Everyone who has bought tickets has contributed to the stadium, without them there would be no club and no stadium.



I like the stadium, but I do agree with a lot of what DD says. The design would be fantastic for a stadium in a hot sunny country, but alas, England is not one of them. We don't have enough games in a hot sunny climate to justify not having cladding round the back of the stands to protect those inside from the elements that are prevalent, such as rain. The fact that it rains in on those at the ends and backs of the stands is a basic design error.

No they haven't - the monies from season ticket sales would not be diverted into capital expenditure. It would be used as part of their ongoing cash flow. Capital projects are funded totally differently.

Who will have put up capital funding with no money coming into the club, with the money coming into the club being almost solely due to fans?

The sky monies, sponsorship, corporate revenue, shareholders funds. Investors may also provide funding on the basis of future returns. The value of income from season ticket sales although significantly higher than previous years would do nothing to fund a £30m investment. It may pay some debt repayments but Mr McManus has already stated we are debt free!

Don't suppose you fancy answering the questions that I asked do you?

Sky monies only come in because fans watch it on tv. Sponsors only buy advertising because fans see that advertising. Investors invest either for profit, or because they are fans.



Without fans, professional sport is nothing.



Which, in all honesty, is nothing to do with design flaws in the stadium.

Agreed - all I am arguing is that we as supporters have not actually paid anything towards the building of the stadium and whilst it may not be to yours or DD or some of the others on here liking you actually havent actually put any of the money up so have little recouse if it doesnt fit your utopian dream. And from where I sit its a damn site better than we have ever had and I am yet to get wet (I sit in the North Stand Block C).

So do I and I've also yet to get wet, however I know people in the West Stand who have got wet (and I'm not talking about people sat/stood at the front where you'd expect to get wet depending on the direction of wind). Where they are stood, it isn't a damn sight better than KR, they didn't get wet at KR when stood under the roof.



However, people are paying customers and are then entitled to make comment, and I wouldn't call it a utopian dream to have a ground where you didn't get wet.

Get out the wrong side of bed today did we sir?

Supporters do have one recouse and those investors, sponsors, sky and shareholders would be less than happy with club management if supporters took the option of not being customers in the following years.



In the end this debated will be solved by simple footfall. If footfall next year stays the same then we can assume that those anti-cladding are correct and it makes little difference to the paying customer.



If footfall falls away then we can assume those pro-cladding were correct and to have the stadium fully fitted for UK weather would have been a wise option.



The only issue is the risk factor, that we have no idea how big or small this is in terms of fans, and we have no idea if it is a negative experience whether fixing it will have an impact as once bitten twice shy.



First impressions are everything and if the extra 4 thousand season ticket holders are those fans who stayed away from KR because the facilities were not up to scratch, but bought at LP based on an assumption about facilities if those expectations are not met then they may not bother again.



In the end it's about opinion and although your opinion is that the finish looks good and the weather in the UK does not require cladding then that's fair enough, but the counter is also valid as each person will have a different experience based on their own expectations and experiences.

Bump in the hope Mcmanus reads RL Fans

??????