Re: PLAYING AT THE K.C FULL TIME? : Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:32 pm  

suttonrobin wrote:

As from next season. Remember this is a public stadium, so the council would have to make us at home ie-rebranding the seats, signage outside etc.

Its a public asset which your lot turned down the chances of playing when offered.

The very thought that the council would have to fund any signs / seats is laughable. IF (and thats a fairly big IF) you were invited by the current tenants to rent the stadium, it would be up to rovers to stump up anything they would want there.

Re: PLAYING AT THE K.C FULL TIME? : Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:43 pm  

If we wanted it we'd take it and kick your lot out, We'd kick City out too and just have it for ourselves.

Like an old council tennant we'd expect you to magnolia the walls before you left.

Re: PLAYING AT THE K.C FULL TIME? : Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:08 pm  

At this moment in time I would prefer to reserve my vote till later, a move to KC Stadium would be the very final option as I do not like the place and opt not to go to the Derby Matches. I like to enjoy my Rugby without worrying whether I will get out of the Stadium in one piece.

Re: PLAYING AT THE K.C FULL TIME? : Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:55 pm  

Don't FC have a right of veto, they would pay us back for trying to shaft them when Gateshead bought them.

Re: PLAYING AT THE K.C FULL TIME? : Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:23 pm  

rover49 wrote:

Don't FC have a right of veto, they would pay us back for trying to shaft them when Gateshead bought them.

TBH I wasn't 'us' it was our then Chairman which is rather a large difference.
Also both clubs in one way or another have tried this on, Let us not forget that the then FC owner tried to buy us when we went in admin using irish 3rd parties to try and fool the administrator, unfortunatly for them he saw right through it.
Shall we blame the normal FC fan or the current club for that?

Re: PLAYING AT THE K.C FULL TIME? : Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:35 pm  

Takes 10 mins off my journey so all for it. They may not rebrand for us but 8000 fans with an airfix pot of red paint can sort out a third of the ground in the first home game.

Re: PLAYING AT THE K.C FULL TIME? : Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:43 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

TBH I wasn't 'us' it was our then Chairman which is rather a large difference.
Also both clubs in one way or another have tried this on, Let us not forget that the then FC owner tried to buy us when we went in admin using irish 3rd parties to try and fool the administrator, unfortunatly for them he saw right through it.
Shall we blame the normal FC fan or the current club for that?

That doesn't answer as to whether they have a veto or not and if they have, would they use it, for whatever reason.

Re: PLAYING AT THE K.C FULL TIME? : Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:14 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

TBH I wasn't 'us' it was our then Chairman which is rather a large difference.
Also both clubs in one way or another have tried this on, Let us not forget that the then FC owner tried to buy us when we went in admin using irish 3rd parties to try and fool the administrator, unfortunatly for them he saw right through it.
Shall we blame the normal FC fan or the current club for that?

Really? The dastardley devil. Was that Lloyd or Tim Whatshisface?

Re: PLAYING AT THE K.C FULL TIME? : Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:16 pm  

rover49 wrote:

That doesn't answer as to whether they have a veto or not and if they have, would they use it, for whatever reason.

They do, always have had.

So do City who I think would probably be more against it with their idiotic ideas that rugby not football ruins the pitch.

Re: PLAYING AT THE K.C FULL TIME? : Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:37 pm  

Sandra The Terrorist wrote:

They do, always have had.

So do City who I think would probably be more against it with their idiotic ideas that rugby not football ruins the pitch.

I think it's more to do with that the football is played in the winter, then RL kicks in, right when the pitch is at it's most fragile. From a City/football angle, there's just no way they should ever agree to us moving in. They'd become a laughing stock - the surface would be just awful.


I know they (t'other forum) have always stated that they have a veto too - but what does this veto entail?

Is it a veto who plays/uses the KC (as in for a one off occasion) - say for the East Riding Senior Cup Final
or
Does the veto have the muscle to decide who can/can't share the council facility with them full time?