: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:21 pm  

BM wrote:

£15m over budget - is that all ?? It'll be £88.7m unless they avoid VAT ( @ 17.5% ) plus they've admitted this is all "based on a non-complex construction" and not tested in the construction industry.

I think if it only cost £15m more it'd be a remarkable achievement !!

15%

: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:29 pm  

DILLIGAF wrote:

Since Keighley is just part of Bradford anyway, why don't the Cougars use one of the lesser pitches at the side of Odsal?

Because we'll have all died by the time it's built.

: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:30 pm  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

15%

Think you'll find they've accounted for 17.5% in the report due to the possibility of VAT being raised once the worst of the current meltdown is over.

: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:31 pm  

BM wrote:

£15m over budget - is that all ?? It'll be £88.7m unless they avoid VAT ( @ 17.5% ) plus they've admitted this is all "based on a non-complex construction" and not tested in the construction industry.

I think if it only cost £15m more it'd be a remarkable achievement !!

I was being conservative.

With a small "c" I hasten to add, I'm not ready for the Bullingdon club quite yet.

: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:37 pm  

BM wrote:

Think you'll find they've accounted for 17.5% in the report due to the possibility of VAT being raised once the worst of the current meltdown is over.

Ok, sorry my mistake.

: Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:06 pm  

BM wrote:

£15m over budget - is that all ?? It'll be £88.7m unless they avoid VAT ( @ 17.5% ) plus they've admitted this is all "based on a non-complex construction" and not tested in the construction industry.

I think if it only cost £15m more it'd be a remarkable achievement !!

I think the authors have been told to present the study with the usual disclaimers, as the council (& authors) know it is impossible to robustly test the proposals & costs, then construct, in the time available. The authors virtually say that, but obviously it would be commercial suicide on their part to come clean. Instead they recommend they are re-appointed (possibly in contravention of procurement guidelines) themselves to proceed asap.

: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:03 pm  

Not sure about the full rate of VAT being applied to the development costs. Depends on who owns the property and buildings and who is going to rent/lease them.
In any case there is a proviso for 80% reclaim of Vat expenditure under relevant conditions that might apply in VAT 708 section 24.7.2/3

: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:28 pm  

BM wrote:

Think you'll find they've accounted for 17.5% in the report due to the possibility of VAT being raised once the worst of the current meltdown is over.

???

VAT goes back to 17.5% 1/1/10, after this temporary reduction expires. Think a lot of people might have forgotten that?

: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:42 pm  

bobsmyuncle wrote:

Not sure about the full rate of VAT being applied to the development costs. Depends on who owns the property and buildings and who is going to rent/lease them.
In any case there is a proviso for 80% reclaim of Vat expenditure under relevant conditions that might apply in VAT 708 section 24.7.2/3

"might apply" - exactly. They're not sure what they can or can't reclaim as it stands. I'm no expert on the Council's VAT shelter.

: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:44 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

???

VAT goes back to 17.5% 1/1/10, after this temporary reduction expires. Think a lot of people might have forgotten that?

Spot on Adey, never mind forgotten, I didn't realise in the first place. The 17.5% to 15% never really registered in the first place to me.