: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:46 pm  

why don`t we hit him the pocket and refuse to buy any drinks, food etc from the stadium.






COME ON THE BLADES

for tomorrow night.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:41 am  

Suzie wrote:

Did anybody else just hear Mr Duffen then on Radio Humberside at the Hull City Forum?

David Burns asked him if he'd been answering lots of letters from the people who watch Rugby League to which he responded "that can't be true because they cannot write". He giggled away thinking it was very funny, some of us actually think this is a serious matter.

I will be able to read his fixture list next year. It will be under the heading Championship League.

He is an arrogant foolish fool

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:43 am  

On Sports Talk last night Burnsy said that he is trying to get an interview with someone from Red Hall. Maybe we can get the other side of the story from Woods?

My knee jerk was that I hope City go down, because of this decision, but in reality I don't want that to happen!

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am  

FC Tiger wrote:

That is what is happening . I get the feeling that you think SMC gives 100% preference to City and did not go the whole hog and have City play saturday lunch time Oct '07 so FC could play Wigan in a play off game the same evening .

All very interesting stuff and mostly correct in my book. HOWEVER you ARE totally and utterly wrong when you say it would have been built if only City played there! Having been part of the team that drew up the tenancy agreement for the Stadium and made the presentations to the Government when the local authority was asking the gov for permission to spend the £43m on the Stadium (As you have to do with Capital expenditure fro LA reserves), I can assure you the building of the KC was dependant on having 'At least 2 of the local proffessional teams as tenants'. Under law an authority cannot build a stadium for one club it is not legal or ethical.

Look at the Council minutes if you want confirmation of this in fact the then Leader of the Council Pat Doyle had to assure the full council that it would be used by at least 2 clubs (Rovers turned the chance down) before the project was voted on!

Without both hull Fc and Hull City signing up to play there it would not have been built!

For me as I have said on many occassions before all I want to know is how can Wigan give a concrete promise that a game can be played and City cannot! Thats the only Question for me! Football first me thinks!

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:14 am  

The Dentist Wilf wrote:

All very interesting stuff and mostly correct in my book. HOWEVER you ARE totally and utterly wrong when you say it would have been built if only City played there! Having been part of the team that drew up the tenancy agreement for the Stadium and made the presentations to the Government when the local authority was asking the gov for permission to spend the £43m on the Stadium (As you have to do with Capital expenditure fro LA reserves), I can assure you the building of the KC was dependant on having 'At least 2 of the local proffessional teams as tenants'. Under law an authority cannot build a stadium for one club it is not legal or ethical.

Look at the Council minutes if you want confirmation of this in fact the then Leader of the Council Pat Doyle had to assure the full council that it would be used by at least 2 clubs (Rovers turned the chance down) before the project was voted on!

Without both hull Fc and Hull City signing up to play there it would not have been built!

For me as I have said on many occassions before all I want to know is how can Wigan give a concrete promise that a game can be played and City cannot! Thats the only Question for me! Football first me thinks!

OWNED!

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:48 am  

Chris28 wrote:

OWNED!

And also further proof that there is no way FC could be kicked out as it would be in breach of this agreement for investment!

[Kosh]

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:49 am  

FC Tiger wrote:

You are partly right in that it would be better for the stadium to be in use all year so FC would use it during the summer . However if only FC had committed to the move to the KC and City had elected to remain at BP then the stadium would not have been built. I know of several councilors who worked on the stadium project who said that Hull City had to be involved or the KC would not be built , but it would have been built if City had been the only professional tenants.You do need to be bother about City because without them FC would still be at the Boulevard playing in front smaller gates than at the KC .

Wilf has already owned you all ways up on this one. I just thought I'd have a little gloat as well.

The fact is that 2 clubs had to be involved or there would have been no stadium. City would not have got the KC on their own, it simply would not have been built.

For someone who claims to be both an RL and soccer fan it's rather clear to see where your loyalties actually lie. I'm beginning to think that you're just another poorly-disguised Tiggers troll...

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:56 am  

Duffen is a 'here today gone tomorrow' speculator so I can't be bothered with what he says and for what its worth I will be there at City v Blackburn on Sunday. What has always perturbed me is the conflict of interests of first Pearson and now Duffen have with the football club and the SMC, and the perceived lack of involvement by the Hull board, because at the end of the day we are both tenants in a community stadium.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:41 am  

The council should step in and warn Duffen, he has done alot of damage to the community and lost alot of money by his decision, also I can see the RFL looking elseware in the future for internationals before considering the KC.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:29 pm  

FC Tiger wrote:

You should give 2 hoots because without the local fooball that the blinkered Rugby only people despise then there would be no international rugby locally . The venues for the internationals all host football clubs as the main tenant . Even in Hull , while I have been watching RL. , Boothferry Park was used many times to host GB internationals and at least one FC game against NZ early 80 's .

Totally irrelevant in my book.............hence the reason i couldn't give 2 hoots

Not making it a Hull City v Hull FC argument.

Just Duffen's role as Chairman of SMC shouldn't allow him to show favouritism to either team.