Several billion reasons spring to mind.

I think I'm possibly reading that wrong, should it be 'inside its scope'?

In any event, it's only [isome[/i Hull folk that are falling for the soundbites from a Councillor, some of which were later shown to be wrong or misleading. Others seem to want more professional dialogue and clearer information before making a decision, possibly via the referendum the Party leader talked of.

No, I'm saying I don't see him as far sighted and large/open minded.



Conversely, only [isome[/i Hull folk seem want to give a public asset away to someone who apparently wants to mortgage it off to enable him to build a development to reduce ASBOs or something. Others seem to be looking at the published proposals and taking them with a pinch of salt.

They were quite happy there before the Arabs came knocking.

You'd think with all their billions of petrodollars, they too would want the freehold but they seem happy enough with a secured tenancy. Manchester CC also seem happy with the fact that there's no debt secured against the Etihad, in the same way that there's no debt against the KC (yet)

City paid for the alterations to the CMS using receipts from the sale of Maine Road, long before, as you say, the Arabs were even on the scene. They are now paying MCC £3m a year guaranteed for the stadium, maybe if Allam is serious he'll ask the council for a 250 year lease on a deal that promises the council £1m a year, once he has a 250 year lease he should be comfortable to invest, afterall, he is "worth" in excess of £200m.

Sounds like win win to me

You're not wrong in what you say, but what it misses are the other opportunities the suggestion could develop into if they were handled better. IF the only option is the donation of the stadium, even that would need to be looked at on a wider context, perhaps comparing it to the cost of doing nothing? But perhaps more expansive and imaginative discussions could have found an alternative solution.

People seem stuck in a loop of the first offer being the only option instead of a starting point. Few if any major deals have anything other than general costings until agreements in principal are reached.

There are a few bits missing from your example, but even if that was the whole picture your example helps make the point I keep repeating, perhaps Mr Allam or other wealthy investors could have been encouraged to agree to a similar scheme, had the discussions ever reached the right people.

Again, I don't disagree, but Allam has been his own worst enemy by, IMO, playing this out in the HDM when he should have been sitting down with the council amicably and explaining what he was after and why.

Effectively calling the council idiots and taking his ball down to Melton is hardly the best way to encourage proper, sensible debate.

I still think the plan is a non-starter and that the council have acted correctly, but maybe both sides are as guilty of grand-standing as each other.

Let's get the story out of the papers and into the council offices before any further announcements

Again, I don't disagree with much of that, and I keep repeating that both parties come out of this badly, but only one of them was elected to represent us citizens best interests in these things. By not being able to discuss it, or even move over to let someone else try, I feel they've failed me, especially when they try to pepper their argument with comments that have already been shown to be misleading. Such as the rugby out nonsense.

The Council didn't really get the chance to act correctly as one person, undemocratically decided it was a non-starter before it even got to the proper channels.

Again you talk of 'the plan' as if it's singular. There was an opportunity with a local business man looking into an investment into the region of over £100 million, the structure would always be subject to discussion and influence, but the figures are less than Manchester Council put into their Stadium and that had the Sport England funding, some of which was what was knocked back from here. It's also excluding the development of the areas around their stadium, such is the size of the investment in West Park.

Mr Allam has been naive in his dealings with the press and some sections of the Council, unfortunately it seems people have chosen to look at the effect instead of the cause. HDM are a poor excuse of a paper that love any excuse for turmoil, and the worse it makes this region look the happier they seem to be.

As for calling the council idiots, I don't see their plans for developing the area anywhere, nor do I see how they propose to fund it. I'll guess it'll cost a damn site more than the few millions the land and KC's worth on the market.
On one side we have a self made millionaire and his business associates like Adam Pearson on the other we have the people who have over seen us into being the worse Council in England, with a rising debt problem and a published solution being to fund things with the money not spent on redundancies. Apart from the money never really existing anyway, the obvious flaw in the policy doesn't really fill me with confidence.

T R O L L

As you're obviously "in the know", perhaps you could post the transcript of allam's meeting with the council so we can all understand where you're coming from

Why want Allam show the Council the plans Its OK saying I paid £3000 for them and their are mine But give me the KC Stadium so I cash raise cash And I will build a Sports Village but you are not seeing my plans What do you expect people to say (take this hammer and brake coal on my head ) ..Even if the Council see his plans they not going to build their own Sports Village ..Has a tax payer of this City I want the Council to spend any money they have on other thing before a Sports Village But I don't want them to give thing a way nilly willy

I am trying to protect the identity of my friend when I say he is a season ticket holder. He is an employee of Hull City.

