Hull FC 1 - 4 vs burnley, keep up the good work boys

c'mon latics, copy the tigers

I'm guessing you've never been to The Racecourse, or at least not in the last 25 years.

It's not a bad ground these days. A lot better than most RL grounds TBH

totally agree not a bad ground at all tbh

It`s UEFA standard so I would expect it to be good ..

Er I think you'll find that was a better result for latics than hull winning

I cannot see how its any of the FA's business, the KC is a publicly owned ground and FC have lease. They ought to be thankfull we never took the option up to play there, two RL and one football club playing across the same months.



Anyway, football cuts the pitch up more than RL.

It's a past International RL ground to, so... errr.... yes. Forget I tried to draw that comparison please

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8616969.stmRednapp blames the Wembley pitch for his sides defeat to Portsmouth.*[/url

Why is it only us in England that can't produce a decent pitch for a big stadium?

=#BF0000More important that it being hosted on YT it's got a great big Fox logo in the corner, and Fox didn't post it where you've linked to it. And that's as clear a no-no as the AUP can declare. Capisce? tb **


Notice the date the game was played and you'll see the Aussies seem to know how to manage a pitch suitable for a multi sports stadium.

[size=50*OK, his exact wording was that it was a disgrace, but I'm trying to prove a point here.

**I know its a Youtube link, I'm sorry I couldn't find any still images.[/size

:ifoqhpiq

It’s part of their business because they want the best possible playing surfaces for their sport. Don’t we want the same?

:ifoqhpiq

How much is the lease worth? Could it be bought?

:ifoqhpiq

Both of them probably are





That doesn’t matter to them it would have longer between games to recover, and could be fully re-seeded etc during the close season.

sorry but didn't both teams use the same pitch? he's just spouting off in fashion bollox to cover up the shame he feels as the club he strung out to dry came back to publicly bitch slap him. Mr Rednapp please meet Karma. pwnd

i love the fact he's moaning about players falling over mmmmm in the old days didn't players used to use the appropriate length of stud for the conditions? and if fooseballers didn't wear those pathetic blade boots they would grip the ground better instead of slicing through the turf.

[urlhttp://viewtopic.php?f=28&t=452961[/url

The upshot is that if Wigan Athletic want a stadium purely for themselves or if the FA impose a ban on dual use stadiums then they are the club who will have to move, not Wigan RL.

The 50 year lease is not new information to Wigan rugby fans however, unfortunately this is something that is seemingly consistently ignored or unknown to other rugby / football fans.

What the situation is for say the KC stadium I've no idea but Hull football club won't be in the Premiership much longer anyway.

They play in the Super League

Headline news!!!

Moronball players, directors, owners, managers talking B%&&%X as usual.

one thing that makes me laugh about all this is that if by some miracal hull city do stay up and the fa makes this official what the hell are hull fc going to do no kc blvard is falling to bits could any one see hull kr loaning there ground to them i think if this does happen some sort of cooling off period should be allowed to relocate

even if hull/wigan or both get relegated. this is not an end to the problem. if either team has aspirations to return to the premiership.

how much would it cost to buy out either RL club?

I see it differently. If this is enforced by the FA and if by some quirk of fate Hull City stay up then it will be Hull City's problem. The FA have no power to stop rugby league being played at the city's community stadium, only the power to stop Premier League football being played there.

How much would it cost for Wigan or Hull to build their own stadium? I assume that's how much you'd need to pay them to move. Assuming the current owners aren't in it for the money - which I guarantee not a single owner of an RL team is - then just because someone can offer them money wouldn't necessarily mean much anyway. Given the precarious financial situation of a number of PL teams, I suspect any that can reduce costs by ground-sharing or other means would sooner be congratulated by the FA than penalised for it.

Listening to what people have been saying it sounds like Hull are safe in the KC. Wigan maybe not so safe? I'm not close to either of these clubs but don't Wigan RL own quite a lot of the DW as they sold central park for more than wigan athletic sold springfield park? Correct me if i'm wrong.

Also, theres a few Union clubs that are just renting stadiums and have no ownership whatsoever, someone plays at Watford and Reading. Maybe theres some others who could be in bother with this.

It always makes me laugh when moronballers complain about the pitch being why they lost...its like the other team played on a different pitch...

Anyway, this is all smoke and mirrors since there is nothing else to complain about or blame bad results on in kevball at the moment

No matter how big soccer becomes, it will never be in a position to order us off Wembley.

Playing there since 1929 means something.

It will remain dual use I have no doubt.

If there are contracts in place for clubs to play at certain stadiums, then the Premier League cannot legally invoke a rule that makes them move out of that stadium. They cannot FORCE a club from another sport to move out of a stadium if there are contracts in place, they aren't above the law.

Saying that, they probably CAN force the Premier League clubs to use another ground, or to make a settlement with occupying clubs. It would have to be a huge settlement though (which to be fair, if they're a Premier League club, shouldn't be too hard). If City want us out the KC (not that they'll be a PL club for long!), then I'd expect an 18k stadium at least and use of the KC for derbies. They can't force clubs with contracts in place to do anything, so if they want something then they've gotta give us something that we want...

the dream scenario is both wigan and hull being relegated this season but sadly it looks like only one will make the drop

once they go down i dont expect either club to bounce back

its amazing theyve both held out so long but both have been very lucky not to get relegated in previous years

fingers crossed it all works out

if wigan and or hull city do get relegated, which they probably will. the chances are they will be hot favourites to get promoted again next season so the problem would still be there.

the huge figures involved in premiership football (each season worth aprox £40million reportedly)

this should not be dismissed to readily.

i dont know what the answer would be, but when the stakes are that high strange things can happen.

Wigan RL are safe. There is nothing the FA can do except kick wigan athletic out of the premier league if they bring in this new law.

If Hull City get relegated, they will go into administration. There is a very good chance that they'll get relegated again with the way their finances are going.