[Kosh]

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:06 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

FFS, talk about being a stuck record. No wonder the kids are getting bored.

I refer you back to the other replies that point out you're looking at it back to front.

I've seen you claiming that. The available evidence doesn't support your version of events. You've invented a scenario that simply doesn't exist. I'm trying to decide whether that's down to stupidity or deliberate obtuseness. Either way you're essentially a waste of bandwidth.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:06 am  

Kosh wrote:

I've seen you claiming that. The available evidence doesn't support your version of events. You've invented a scenario that simply doesn't exist. I'm trying to decide whether that's down to stupidity or deliberate obtuseness. Either way you're essentially a waste of bandwidth.

There's nothing in the replies I've posted that's contradicted by any of the excited chatter and childish abuse that's come back as 'responses'.

The Council (that's us) need to find money to revamp the area around west park. It depends on what's done, but it's liable to cost us £10's of millions at least.

A concept is offered for discussion that has the potential to generate money for a £150 million + development that could also encourage other investment.

The Council were wanted on board with the project, one option for this was to include the KC stadium as their contribution and that value could well be greater than the asset was liable to realise on the open market.

So, so far we have a potential liability that could become an asset, both financially and in respect of our public image.

The (now) leader of the Council previously suggested that he'd welcome full discussions and possibly even offer it to a referendum.

A meeting recently took place with Councillors and some Officers. At such an early stage the discussion can only be about concepts and agreements in principal. From the comments at interview of one person at the meeting, it seems some expected more meat on the bone.

Some of the perceptions of that individual have been shown to be wrong, such as Hull FC being kicked out in 15 months. The manner he came across on the radio didn't come across as someone being constructive, but more as someon looking for obstacles.

Some people have latched on to the soundbites of this interview and ignored the comments of others involved.

People seem attached to the thought that it would be donating cash to a business man, and even over inflate the value of the Stadium. The same people seem happy for that to happen if it's a different piece of land that was 'offered' even though that land would be of significant value. This land is also seen as suitable for the scheme, even though another big argument is that we don't know what the scheme is as nobody's seen the plans! So the will for the concept seems to be there in principal.


I keep saying the proposal may well turn out to be unworkable in any form, but shouldn't have been dismissed until every avenue has been fully explored.

There's no doubt that both parties played their part in the breakdown, but as we're the ones that need the money, it's our duty to do everything practically possible to make the talks happen. There's a clear clash of personality and understanding involving one person that was involved in the last talks and they should step back from further talks.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:13 am  

Personally I would rather the Council own the KC and at least if anything ever happened to either club we have a roof over our heads. Plus, if these are the facts, why would the council give the KC away to a prospective developer for them to mortgage and make money for themselves? Where is the gain for the council in that?

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:28 am  

Pal of Mine wrote:

Personally I would rather the Council own the KC and at least if anything ever happened to either club we have a roof over our heads. Plus, if these are the facts, why would the council give the KC away to a prospective developer for them to mortgage and make money for themselves? Where is the gain for the council in that?

A gift without caveats could still be a gain for the Council in a number of ways, for example we'd gain the money saved from not having to develop the area ourselves.

If that turns out to be the final position of Mr Alam then yes, the Council should walk away, but not before every avenue's explored.

If, as most business men do, Mr Alam's not planning to use his own money, but generate other investment, the Council could even tease out as much detail as possible and look to do it themselves.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:04 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote: The Council (that's us) need to find money to revamp the area around west park. It depends on what's done, but it's liable to cost us £10's of millions at least. Since when has this been of paramount importance to the city of Hull? Hull needs investment, but not specifically to the area around the KC. The Victorian park does not need development, nor does the fairground and semiweekly market ground and car park - save for a bit of tarting up to the latter's surface. Why lose these already functional areas at the expense or others in more need of investment? If fact, as a Hull resident I would be extremely indignant at the pointless sacrifice of either if these facilities. The whole thing smacks carving out the cheekbone of an already pretty face in order to extract a tooth. There could be an argument for development of the land east of the stadium - around the area between the two railway lines and the stadium - but in the scheme of things, this is low down on the list of urgent priorities. My Uncle Harry wrote: The (now) leader of the Council previously suggested that he'd welcome full discussions and possibly even offer it to a referendum. And has ordered several meetings to hear the plans, which were unfortunately not forthcoming, therefore offering him no criteria on which to hold a referendum. My Uncle Harry wrote: A meeting recently took place with Councillors and some Officers. At such an early stage the discussion can only be about concepts and agreements in principal. From the comments at interview of one person at the meeting, it seems some expected more meat on the bone. Some of the perceptions of that individual have been shown to be wrong, such as Hull FC being kicked out in 15 months. The manner he came across on the radio didn't come across as someone being constructive, but more as someon looking for obstacles. You're doing it again - labelling Mr Geraghty as the sole concluder of events at that meeting, instead of the spokesperson of the group. Cllr Geraghty described on air and in the paper why the consensus decision of that meeting concluded that the council could not offer the stadium freehold to Mr Allam based on the information he supplied. He stated the council remained open to further discussion once Mr Allam was in a position to describe more fully his intentions. My Uncle Harry wrote: People seem attached to the thought that it would be donating cash to a business man, and even over inflate the value of the Stadium. The same people seem happy for that to happen if it's a different piece of land that was 'offered' even though that land would be of significant value. This land is also seen as suitable for the scheme, even though another big argument is that we don't know what the scheme is as nobody's seen the plans! So the will for the concept seems to be there in principal. That's because it would be. It's funny, isn't it, that when Pearson and the SMC were in discussion to bring the leisure complex and casino to the site a few years back, it did not involve the need to give the stadium to the Casino owner. Any other location for the devlopment is not palatable to Mr Allam, as it does not include the stadium's freehold. My Uncle Harry wrote: There's no doubt that both parties played their part in the breakdown, but as we're the ones that need the money, it's our duty to do everything practically possible to make the talks happen. There's a clear clash of personality and understanding involving one person that was involved in the last talks and they should step back from further talks. There is absolutely no evidence at all that the council were responsible in any way for the breakdown. It is Allam who has spat his dummy and made his last word on the subject and the council that are happy to reconvene if he comes up with anything new. And, as pointed out above - we don't need the money for that particular area. Please stop alluding to your fantasy of Clr Geraghty being an Allam sceptic here, and, in fact, the only one. I know for a fact that other councillors not present at the meeting could not believe the weakness of the "proposals" submitted by Allam. Your persecution of Cllr Geraghty's character is erring on the side of not being very cautious at all.

