I'm struggling to see how those comments can be reconciled with the quotes in that article

=#0000FF"It's the same two points as the ones we lost at Castleford and at home to Bradford," added Hudgell, when asked how important the win was to their campaign.

"So, in one respect it's no more important than any other game."

"It elevated us into the top eight for the first time this season and was a pretty vital two points given the run of games we are about to enter."

Fair enough, he then goes on to admit the bleeding obvious, that those 2 points are sweeter than most for the fans - wow.

[iIf[/i the club has turned down £150k, then despite the controversy and mockery that would have invited, it is a [size=200massive[/size piece of gormcloppery. On the other hand, the figure was widely played down went it looked like it might be moved (a rare example of cross-forum consensus, excluding my lonely voice in the wilderness

)

Also, I'm far from convinced that losing hurts more than winning gives pleasure. That sounds like a miserable way to spend your leisure time.

I really hope there is no building rubble about when this game is played I remember a very sad Friday at the Boulevard when the rubble was used for throwing.

Very sad episode for both sets of fans, and an incident like Ganson one in the last match against the home fans could see it ignite, or have we grown up now?

ps
I really dont know how the building is going as I have no interest whatsoever.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this won't be the final derby of the year, if the league stays at it is come the end of the season, we'd have another one to endure.

Where was £150000 coming from? I'm guessing it's just a figure plucked out of the air.
Punos the FC fans will be about 200 yards from the building sight so nothing to worry about there unless they want to bring there own bricks in to save KR some money?

You obviously never watched Rugby at the Boulevard then

Supporting FC for the last 40 years and i know building sites and Rovers supporters dont mix at derby games

i had the night booked off work as it was due to be our home game... think i'll cancel it and go work. Wont even get to hear it...

And you obviously wasn't there.

Who's to say how much bigger the gate would be if the game was switched to the KC? Look back at the thread on here when the swap was first mentioned around the time of the first derby. Quite a large portion of your fans posting back then were of the opinion they would not attend due to not wanting to financially benefit HKR and Hudge in particular, not wanting to see Rovers fans in their seats etc, etc. Also there were Rovers fans threatening not to attend because they bought a pass for Craven Park not KC, they were bothered HFC might gain financially from the switch and of course the loss of home advantage. I dont agree with any of this personally, however the cost of hiring the stadium might not be worth the risk if the crowd can't be guaranteed to be significantly bigger.

After a very debatable victory,this shows how small minded a Club HKR are.
There Coach says it was like winning a Grand Final and now their superfan Chairman comes out with this!!
The manner of Saturday's defeat will be the only motivation we need!

You do realise that only about 1% of Hull FC supporters post on RLFans? Hardly a representative sample.

Of course the attendance would have been higher at the KC, although undoubtedly lower than previous derbies at the stadium.

The size of a sample isn't necessarily the best indication of how representative it. Internet access, if not yet universal, is far from the preserve of a wealthy or techie few nowadays. There may, I admit, be a bias towards people unable to maintain normal human relationships due to spouting boring cack like this.

why does anyone care what the odious little to55bag has said, it told us eveything when limpdick said cheating us out of two points was their "Grand Final", leave them to their pathetic little club, their rediculous "10-5" bar and their crappy ground, they've had a £1m handout and still can't pay their bills.

Remember, Prescott follows this club, not the honourable, brave, corageous and giving Steve Prescott, but "Lord" (I f'd my secretary in Admirality) hypocrite Prescott.


IMHO, of course.

Nail,Head and i'l bring the Hammer.......

I think rovers are losing the plot,fancy wanting to play the match in front of their own fans,ridiculous an absolute joke.! As wilf and bet say it is their cup final where as for us its just 2 points,I mean since they came into superleague they have only beaten us 11 out of 18 matches and after the 1st season when they nearly went back down we have finished higher than them once,which shows league positions dont matter to them its just beating us.If you sky plussed the match our fans were bouncing and chanting with a minute to go and after the hooter they stormed out of the ground blaming ganson,the few that stayed looked in shock,as you say it was just 2pts.I think its a credit to our club we are such good losers,maybe its because we get so much practice.!

Thanks for that, could you please supply us with an accurate figure for the attendance and it will make the calculations of the feasability of a venue change much easier, assuming you're also privvy to the hire/stewarding etc costs Rovers would be subject to.

He might have been and a brick hit him on the head so he has forgotten ps from his own fans

You're right, no one knows. But Hudgell is saying he's foregoing a financial benefit for home advantage and bragging rights, is he not?

When do the repayments start on the £2m+ stand element of the North Stand project? If it's soon, and you'd imagine it would be with the works progressing,a bit surprising that financial upside is being turned down. Interestingly Hull City Council were granted a loan of £6m from Central Government just days after they approved the proposal for the North Stand project which is costing, net of ERDF funding, around, er, £6m. Now, it may be an entire coincidence. However, if that funding [uwas[/u for the North Stand, the terms of it are over 7 years. Ouch. If Cllr Webster's claim that it would cost the Hull taxpayer nothing because Rovers were matching the repayments is true, that would be some annual wedge over 7 years. Confidence of a 10k average must be sky high.

The council loan will also be for the business units. From memory, rovers element was circa £2m payable over 40 years with little or no interest. Must be hellishly impressive business units to be costing twice what the new stand and teh wrap around corner bit will

The original cost was £6m, around £2m for the stand, £4m for the rest. Funding was from ERDF (£2m, on the non stand bit) with the the council borrowing £4m for the rest from PWLB central funding. We were told this would be cost neutral for the taxpayer by Cllr Webster as Rovers, Hull Training and a yet to be appointed business enterprise tenant would be effectively making the repayments.

Of course there were material errors in these costings and IIRC, the bill will be closer to £8.5m. If the ERDF element remains the same, the council would need to borrow £6m from PWLB. Just saying that coincidentally, the council have recently borrowed £6m from PWLB. The term, though, is 7 years. In the unlikely event that this £6m is the same £6m for the North Stand, that would represent a very poor deal if Rovers have been granted a 40 year term, and would render Cllr Webster's assertion incorrect. Pretty sure it's all just a coincidence though, if Rovers have a 40 year deal, that must be the same terms the council are getting and passing on. All more punitive than a peppercorn rent, clearly

Says the merged muppet. Hypocrites springs to mind.

It's a building site?.

It must be one hell of a improvement then.

Side splitting humour

We knew you'd appreciate it.

from someone that goes to a circus every other weekend, I guess we should be flattered!!!