mainly cos i couldnt be arsed to retype, i have lifted my post from an answer i made on CI: the way i understand it, the stadium would constitute the council's contribution to a massive urban regeneration scheme. My question to the dinosaurs would be: "Can you show your alternative plans for an area that desparately needs it? They could have the whole area brought into the 21st century for a mere £30 million (ie an assumed stadium value) of tax payers money. Even if the council had that kind of money to invest in urban regeneration they would get nothing like the kind of bang for the buck on offer. In my opinion, if Mr Allam had included some amount of social housing in the proposal, the idiots from Orchard Park, Bilton Grange and Longhill who run the council would have bought it. I am sure that in his worldwide dealings over the years, Mr Allam will have dealt with bigger idiots and corrupt buyers. I cant believe he didn't feel he had to box clever to get what he, and the community needs.
Just sent this to Geraghty: Mr Geraghty I am still awaiting your comments and Iâm also aware of others who have not yet received responses to their e-mails. Iâm sure you have no intention of ignoring those who elected you to represent them, so please would you answer our justified concerns asap. I also copied Mr Brady in ([email protected]) so Geraghty can't just delete it without anyone else knowing.
Now that the dust has settled a little, the deal seems to me to be that :- 1. The Allams want the council to hand over the KC stadium to them. 2. A new company may well be formed 3. The Allams then obtain a loan against the stadium. 4. Allams then build a phase of the sports village. 5. Allams then borrow against the newly built phase 6. Allams then build the next phase etc, etc This above is the way I have perceived the last few weeks events. I havent read or seen any comments from either the Allams or the council as to how much the Allams are personally commiting to the Village. This dosn,t mean that the Allams will not be immuned from a personal buisness risk, just that I,m not aware of any, although the councils risk is documented. On a very basic buisness plan it seems to be, borrow-build, borrow against what we,ve built, then build some more etc, as has been pointed out the councils 30m stake carries an element of risk while the Allams risk factor seems a better bet. It seems the Allams at this moment need the council more then the council need the Allams, as if the buisness plan is based on the above, and the people of Hull want a sports village then why do the council need the Allams as they have the biggest peice of the jigsaw namely the Stadium. As a supporter I really appreciate what the Allams have done to the present day for my football club, which is basically saving it, but untill all the facts are available from both parties then caution should be the order of the day. We all know what happened when a certain Mr Lloyd owned our previous ground, after he spat his dummy out. I am all for a sports village it would be great for the City, but it should be conducted with transparency, with both sides putting their cards on the table.
I don't think it was planned to be done in stages, I'm pretty sure it was planned to all be done at once. Funding would come from re-mortgaging the stadium, additional funds from the Allam's, along with grants from Sport England(for the pool) and I believe there were some other EU grants available and the hotel would be funded against rental income from whatever hotel chain took it on.
The above maybe or maybe not the plan for the village OLM, but at the moment we all have our own theories as to how the deal will work, for instance who will purchase the additional land as obviously the size of the footprint of just the KC is not big enough, are we guaranteed the EU grants/Sport England and if so how much?, how much is the additional funds from the Allams? Is there a valid interest from the big hotel chains? I understand the mechinisms may be in place to make a project happen but its all the numbers that seem to be missing. Plus what returns will the council get back? I,m not against the proposal in fact I support it but as a supporter and a rates payer, it has to be a good deal for both parties
It's all a bit academic seeing as it's not going ahead, but the Allam's wanted the waste land around the KC(basically all the land around it, not including West Park), but the council refused to include the car park area, due the fair. That land is pretty much worthless as it is, the Allam's apparently valued it at £1m and the council accepted that without any planning consent, that was about right. Without outline acceptance of a deal, there will have been no hotel chain approached and only tentative approaches to Sport England etc, they need to have a option on the site to get anyone to confirm anything in detail. As for what the council get our of it, they get to swap a stadium that costs them money every year, for a £120m sports village that will be one of the best sporting facilities in the country. Finally, we would have a flagship project in Hull, hundreds of new jobs and a blight on landscape would have been transformed. Is that not enough?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/sep/30/25-years-merseyside-trailing-manchester Possibly a good idea to send this link to the Councillor and ask if he would like to be Manchester or Liverpool?
The council are apparently going to make an official statement on Monday, as to why the council couldn't agree a deal with the Allam's.
As Maggie once said, "the problem with socialists is that eventually they run out of other people's money".
A message to you, Mr. Geriatric: [video=youtube;jqZ8428GSrI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqZ8428GSrI[/video]
Don't kid yourself. The Tories have always lined their bank accounts with other people's money. The only difference is that they get theirs from the poorest and most vulnerable. Maggie - what a caring soul she was.
She did at least care about her country, which was absolutely ****ed until she stepped in. I appreciate that many don't like what she stood for and I accept that she lost the plot towards the end, but if she hadn't done what she did, we'd be far more ****ed than we are now.
Sure she cared enough to sell off every nationalised industry at bargain basement prices to her buddies in the city. In my opinion any country is defined by the people who inhabit it, so yes she did care about a small part of the country - the wealthiest and most over-privilaged part.
sorry No. 1. Most of the problems in manufacturing, social policy and economic development we face today date back to her economic laissez faire gamble which was based on an unproven unethical lie from a discredited economist, Milton Freedman. Contrary to the popular belief at the time, there were options and she single handedly did more to damage British industry than the Nazi war machine. Her family and a select few Tory party contributors did OK of course, but the UK should never be subjected to her kind again. Most will dance on her grave when she dies!
Afraid I can't. This is the twat's 'legacy' - 323 Argentinian conscripts drowned, so she could get re-elected. [Join the network - run up a flag (any flag) when the bitch pegs out] [video=youtube;PKegAqMyFe0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKegAqMyFe0[/video]
I view it the other way around. Quite a fair proportion of the Conservatives already have a reasonable amount of money, and/or land and do not particularly desire any more. Those in the Labour party are often jealous of their financially-better off breathen, and I do not trust many of them - take a look at Tony Blair and his mansion estate for example - it is ridiculous in the size, value and running costs compared to any other prominent Conservative politician. That said, I appreciate why some of the left-wing types, might get upset with the perceived 'establishment' as some of the 'establishment' are arseholes, especially those less prominent. But also some people of the 'working classes' are arseholes too. Most people of all class, gender, race, etc I find to be excellent people. I am a Conservative myself, but I own nothing, not even a car...I don't care about owning things and having money, I care about having a decent economy, society and communities, and much of my inspiration is from Maggie...so take that as you will...maybe I am confused ;-)
A few will delight in her death, sadly. For me, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did ridiculous amounts of damage to this country and I despise them both. But I would never delight in their death.
Yes you're quite right a lot of Tories have a 'reasonable' amount of money. Many of them got it because their famillies exploited the poor and vulnerable for generations before them. The money stays in the family of course and the power structure they have built over hundreds of years continues to protect their wealth at the expense of everyone else. Where you're ridiculously wrong I'm afraid is when you say Conservatives do not particularly desire any more land or money. Maybe you think someone on this forum is stupid enough to believe that, but I doubt it. The truth is that greed often comes with wealth and the Tories have most of the wealth and in my experience most of the greed.
