stadium would attract the same crowds.

Here are a few reasons why I don't think it would.

1. Visiting fans (rightly or wrongly) didn't like the Boulevard. Visiting fans would fall in number.

2. Car parking around the Boulevard was limited and there was an increased risk of damage to vehicles.

3. A completely rebuilt Stadium off Airlie Street WOULD NOT be the old Boulevard which some hark back to. There would be discontent from some of those desperate to live in the past as it would be a shiny new stadium and not the wreck we left.

4. Admission prices would go through the roof. I don't know the finer details of the current lease agreement, but on the basis it was for 25 years, there is likely to be a significant period of notice required to break the lease or suffer a significant penalty. Couple this with the actual purchase price of the land and the construction costs, huge borrowings would be needed. On the basis Hull have just one asset of note, I would doubt anyone would lend them the money for this project.

In short, it would be commercial suicide to leave the KC.

But I am sure this type of topic or the one about the fictitious lies the board came out with will crop up again in a few weeks or months and we shall go through this rigmarole again.

: Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:15 pm  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

Headingley is not a health hazard.

Why haven't Wigan beaten their gate record of 47k?

Strangely enough, times and attitudes have moved on over the last 70 years

Damn right it has. It seems people are more interested in the surroundings then the game nowadays. People used to support a club because they liked the sport and the team represented where they was from.

And I think you'll find that Leeds had to restrict access because Headingly WAS a health hazard.

[Kosh]

: Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:19 pm  

Anyone else hear the music from the Hovis adverts when reading certain posts on this thread?

: Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:24 pm  

I think we should round up the 34 or so life time members, see what their opinion is

: Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:29 pm  

Raggytash wrote: Damn right it has. It seems people are more interested in the surroundings then the game nowadays. People used to support a club because they liked the sport and the team represented where they was from. And I think you'll find that Leeds had to restrict access because Headingly WAS a health hazard. And its sure as hell is costing them just short term measures have already had to be put in place at the cost of £250k they have had to also cut the south stands capacity by 2,000 yet your suggesting us go back to those same type of facilities http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/leeds/7695092.stm Anyway any major development on the boulevard site would never ever get planning permission these days so it would be a waste of time and effort and money even looking into it. What the Premier League need to do is allow stadia with the new technologies like in Hamburg's stadium where seated areas and switch within 3 hours to safe standing areas (but obviously that is a massively emotive subject with what has happend in football in the past) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/913449.stm

Raggytash wrote: Damn right it has. It seems people are more interested in the surroundings then the game nowadays. People used to support a club because they liked the sport and the team represented where they was from. And I think you'll find that Leeds had to restrict access because Headingly WAS a health hazard. And its sure as hell is costing them just short term measures have already had to be put in place at the cost of £250k they have had to also cut the south stands capacity by 2,000 yet your suggesting us go back to those same type of facilities http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/leeds/7695092.stm Anyway any major development on the boulevard site would never ever get planning permission these days so it would be a waste of time and effort and money even looking into it. What the Premier League need to do is allow stadia with the new technologies like in Hamburg's stadium where seated areas and switch within 3 hours to safe standing areas (but obviously that is a massively emotive subject with what has happend in football in the past) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/913449.stm

: Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:26 pm  

Forever FC wrote: And its sure as hell is costing them just short term measures have already had to be put in place at the cost of £250k they have had to also cut the south stands capacity by 2,000 yet your suggesting us go back to those same type of facilities http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/leeds/7695092.stm Anyway any major development on the boulevard site would never ever get planning permission these days so it would be a waste of time and effort and money even looking into it. What the Premier League need to do is allow stadia with the new technologies like in Hamburg's stadium where seated areas and switch within 3 hours to safe standing areas (but obviously that is a massively emotive subject with what has happend in football in the past) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/913449.stm I've not suggested going back to those facilities. Currently the Boulevard is not a viable option. I've just pointed out that it had a much better atmosphere and wasn't the slum some posters would like to label it. It is also Hull FC's home, where ALL of our best players played. I obviously would love it if we could go back to the Boulevard, redeveloped and with reserved terracing but I like everyone else think this is unrealistic. I agree entirely with your points regarding Hamburg and have stated in a previous post that I would be happy if I had the option to stand at the K.C.

Forever FC wrote: And its sure as hell is costing them just short term measures have already had to be put in place at the cost of £250k they have had to also cut the south stands capacity by 2,000 yet your suggesting us go back to those same type of facilities http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/leeds/7695092.stm Anyway any major development on the boulevard site would never ever get planning permission these days so it would be a waste of time and effort and money even looking into it. What the Premier League need to do is allow stadia with the new technologies like in Hamburg's stadium where seated areas and switch within 3 hours to safe standing areas (but obviously that is a massively emotive subject with what has happend in football in the past) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/913449.stm I've not suggested going back to those facilities. Currently the Boulevard is not a viable option. I've just pointed out that it had a much better atmosphere and wasn't the slum some posters would like to label it. It is also Hull FC's home, where ALL of our best players played. I obviously would love it if we could go back to the Boulevard, redeveloped and with reserved terracing but I like everyone else think this is unrealistic. I agree entirely with your points regarding Hamburg and have stated in a previous post that I would be happy if I had the option to stand at the K.C.

: Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:29 pm  

Raggytash wrote:

Damn right it has. It seems people are more interested in the surroundings then the game nowadays. People used to support a club because they liked the sport and the team represented where they was from.

And I think you'll find that Leeds had to restrict access because Headingly WAS a health hazard.

The only ones more interested in the surroundings are those so desparate to get back to the Boulevard, but I guess your blinkers don't allow you to see that

If you have gone up the housing ladder to get to a 5 bed detached, why would you choose to live in a two up two down bombsite?

I am gald you took the bait of Headingley. It was affected for ONE game last season. The Boulevard (or more accurately the old 3d) was affected for 6 SEASONS before it was rebuilt. This was at a time when the board consisted of what some beleive to be "proper fans". You know, the ones we get told would be turning in their graves at the antics of the current board. The fact that the most popular part of the Boulevard was left to waste away and the club was allowed to decent into what turned out to be near terminal debt by these people is forgotton because they were apparently "Hull fans through and through".

: Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:30 pm  

Kosh wrote:

Anyone else hear the music from the Hovis adverts when reading certain posts on this thread?

No, I can't hear the tune because of all the air horns, bang sticks and drums. But of course, these are what stands for atmosphere nowadays!