Actually, Easty is right for once.

He's not smart.

You'll get no complaints from me

It depends how you define profit. You could be making a net loss if your takings after cost of goods, commissions, utilities, maintenance, stewarding, H&S etc are less than the loan repayments. Mike Smith said he wanted it in use 365 days a year, I think. Gold mine if that's the case.

Off track on your pathetic swipe as usual. Where talking about Craven Park and the definition of Rovers taking 100% of the money earned from Craven park.

It's only going to end with you twisting things from one angle to another to get as many digs in about Rovers in as short a space as you can so we'll end it here, You knew what I meant from the off when I stated that Rovers take 100% of anything made at our Stadium and choose to twist it!

Now if someone could just return Easty's dummy, probably to be found somewhere near Goole by the sound of the orbit it must have taken!!

me that's a bit rich.

Wow. You were making it sound like a license to print money, just pointing out some weaknesses in that.

It doesn't sound like a great deal for the Hull taxpayer. Council pays for/borrows £6m. Rovers pay back £2m over 30 odd years but keep all commercial revenue in the meantime. Hmm...

Wait until everyone finds out what's happening at the other end of caravan park and where the cash is coming from............

Shrine to Mr Allam paid for by himself?

Yep , if 6 million grates you ......

As F90 demonstrated, if you want to provoke a response then 'wrong' is a powerful tool. So I suspect this is 'just a planned' from your POV. However...
The European Regional Development Fund money came as a grant, didn't it? Don't you just love passive aggressive rhetorical questions?
Now I know you'd have preferred that money to go to the Bratwurst Museum or that food bank in St Tropez, but really it is better for the people of Hull this way.
And seriously, you want Rovers to pay the mortgage [iand[/i give up commercial revenue?

WHO CARES!!!!!!!

Agree... I guess you need to look at what are the most important stats for supporters.

Who owns what or who won what... 3 decades and waiting?

Anybody that's continues to read & post on this thread I'd guess.

I answered the question to the question on the first page. They dont own their ground. Simples

1) The stand cost £8m, the grant was £2m, the borrowing by the council was therefore £6m.
2) If the Council-esque bodies occupying the stand other than Rovers are paying 2/3 of the repayments, why shouldn't they get a share of the net income generated? I'm sure there's a good reason for this apparent poor value. How is it "better for the people of Hull" that Rovers as a minority stakeholder keep "100% of the profits", as per Easty?

What they are building squash courts at the Rotterdam end?.

Camel stables?

Probably some cells so the players families can watch the game

There isnt that much room in Rotterdam

talk about jealousy of your big neighbours, neither one of us owns our own ground, big deal. the new seasons about to start and all your worried about is Rovers

1. Okay. But I don't know that the council borrowed a penny though - funding these projects through borrowing would seem inefficient for an organisation that large.
The enterprise hub will have to be judged on its own merits, but with the cuts in public spending, trying support a re-alignment of the local economy seems a sensible intention, at least.
It's good of the council to underwrite our loan. They could have labelled it a community facility and given us a bizarro tenancy agreement, akin to yours. This is better in some ways and worse in others, but simpler at least. And as it is no cash up front for that part of it, that's good for the council. Clawing back investment on a community facility is unlikely. If we go bust, it's a white elephant. Whereas the KC becomes more commercially sustainable if Hull FC go pop*. So that is one difference.
2. Rovers only get 100% of the revenue from the minority stake they hold. The value to the council of facilitating the process is 'community', rather than 'commercial'. The appropriateness of helping out local sports clubs is open to debate, but we're not the first and we won't be the last. Depends whether they're seen mainly as commercial entities or civic institutions. They're a little of each IMO.

* Pearson is down on accountancy practice at the SMC, I noticed in Wilf's diary. Bad accountants!

Being serious - it's good for the city and the sport that we have these facilities.

Currently doing some work, which broadly relates to tying up 500k in additional stock. Affecting cash flow and effectively tying up that cash is equivalalent to £50k per annum, I am told by our beanies. So I imagine it is not inefficient to borrow or that the council should not expect to at least cover the loan costs.

Oh please. Rovers fan Phil Webster said in the press "The council is using a facility available called prudential borrowing, (that means using the asset against the borrow)". FYI, prudential loans aren't interest free. Re-alignment of the local economy? I don't even know what that means.

Your point 2 doesn't really address the point I made which is this. Council and council-lite related party training organisations are paying their way here (funded by the public purse). Rovers are a minority stakeholder financially, yet Easty says you're creaming off all commercial benefits. Seems a bit unbalanced in the current austere environment. Any facility can be badged as better than nothing. Does that make it a worthy priority, and a fair commercial return for the majority stakeholder? Not really.