Councillor Brady has just been interviewed on the Burnsy show, he was positively gushing about City and what promotion meant to the city, about Assem and his investment in the club and how keen he was to facilitate the development of the KC/KCOM.
Some quotes re the stadium... On talks with the potential new owners - "There's been tenative enquiries but it is of a confidential nature". "I think it's ideal for hotels, restaurants etc.We want to see investment in that area" Burnsy "would you sell stadium?" Brady "the public have the right to finally decide on the stadium".
Surely this brings us back full circle (pardon the pun), with the council now seemingly willing to sell the stadium. Austerity biting perhaps........ Wouldn't it be ironic if the council sell the stadium after the Allams **** off, what they wanted to start with.........
The last answer is Brady sitting on the fence, I know it was built as a 'community stadium' from the proceeds of the KC shares but so was a lot of other things and the public didn't get to decide how they ended up. Double glazed units for council houses which were later demolished. A factory to make those double glazed units. To name just two lost causes.
One side willing to talk. One sadly not. If I were in a potential takeover position these comments would very much entice me.
As I remember it they said the Allams never made an offer for the stadium, but if they did then it would have to be voted on so no change really. The rumour was that the Allams wanted it for nothing as the Councils contribution to the development
My guess is the new owners are not all that bothered about owning the freehold. They would be more interested in the public money the redevelopment would get from a public/private partnership. The same offer was on the table when we meet with Brady and Alan Johnson before the FA decided on the original name change application.
Point 1 - I totally agree. The electorate vote on people to make big decisions, that's precisely why we have elections. A referendum is a cowardly way out. Point 2 - there wasnt a single house demolished soon after that had the refurbishments from the KC money. FACT. There was one single flat above a shop that had the improvements and was demolished, and that was cos the shop was demolished. At the time everyone in Hull seemed to think within a year of the refurbs loads of houses had been knocked down, it really is amazing the way these made up fantasies become FACT in some people's eyes. That's not a criticism of you btw, that story really is common perception in Hull, but it doesnt mean its true..
I was thinking more of Ings Road and OPE estates were relatively new houses ( and blocks of flats) with recently installed double glazing and new roofs were bulldozed. I don't know of any other area's but I saw those two with my own eyes.
When are you talking though? It was a rumour around the city within a year of the improvements being made. I'm not doubting some were knocked down 10 years later.
I'm not that interested one way or another but my point was, and still is, from the millions of pounds generated from the KC shares windfall the money spent on building the KC Stadium was loose change in comparison to the overall figure. Yet it seems that it is the future of the stadium that creates so much anxiety for the council in that they cannot make a decision themselves on its future. What happened to the rest of the KC windfall money and the projects the windfall funded ? I don't recall the council going to a public referendum to decide on where to spend what and for what price they should sell. They just went ahead and did it. Personally 'dI like to see the KC Stadium sold to whoever wants to develop it and the surrounding land for the good of club and community. Of course rehousing the rugby club would be down to whoever took the project on but to simply do nothing and sit on the fence when real decisions need making ( if it ever comes to that) isn't leadership. Its ducking the issue for an easy life and no-one makes any progress.
Some blocks of flats had double glazing installed and were then demolished. HCC had a commitment to improving the buildings, but the funding changed and it would have cost too much to do all of the blocks before the deadline for John Prescotts Decent Homes Standard in 2015. Hull had a surplus of social housing stock and it makes sense to move people from flats that are expensive to refurbish into houses. Knocking down 1960's tower blocks after fifty years is a popular move with lots of councils.
It might be a popular move with lots of councils but it isn't so popular with the thousands of people on the housing waiting list.
Apart from the things he said connected with Hull City, which as said above certainly was encouraging, I thought it was interesting that funding for HCC was 30% of the budget from council tax, whereas East Riding was 70% of their funding was from council tax. Therefore HCC get 70% of their revenue from Government funding, which makes them more vulnerable to government cuts.
Thats the problem with the HCC small borders! I don't know the ins & outs of council workings but if East Riding people use the cities facilities then they should contribute to the council budget! Or is that too simple?