My Uncle Harry wrote: The Council (that's us) need to find money to revamp the area around west park. It depends on what's done, but it's liable to cost us £10's of millions at least. Since when has this been of paramount importance to the city of Hull? Hull needs investment, but not specifically to the area around the KC. The Victorian park does not need development, nor does the fairground and semiweekly market ground and car park - save for a bit of tarting up to the latter's surface. Why lose these already functional areas at the expense or others in more need of investment? If fact, as a Hull resident I would be extremely indignant at the pointless sacrifice of either if these facilities. The whole thing smacks carving out the cheekbone of an already pretty face in order to extract a tooth. There could be an argument for development of the land east of the stadium - around the area between the two railway lines and the stadium - but in the scheme of things, this is low down on the list of urgent priorities. My Uncle Harry wrote: The (now) leader of the Council previously suggested that he'd welcome full discussions and possibly even offer it to a referendum. And has ordered several meetings to hear the plans, which were unfortunately not forthcoming, therefore offering him no criteria on which to hold a referendum. My Uncle Harry wrote: A meeting recently took place with Councillors and some Officers. At such an early stage the discussion can only be about concepts and agreements in principal. From the comments at interview of one person at the meeting, it seems some expected more meat on the bone. Some of the perceptions of that individual have been shown to be wrong, such as Hull FC being kicked out in 15 months. The manner he came across on the radio didn't come across as someone being constructive, but more as someon looking for obstacles. You're doing it again - labelling Mr Geraghty as the sole concluder of events at that meeting, instead of the spokesperson of the group. Cllr Geraghty described on air and in the paper why the consensus decision of that meeting concluded that the council could not offer the stadium freehold to Mr Allam based on the information he supplied. He stated the council remained open to further discussion once Mr Allam was in a position to describe more fully his intentions. My Uncle Harry wrote: People seem attached to the thought that it would be donating cash to a business man, and even over inflate the value of the Stadium. The same people seem happy for that to happen if it's a different piece of land that was 'offered' even though that land would be of significant value. This land is also seen as suitable for the scheme, even though another big argument is that we don't know what the scheme is as nobody's seen the plans! So the will for the concept seems to be there in principal. That's because it would be. It's funny, isn't it, that when Pearson and the SMC were in discussion to bring the leisure complex and casino to the site a few years back, it did not involve the need to give the stadium to the Casino owner. Any other location for the devlopment is not palatable to Mr Allam, as it does not include the stadium's freehold. My Uncle Harry wrote: There's no doubt that both parties played their part in the breakdown, but as we're the ones that need the money, it's our duty to do everything practically possible to make the talks happen. There's a clear clash of personality and understanding involving one person that was involved in the last talks and they should step back from further talks. There is absolutely no evidence at all that the council were responsible in any way for the breakdown. It is Allam who has spat his dummy and made his last word on the subject and the council that are happy to reconvene if he comes up with anything new. And, as pointed out above - we don't need the money for that particular area. Please stop alluding to your fantasy of Clr Geraghty being an Allam sceptic here, and, in fact, the only one. I know for a fact that other councillors not present at the meeting could not believe the weakness of the "proposals" submitted by Allam. Your persecution of Cllr Geraghty's character is erring on the side of not being very cautious at all.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:48 am  

And he's off again! Strangely i tried leaving a comment and it wouldnt let me.

And he's off again! Strangely i tried leaving a comment and it wouldnt let me.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:56 am  

But he said he wouldn't comment about it again? How long before he falls out with HDM too?

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:15 am  

Good to see he's remaining impartial and not supporting 1 of the rugby clubs whilst ignoring the other

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:41 am  

Pal of Mine wrote:

But he said he wouldn't comment about it again? How long before he falls out with HDM too?

"It" being the KC development, not the East Hull one. But fancy him answering questions put to him by the local press about the opposing version of events.
Surprising choice of mediator, but fair play to John Prescott for taking the initiative and trying to keep this deal on track. Maybe he can use his party influence to sweep the teddies out of the way and get discussions on the other scheme moving again.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:44 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

Good to see he's remaining impartial and not supporting 1 of the rugby clubs whilst ignoring the other

Yeah, the community development will benefit HKR and the area, why isn't one proposed for west Hull?