Unfortunately Hull, and the East Riding in general, has been regarded as a low cost workforce area for decades now. I'd hear from some of the old blokes when I worked in pubs in Hull when I was a teenager saying that since the fishing industry collapsed the city was effectively run by a small number of rich men who dictated corrupt council officials and ensured that wages in teh region would be modest to say the least. At the time I dismissed a lot of this , but as time has progressed I have realised that there is a fair element of truth in this.

What has been needed for far too long is major emplyoer to set up in the area creating competition for jobs. This would increase the need for greater skills and subsequently wages would rise. You have a point that potential investors will look at the current situation and hardly be impressed. But when you consider that Allam has been a resident of the area for 40+ years, his dismissive attitude and short sighted approach is unfortunately styreotypical of what many from outside the area consider of people from Hull.

I am not defending the council at any point here, but Allams approach has done as much to prevent investment as what is now a safety first council.

All fair points, and there's no doubt at all that all parties are at fault.

What I would say is that one individual that's accumulated a large wealth by his own endeavors has the freedom to behave that way, someone elected to represent the people of Hull (not dictate to) should show respect. They should also not act unilaterally and put investors off before the true authorities have had the opportunity to negotiate. It hasn't been a Council decision as such, more the attitude of one individual seems to have lost the City potential investors at a time when finances are tight.

You keep baging on about one individual councillor taking unilateral action to prevent Allam's (pipe) dream ever growing wings. This is despite the fact that the only man who has publicly stated the situation is closed, is Allam himself. The councillors (see the use of the plural there), involved in the meeting have publicly stated that the door is still open to a SENSIBLE proposal.

I also find your assertion that because Allam has a few bob, Hull CC should be in thrall to the man, is crass in the extreme. Councillors are elected by the voting public, they have a legal duty to husband the council's wealth and assets in a proper manner. I have seen nothing in this case that suggests otherwise.

If you think deterring investors is good finance and democratic, there's little point discussing it with you. I've not said we should be in thrall to Mr Allam due to his wealth or for any other reason. To suggest it is the crass statement and another reason I tend to pay little credence to your posts.

right, answer me this,

a man walks into your home and says "give me your car, for free, in return I will get a loan against it and buy a trailer, you wont own the trailer, but you can pay me to borrow it, but you'll also have to find yourself a car to tow it, as your car will belong to me, and by the way, your daughter can remain using it because I know you agreed to let her, but I might change my mind on a whim if she doesn't so as I say, or maybe just increase the cost"

how the f'k is he an INVESTOR?

And round we go again.

To be honest, you've not shown why he's wrong. Put us out of our misery and tell us why.

he can't Chris, because he's a fool.

Apart from it being a nonsense of a hypothetical scenario?

Someone suggests they want your friend to be involved on a £150 million development. You have some responsibility to making sure your friends finances are well cared for and have free access to good legal, marketing and financial advice should you bother asking for it.

They suggest your friend would need to contribute something to buy his share. One option involves a building he inherited from his gran. It cost nothing, is unlikely to ever grown in value and is going to need a huge chunk spent on it very soon. They assign a value to it of at least twice its market value and the overall investment will benefit him financially and please his neighbours, as well as encouraging others to invest in his area.

Would you say, 'go away you idiot he like his grans place' and then misrepresent the offer to anyone that will listen without asking your friend, suggesting that, despite the assurances of the trusted agent who says it's nonsense, one of the tenants will be evicted or would you mention it to your friend, suggesting he asks people with experience in these things for advice and to see if their are alternative ways of brokering the deal?

If you were the property owner, would you thank your trusted friend for chasing off these potential investors before you'd seen the options and damaging the relationships with future investors before they've even cropped up?

still no way it's an investment, there is no return for the original owner of his grans house, keep trying.

You seem to be stuck in one small minded loop. There are ways of generating a return, although a Council's roll is to provide cost effective services, not make a profit.


What you keep missing is that discussions could open up other options and scenarios that your peculiar scenario just doesn't have. If these discussions find no suitable agreement, then fine, we move on. But to not have these discussions is foolish and reckless.

And once again, in the vain hope that it might sink in with you, the [iCouncil[/i are still open to discussions. It's Allam that's taken his ball home in a sulky fit.