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.

Dude, seriously? This going to be patronising, after [ithat[/i 'FYI', I shan't feel guilty.


So, whether you blame Fred Goodwin or Fungi off benefits street, the economy is in the toilet. It is known, Khaleesi. It was on the news and that. The government has made what might be described as fiscally-conservative response. They mainly blame Fungi. So public spending is being cut quite dramatically. All areas of the country have many people working in the public sector. Many relatively deprived, so-called post-industrial areas are particularly reliant on this sector - I'd not be surprised if Hull is among them. When these jobs disappear, it'd be desirable if more people try to emulate James Dyson, than Jim Royle.
I think you're deliberately misrepresenting or misconstruing Easty.


For clarity, we get that revenue, but yes, only from our bit. And again, you're right, it then has to contribute to loan repayments (interest and capital - where's the v-flicking emoticon?). So it's not all gravy, but what Easty said and meant, I think, was accurate. Whether he was right to be so ebullient about it, is as yet unclear.
Value is subjective, when there's a hand-wavy community element to it. The KC has offered no commercial return, but it wasn't really intended to. I assume you think that was a worthy priority?

North ferriby aren't exactly a money making machine there top of the league and struggle to get 200 fans at the ground in the village city reserves pull in bigger crowds there

Ferribys crowds will improve dramatically at the KCLS and will increase again when they reach league 2

What I mean is that when Rovers host a function the profits are Rovers, When we get a sponsor the sponsorship money is Rovers, When we sell a ticket the ticket money is Rovers, When we rename the stadium the money made from those rights is 100% Rovers, When we gain sponsorship for a stand that money is again 100% Rovers. What you do Mrs B is what you always do, You twist and turn things around for your own personal gains to suit whatever agenda your running that week. You've now twistied it to talk about the elements of the build that isn't in anyway connected with the North stand and Hull Kingston Rovers.

Without wishing to state the obvious (again) the council have borrowed money via prudential loans to build a stand that you say you take "100% of the profits" on from a commercial perspective. When added to the peppercorn rent (on the freehold repurchased from Rovers to keep them afloat when in a CVA), and the fact that Rovers are minority stakeholders in this council-funded facility, it would seem from an external perspective, a quite generous arrangement in times of cost-cutting at the council. There's no twisting involved, and all points are entirely relevant to the ownership of the ground, North Stand and Hull KR, which I believe is the topic in hand.

Rovers are paying a mortgage for there part in the project. Would you buy a house for rental purposes lending the money from a bank to then have the bank take a percentage of the rental income whilst you also pay a mortgage on the property to the bank?

As in essence that's what your asking Rovers to do.

I'm not asking Rovers to do anything. I'm saying the facility cost £8m. Reportedly Rovers are paying a mortgage on £2m and taking all commercial revenues. If you think that's equitable, crack on, which I'm sure you will. Takes your mind off the Ben Cockayne no try from last week and posting photos about it - that has to be a good thing in terms of closure.

I'll refer to my comment above.



Rovers are paying dues on our part of the project. It doesn't cost £8m to build 2600 seats, the facilities for the supporters in those seats, 10 corporate boxes and a new restaurant.

Great, you're a QS too.

You don't have to be concerned in the construction costs and contract business to know that Rovers part of the North stand never cost £8m.

If they took out a loan for their bit, instead of paying for it for any reserves they might hold that's a purely council matter. I don't know how local authorities normally fund major capital expenditure. I see no reason to believe this'll have been done in anything other than a normal way.
As far as I understand it Rovers borrowed the money for Rovers bit. The council made that possible by underwriting the loan. Whether they'd have been better to pay for the stand, retain ownership and rent it too us is debatable. This possibly costs them nowt, and if it goes wrong they [umight[/u well be able to switch to that second model. Swings and roundabouts really.
Whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, Hull FC's deal on the KC is... well let's say 'convoluted' - and that breeds suspicion on all sides.
Objectively and from a purely commercial viewpoint, should Hull CC have laid out the cash for the KC or exposed themselves to risk on our North stand? Clearly not, but the council isn't a purely commercial entity and these aren't purely commercial decisions.

Depends Easty, perhaps you used the same QS & construction team that made a mess of the original design of KC Lite?

Not sure of the importance of ownership to be honest, the core support has never been at the east of the city and this will not change no matter what you own or build

Where did I claim this? Just saying you're paying a quarter of the costs of the construction but getting 100% of the income on top of a peppercorn rent for the rest of the ground. It's a good deal for Rovers as a private limited company, facilitated by the Council. You should be delighted, as I know you are.

Why is this thread being allowed on our board?

Because it is O/T or because we're now so obviously winning?



Off-season, innit?
Plus it is aimless but at least amiable bickering. Boring for many, I imagine, but easy to ignore.

You lot started it, but if you want to tap out that's fine.

That's right - 25% of the costs, 100% of the income. Equitable.



It's clear you're losing the argument when, as a moderator no less, you're forced to derail onto FC. What next, 10-5?

100% of the revenue from the 25% (or whatever) share. Before repayments. as you very well know.
Derailment, indeed! I'm just here to offer an alternative perspective and challenge your comfy, insular preconceptions.
But I know when to stop and that is... Not quite yet... Nearly there... Never won at Wembley... Now. TTFN.