Read it wrong.
Turnover £4 million in debt.
INsolvent.

Clear now

Good crowds, decent team, youth getting stronger, excellent away support and stadium getting better each year.

No chance Rovers wont get a franchise this time round.

And the men who hold high places
Must be the ones who start
To mould a new reality
Closer to the heart
Closer to the heart

Hkr should be moved to Sheffield.

Go on...

Not a thing to worry about!

No worries whatsoever.

The only ones who could be affected are those who received warning letters a few months ago from the RFL.

I think Wakey should be worried and I think they are the only club in any danger next time around.

I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase to 15 sides, and do away with the tragic weekend.

Just out of interest, is any credit given to away support and the cash this generates for clubs? I mean, I despise you lot (

), but cannot deny you contribute a lot to the coffers of SL. I think that both Hull clubs should score massive kudos in that respect.
If you look at 4000 Hull fans at cas at average £10 a throw for a sunday match, cannot deny it brings more to the competition. The other CEO's in SL must enjoy the Hull clubs coming to town.

Fully agree with your comments. AFAIK though no formal credit is given, but is certainly should be and IMO should even be one of the criteria. Like you say think how much extra money Cas will have made last week from you guys, compared to if they'd played one of the clubs who only takes a dozen or so away on average.

It is undeniably a good thing, the amount of fans that both Hull clubs take on their travels (and certainly brilliant to be a part of) and the revenue that generates.

However, I don't see how this could be equitably scored when it comes to franchises. It's hardly fair to Harlequins, Catalans and to a lesser extent Crusaders.

TS IMO - it's hardly fair they're all stealing the places of clubs like Widnes and Barrow who'd contribute a lot more to SL.

It would bring balance to the already unfair point for not being near another SL club.

I personally believe FC and Rovers should be given a point because they have the following

A) In a catchment area large enough to support the growth of the clubs inside it
B) In An Area which is at least 60 Miles From 85% of Clubs in The Competition.
C) Have a large amount of fans that are prepared to travel those distances

To penalise Hull clubs because they do not add to the geographical spread of SL to me seems wrong. In fact the only rational reason for awarding Clubs outside the heartlands an extra point is so they get more than clubs that the RFL don't want in SL.

What advantage does not being close to another SL club bring to SL?????

Well they're debatable points I know, but iirc we weren't too far off the turnover point last time round. As far as solvency is concerned, I suppose thats down to how the RFL gauge it. Our debt is underwritten and apparently we can provide strong evidence that it can be sustainable in the very near future.

I guess if the likes of cas, salford and wakefield are in on (yet) another promise of a new ground, we should get the same benefit of the doubt with our finances.

It all comes down to what camp your foot's in.

Are you an expansionist or not? I am, that's why I think it would be unfair on them.

However I also don't agree that clubs shouldn't be penalised solely on their geographical position. The old chestnut arguement of our two clubs being in the same city always rears it's head, yet strangely you hardly ever here mention that Wigan, St. Helen's, Warrington and Leigh are all more or less a stones throw away from each other.

Roofs, I agree Widnes should be in but Barrow? Come on, what would they bring? A season of paying over the odds for rubbish players, getting tonked every week and then going bust at the end of the year just like Workington in 1996. The only way I can ever see the RFL allowing a Cumbrian based team would be through a merger of all three, but the fans (quite rightly imo) would never have that.

The RFL argument regarding the location point is so that clubs outside the heartlands that don't have that 'default' rugby league interest aren't at a disadvantage as they're more likely to miss out on the attendance point and the 40% capacity point.

But considering that very criteria is set out to improve the game and the image of the sport - why should they benefit because of things they can't achieve? You could argue both Hull clubs are also at a disadvantage in those points because they're drawing support from the same area.

I'd award those clubs the location point if they achieved (say) average crowds of 4k and reached certain levels of youth development, not because they don't.

I spend a few days a month over in lancs and Mersyside area and geographically there are a lot of teams withing a small area not that much bigger than Hull and surrounding villages.

Leeds - Bradford
Saints - Wigan -Warrington-Salford
All within peeing distance of each other,so don`t see why location should be an issue.
As both Hull and Rovers get good support I can`t see the problem of two teams in one city.It works in football.

The whole concept of awarding points is to disadvantage teams who don't get them.

You shouldn't create new ways of adding points for teams you know don't fit the standard criteria.

I am all for expansion but we shouldn't do it just for the sake of it and at the expense of potentially more viable traditional teams.

Guess it depends what strategic direction the RFL are heading towards. Their strategy over the last few years appears to be around expansion geographically. Personally i would review my strategy if i were the RFL and look at expanding into the RL heartlands and the viable traditional teams rather than throwing more money at an idea that i dont think works. It's about time the RFL got it into their heads that rugby league is a game played mainly by teams in the north of england across the M62 coridoor.

Unusual for a Rovers supporter.

is HULL KINGSTON ROVERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED the official name for the club?

they are showing as still being within a Voluntary Arrangement dating back 5 years this can't be true can it?

7100 as a core support nowadays?

7103 wasnt it?

Not like we can say the extra 3 were Les Cats fans either!

not bad at all compared to about 2k afew years back!

Bill it wasnt, isnt and never will be.

In fact it would be ridiculous to have a tick box system, especially considering there has been no weighting.