Think it's about time Hull supporters stopped listening to Fifth Columnists that think that much of us that they can't seem to use their own forums.Stop looking back and look forward,the K.C. is the future, the Boulevard is the past.Don't let nostalgia cloud your judgement,the Boulevard would just be a millstone round the clubs neck.Stop listening to the Bandwagoners who love to come on here and try to undermine the club.Try and say anything on their site that they don't agree with and you are immediately banned.

If we left the KC, the SMC would have to pay off 20 years of a lease.

Afterall we know it's confidential and nobody here knows any terms or conditions

you may find out that radders was stitched up with the mail article,whats to say he said all of it the way the daily mail put it?

That's what my thoughts are on the matter. Nearly mail misquote from an off the cuff remark. Par for the course if you ask me.

When you say they would have to pay off 20 years of lease, you really need to clarify the fact that they would simply have to cover the shortfall of the rent they receive from Hull (and as the SMC and Hull City are effectively the same thing, thats why I said City's costs would inclease).

Hull would not receive anything if they left the KC voluntarily. Even if we were pushed out it would take a court decision to ratify it, and that simply will not happen.

when the KC stadium was first mutted was n't there some thing mentioned that it would only be built to home at least 2 professional clubs and if either did n't want to move in it would not have been built. i was also under the impression that Hull city council owned the ground (not Hull city) and it is managed by the smc so i wonder what the councils stance would be if ever the club did want to move?

wasnt the terms of the lease re-negotionable after five years anyway? sure i heard the club was in talks with the smc last year.

Thats what i thought .

Think you're confusing the lease with the rental/operating agreement.

Does anyone seriously believe that we would have made it to 3 finals in 4 years if we had stayed at the boulevard? The KC has given our club opportunities, commercial and otherwise, that the boulevard simply doesnt. The boulevard will always be sacred to every fc fan, but the ground was a dump. The 3d stand hasnt been intimidating for many many years. People need to stop looking back through rose tinted specs and see why we left there in the first place. A move back there takes this club back 20 years.

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





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!

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.

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.

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.

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 nal, u think Fergie and Wenger would be happy with one hour a week on home turf? Besides, those grounds have atmosphere

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.

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

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.

Who wants the type of fan that supports a club on the basis that their ground is new and pretty? We'll keep the real rugby league fans wherever we play!

and like it or not we'll go back to 5,000 crowds and not challenge for silverware for the forseeable future.

Are you for real?

Now, there is a well balanced arguement.

Man Utd do not train on Old Trafford at all

Not sure about Arsenal.

Its not about me being happy or not about the state of the balance sheet. Its been poor for a while, but its a lot better than it used to be.

I see no one has mentioned the 190k of profit made (this in a season we DIDN'T make a major final, year to 31 October 2007). Of course not, that would actually be giving some credit to those in charge.

Back on topic, the council should do the honourable thing and put the Boulevard out of its lingering misery once and for all and flatten the place.