Quote ="Kosh"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.
'"
