Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:12 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote: Answered within a short time of the last time you posted it cloth head. I'll not bore everyone by posting the same answer to the same response. On the contrary, noodle brain, you didn't acknowledge the fact that there were five expert council representatives at that meeting, not just "one individual" who made a unilateral decision. Sorry, I am going to bore everyone by repeating your evasive drivel. Here's what you said (I'll do it small so it takes up less valuable space): My Uncle Harry wrote: Nothing contrary at all, the party and Council leaders published views are contrary to the recent opinion of the one person. According to others, the matters aren't quite as published. If the land offered is an example of the attitude, it was land that was discounted for the stadium as it wouldn't get planning permission. Some offer there eh? Yet it's offered in support of the Council's attitude. Both parties are guilty of washing their smalls on public, but responding to press questions is hardly "droning on". The same could be said of the Councillor, whose statement seems to be a transcript of his previous radio interview, that was followed by Adam Pearson who in his diplomatic style, gave a different account which pointed to elements of the statement that differed from his understanding. A few on here seem to have made their minds up that it's simply Council good, allam's bad. If only life was so simple. Not one mention of Councillor Bayes or the other specialists. In fact, no acknowledgement of the size of the meeting, the length of time it took, the fact that Allam declined to share his pretty artist's impression, the fact that Allam had no proposals to discuss.... I'll ask again, simply: Do you admit that there was more than "one individual" representing the council at the meeting at the end of which Mr Allam - not the council - declared "That is my final word on the subject. As far as I am concerned the matter is now closed."

My Uncle Harry wrote: Answered within a short time of the last time you posted it cloth head. I'll not bore everyone by posting the same answer to the same response. On the contrary, noodle brain, you didn't acknowledge the fact that there were five expert council representatives at that meeting, not just "one individual" who made a unilateral decision. Sorry, I am going to bore everyone by repeating your evasive drivel. Here's what you said (I'll do it small so it takes up less valuable space): My Uncle Harry wrote: Nothing contrary at all, the party and Council leaders published views are contrary to the recent opinion of the one person. According to others, the matters aren't quite as published. If the land offered is an example of the attitude, it was land that was discounted for the stadium as it wouldn't get planning permission. Some offer there eh? Yet it's offered in support of the Council's attitude. Both parties are guilty of washing their smalls on public, but responding to press questions is hardly "droning on". The same could be said of the Councillor, whose statement seems to be a transcript of his previous radio interview, that was followed by Adam Pearson who in his diplomatic style, gave a different account which pointed to elements of the statement that differed from his understanding. A few on here seem to have made their minds up that it's simply Council good, allam's bad. If only life was so simple. Not one mention of Councillor Bayes or the other specialists. In fact, no acknowledgement of the size of the meeting, the length of time it took, the fact that Allam declined to share his pretty artist's impression, the fact that Allam had no proposals to discuss.... I'll ask again, simply: Do you admit that there was more than "one individual" representing the council at the meeting at the end of which Mr Allam - not the council - declared "That is my final word on the subject. As far as I am concerned the matter is now closed."

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:16 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

If only it was that simple.

Out of interest, did the Council offer Costello or did Cllr Geraghty do it? What's the value of the Costello site?

It's not complicated, is it? You said the insurmountable stumbling block for Costello was that consent wasn't granted over a decade ago to house 2 or even 3 professional clubs due to associated traffic congestion. It's pretty obvious that an alternative site for a sporting village (not including a stadium for professional clubs) would be an entirely different proposition from a planning consent perspective, and the council would know this before tabling the proposal. As WorminHand has said, more than once, Cllr Geraghty was NOT the lone council representative in the last meeting.

I don't know the value of the Costello site. I would imagine it would be less than the land round the KC, but valuations depend on consent granted. A1 food consent (eg for supermarkets, which it has recently emerged is part of the £3,000 plans we've not yet seen) significantly increases value of land.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:20 pm  

WormInHand wrote: On the contrary, noodle brain, you didn't acknowledge the fact that there were five expert council representatives at that meeting, not just "one individual" who made a unilateral decision. Sorry, I am going to bore everyone by repeating your evasive drivel. Here's what you said (I'll do it small so it takes up less valuable space): Not one mention of Councillor Bayes or the other specialists. In fact, no acknowledgement of the size of the meeting, the length of time it took, the fact that Allam declined to share his pretty artist's impression, the fact that Allam had no proposals to discuss.... I'll ask again, simply: Do you admit that there was more than "one individual" representing the council at the meeting at the end of which Mr Allam - not the council - declared that that was "That is my final word on the subject. As far as I am concerned the matter is now closed." You post as if that's news or makes a difference. Oh well, previous answer, repeated yet again. "Nothing contrary at all, the party and Council leaders published views are contrary to the recent opinion of the one person. " Mr Allam's reaction was in response to the way he was treat.

