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.

I was being conservative.

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

Ok, sorry my mistake.

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.

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

???

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

"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.

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.

don't know if theres any truth in it but gledhills just texted me thats its in paper that we're in advanced talks to groundshare at dewsbury, whilst odsal is re-developed as city arent keen on us coming to vp. would involve temporary stands at dewsbury and a capacity of 12000.

Seems strange to be negotiating this at this before odsal development is more definite.

i take it as a good sign. that the club are confident that plans will go ahead and are making sure that they have some where to play while the work is done

in that sense I agree but seems strange that they've given up hope on making a deal to go to valley parade at such an early stage unless the experience last time means they arent seriously considering it. would have thought a temporary move to dewsbury would have a pretty big affect on our attendances tbh

If the capacity of Dewsbury can be increased to around 10-11k then I would much prefer to go there. Not sure what the pitch quality is like for having a game each week (having only been for pre season friendlies in the middle of winter!!).

But it's an interesting option and not one I had considered before reading Hood's comment's on Sun.

[iIf [/iits true it might just be a case of having another alternative lined up so we wont be hamstrung in any neogotiations with city by us [ihaving [/ito go to VP. If we're looking out of the city there are not too many alternative are there? Halifax, Galpharm, dewsbury are the only ones really and Dewsbury might be as good as anywhere out of the city.

[iIf [/iwe move out whilst OSV is done then I reckon it'll end up being VP.

problem with halifax and galpharm are they are both shared with a soccer team so doubt pitches would stand a third team playing on them. would park avenue be an option? dewsbury capacity at present is 3.5k whilst park avenue is 5k so would need less in the way of temporary stands and would be closer for our supporters instead of us effectively playing an away match every week. whilst the main support base would travel we'd probably lose a couple of thousand of the less diehard supporters who wouldnt be able to justify the extra travel costs.
suspect its like you say and we're just lining up a backup option in case we cant agree a reasonable deal for VP in same way as city are using possibility of ground share in their negotiations with VPs owner.

Yep, all that - and I agree out the overuse of pitches at Halifax and Hud. And I reckon we'd lose more than a few thousand moving out of the city full stop. Park avenue would be an interesting angle but Im sure it would be VP if anywhere is needed.

with £75M its a shame we cant incorparate a"community" type multi use pitch on the new site prior to the main build - a simple pitch with athletic track with tempory stands that we could occupy for the duration of the main build and then remove the stands and the pitch becomes an athetic/sports pitch for commuity use after the main stadium build is finished and we move back in.... wishful thinking of the highest order I know, but then we are on a thread where we all hope £75M is going to be spent at Odsal...

Quote ="Duckman" Park avenue would be an interesting angle but Im sure it would be VP if anywhere is needed. '" www.bpafc.com/content/pages/horsfall-stadium.asp They are talking about putting temporary stands up at Dewsbury. If you're going to have temp stands then why not closer to home? It's got space and it's a damn site closer!

Quote ="Duckman" Park avenue would be an interesting angle but Im sure it would be VP if anywhere is needed. '" www.bpafc.com/content/pages/horsfall-stadium.asp They are talking about putting temporary stands up at Dewsbury. If you're going to have temp stands then why not closer to home? It's got space and it's a damn site closer!

Exactly, I think thats what mat was getting at, wouldn't see quite the drop off in attendance either that leaving the city would cause.

those were my thoughts although thinking about it maybe theres some bad blood between bulls and park avenue after they pulled out of OSV scheme at a critical stage.

Well if there is bad blood then it's a stupid situation to be in.
PA could give us a temporary home very close by and could boost their income considerably.
It could be the start to a mutually beneficial relationship.

Think Caisley's "couldn't afford to open the gates" comment didn't go down too well ...... anyway you've only just got over wanting to build houses all over the place to fund your stadium and screw all those NIMBY's and Park Ave people who objected.

Ironic ...

I doubt that history (and CC IS history) would have any bearing on commercial decisions taken now or in the future. I really can`t see Mr Gibb, the owner of VP, turning down an extra tenant, even a short term one, or Dewsbury RLFC, Halifax or the Galpharm so why would Avenue?. That is if Avenue would actually have a yay or nay since, although I have no knowledge of Avenue`s tenancy agreement so far as I know, Horsfall is still fully owned by the council.

bit of selective memory there. park avenue didnt object they were part of the OSV and were going to leave horsfall and move into odsal until they withdrew and decided to go it alone at thornbury. Think they were under delusion that we were going to throw our lot in with them and become their tenants. Strange how theres not been any progress on their scheme

If that's true, then that makes £160million if it requires 4 million tonnes. And that's just tax.

Quote ="Wellsy13"If that's true, then that makes £160million if it requires 4 million tonnes. And that's just tax.'" That is true. www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/ac ... 1074404201 Bulls wont have to pay that because they aren't sending anything to landfill (licenced tip); it might be a great opportunity for any large contractor with millions of tonnes to dispose of though, a real competitive advantage in any tender. Which is my point. I know a couple of people involved in the feasibility so will be sounding them out on the QT. A thought had crossed my mind that the council could use it as a tip (not for the first time they would have considered it), cap it over & put the new pitch on top. Only problem there is timing. But it would save/earn a fortune.

Quote ="Wellsy13"If that's true, then that makes £160million if it requires 4 million tonnes. And that's just tax.'" That is true. www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/ac ... 1074404201 Bulls wont have to pay that because they aren't sending anything to landfill (licenced tip); it might be a great opportunity for any large contractor with millions of tonnes to dispose of though, a real competitive advantage in any tender. Which is my point. I know a couple of people involved in the feasibility so will be sounding them out on the QT. A thought had crossed my mind that the council could use it as a tip (not for the first time they would have considered it), cap it over & put the new pitch on top. Only problem there is timing. But it would save/earn a fortune.

No posts since 14th June? All gone quiet again or is it progressing on?