WormInHand wrote: On the contrary, noodle brain, you didn't acknowledge the fact that there were five expert council representatives at that meeting, not just "one individual" who made a unilateral decision. Sorry, I am going to bore everyone by repeating your evasive drivel. Here's what you said (I'll do it small so it takes up less valuable space): Not one mention of Councillor Bayes or the other specialists. In fact, no acknowledgement of the size of the meeting, the length of time it took, the fact that Allam declined to share his pretty artist's impression, the fact that Allam had no proposals to discuss.... I'll ask again, simply: Do you admit that there was more than "one individual" representing the council at the meeting at the end of which Mr Allam - not the council - declared that that was "That is my final word on the subject. As far as I am concerned the matter is now closed." You post as if that's news or makes a difference. Oh well, previous answer, repeated yet again. "Nothing contrary at all, the party and Council leaders published views are contrary to the recent opinion of the one person. " Mr Allam's reaction was in response to the way he was treat.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:23 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

It's not complicated, is it? You said the insurmountable stumbling block for Costello was that consent wasn't granted over a decade ago to house 2 or even 3 professional clubs due to associated traffic congestion. It's pretty obvious that an alternative site for a sporting village (not including a stadium for professional clubs) would be an entirely different proposition from a planning consent perspective, and the council would know this before tabling the proposal. As WorminHand has said, more than once, Cllr Geraghty was NOT the lone council representative in the last meeting.

I don't know the value of the Costello site. I would imagine it would be less than the land round the KC, but valuations depend on consent granted. A1 food consent (eg for supermarkets, which it has recently emerged is part of the £3,000 plans we've not yet seen) significantly increases value of land.

So the so called unseen plans provide enough information to predict the impact of the development on Costello? It's acceptable to gift the Costello land, but not the KC stadium?

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:36 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

So the so called unseen plans provide enough information to predict the impact of the development on Costello? It's acceptable to gift the Costello land, but not the KC stadium?

There's an important difference here you seem to be missing. The council offered that Costello could be a site for the Sporting Village "gift". They were less keen on gifting the land for the supermarket/restaurant/boutique development. I'm not sure what your point is on the impact of the squash courts/ice rink on Costello.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:44 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

There's an important difference here you seem to be missing. The council offered that Costello could be a site for the Sporting Village "gift". They were less keen on gifting the land for the supermarket/restaurant/boutique development. I'm not sure what your point is on the impact of the squash courts/ice rink on Costello.

According to Allam, and to some degree confirmed by Cllr Geraghty's interview, the so called boutique version was never really a serious proposition. Some of the sports developments, such as the ice rink, appeared to be obstructions, so consideration was given to their removal. It would seem this was latched on as an offer, rather than a suggestion. It's just another red herring.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:50 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

According to Allam, and to some degree confirmed by Cllr Geraghty's interview, the so called boutique version was never really a serious proposition. Some of the sports developments, such as the ice rink, appeared to be obstructions, so consideration was given to their removal. It would seem this was latched on as an offer, rather than a suggestion. It's just another red herring.

Allam talked about "wives going the to the supermarket" on the development, didn't he?

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:00 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Allam talked about "wives going the to the supermarket" on the development, didn't he?

Yes, but that doesn't preclude anything else from being in the development.

Some people have got far too hung up on some of the words and latch on like limpets to the soundbites.

It's possible the whole thing would have come to nothing at some point, but I'll say again, for me the issue is the way it's been handled.

We need money to redevelop that area. I've yet to see the councils plans, but those rusty street lights at the park entrance hardly fill me with the belief that they have a grand plan. Having one offered should have lead to more investigation of the options, not some shabby half truths on a two bob radio show and local rag.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:02 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

You post as if that's news or makes a difference. Oh well, previous answer, repeated yet again.

"Nothing contrary at all, the party and Council leaders published views are contrary to the recent opinion of the one person. "

Mr Allam's reaction was in response to the way he was treat.

Ok. Let's put it another way.

Please illustrate - with evidence - why you believe that Councillor Geraghty has single-handedly blocked further discussions to the development and has acted independently of the rest of the council. You may want to consider what has happened to Facebook-using teachers recently though, when forming your reply.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:03 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

According to Allam, and to some degree confirmed by Cllr Geraghty's interview, the so called boutique version was never really a serious proposition. Some of the sports developments, such as the ice rink, appeared to be obstructions, so consideration was given to their removal. It would seem this was latched on as an offer, rather than a suggestion. It's just another red herring.

It became "boutiques" and "shops" after Messr Allam was duly told that KuH is not actually bereft of swimming pools and an icerink.

ATEOTD, Allam wanted Hull City Council to relenquish a 40 million pound assett that belongs to the occupats of Hull for 305k so he could borrow against it to build f***in shops!!!