Think the deal is to pay about £50 per annum rent and charge the council £72,000 a year rent back for use of facilities, which can be used to pay off the loan. Sound familar.

FC pay upwards of half a million a year to the SMC, thanks.

It's a genuine question as I'm not familiar with public funding arrangements. Just interested in who owns legal title and where the assets, liabilities, interest, rental and capital repayments sit. Not an unreasonable question.

What's the capacity of the new stand likely to be?

The ratepayers see sod all of it, I think it will be a much better deal for US as ratepayers with the North stand deal as its not costing the ratepayer anything over the 30 yr span of the deal.

The original design was around 2,500 if I remember correctly

said on radio humberside 3,600

and why would it bother you again? location: west yorks, support: hull fc, hobbies: obsessed with hull kr, ahhh the penny's dropped.
could i recomend a new hobby, dancing with traffic, swimming with stingrays, i could go on!!!

great news on the recent developments, well done to all involved, we have a club to be proud of again.

How do you work that out? Sounds so the local community will benefit in a number of ways.

Fab news well done all involved and the 10,000 rovers fans who signed the petition onwards and upwards from now on..

Brilliant news,big well done to everyone.

a big well done to all parties concerned.

Blame the council for the lack of money it receives from the KC stadium

Is it just me, but the Hull Daily Mail stating:

"At a meeting of the authority's ruling cabinet, plans were passed to build a new Enterprise Hub and Training Centre at Craven Park, with the council agreeing to build a new north stand as part of the project.

The £6.5m project [u=#000040will see the council meet £4.2m of the bill[/u, although the local authority is hopeful of attracting European funding to reduce that cost. The remaining £2.3m was said to be from 'external funding'."


... is actually the polar opposite of Phil Webbo's wafflings (as an individual posting on a local rag's message board) to attempt to distance the council's coffers from this project:

"Just to help with a few facts,
The council is using a facility available called prudential borrowing, (that means using the asset against the borrow) let me make it quite clear, there is no outlay of any money by the council, 3 partners will pay rent to cover the cost of the borrowing (so no cost to the council) the shortfall in funding is to be met by a ERDF grant (which has been agreed) the council is taking a risk as to the rental payments, which has been fully risk assessed by a proffesional body,

To sum up, The stand will go ahead, and will be of no cost to the tax payers of Hull, and as an earlier poster said this will be a valuble enterprise asset to Hull."

If I've read this right, the Hull Daily Mail has got completely the wrong end of the stick and should be pilloried by the council's legal team.

Either that or Phil Webbo is undertaking it upon himself to play down the council's true contribution. I'd be interested to see the council's official press release confirming it's position.

[url=http://static.hullcc.gov.uk/hullinprint/archive/augsept2005/hullkr.phpOr will that just be more Rovers' jingoism from our favourite re-elected councillor?[/url

Won't effect any Hull FC fans then will it

surely the daily fail don't get stories wrong?

In this economic climate this is a big one to get wrong, given the council redundancies, cutbacks and belt tightening. I'd be fuming if I were Minns and co, at the effect this sort of "mistake" would have on the image of the council to it's electorate.

Get over it it's happening whether u like it or not it's all a bit boring going on and on and on

It's not you. I've asked if anyone can explain how this works, i.e. who has legal title on the stand, where the assets and liabilities sit, but no one can articulate it so far.

On balance with, as you say, these 2 somewhat contradictory statements, I'd say the council take out a loan for £4.2m from a prudential borrowing fund, which as I understand it is usually from the Public Works Loan Board, ie central government. So council owes PWLB £4.2m, and pays for the stand. Rovers and friends pay the Council each month the capital repayments plus the interest, which seems to be around 3% each year for the next 30 years (about £200k total a year @3%), which the council then uses to pay back the PWLB. Presumably the council actually owns the stand. In this scenario, the council bears the risk of Rovers defaulting. So in Year 1, the council owes £4m to the prudential borrowing fund, and if Rovers went t1ts up the Hull taxpayer would be liable for the full amount plus interest on a stand that's pretty much neither use nor ornament.

You don't have to be "Minns & Co" to be fuming, you could be just as angry by supporting Hull FC.

Oh, you are and you do.

Sorted.

We could all articulate, but in reality it would really be speculation, something you excel in (e.g. speculation regarding Clinton's HKR salary).

The real reason nobody has answered you is that only you and other supporters of your club are interested to such an obsessive level. We just want a better stadium, you just want the city to yourselves (like pre-2007). Well, it ain't gonna happen.

That's the way I see it too.

Sounds like risky borrowing to me. And we all know how much the public hate the banks for their lackadaisical lending policies over the last few years and the consequences it's brought.

Of course, no matter how much the people of Hull hate the banks for the way they did business and getting us all in this mess in the first place, they'll be over the moon with the council for borrowing and relending in what appears to be a similar way for the good of jobs, the saving of Hull Truck, the replacement of the withdrawn government funds for the new Castle street development and the new OPE houses.....

Hang on, it's for a new stand at Craven Park, you say....

Its comforting to know you care so much.

I have looked forward to the day Rovers got the North Stand project up & running for years now. Little did I know of the spin-off joys it would create in winding up so many folk at the same time. Absolute bargain!

Can you really not see how this will be perceived to be crass in the extreme by the council at this particular time?

If the council announced the KC plans now instead of a decade or so ago that also would be unpalatable. But that was then and this is now.

Do you think this will go ahead? (Serious question.)

Could, but part of the fun is watching you lot decide whether to go with the 'spongers' or 'idiots' line of trolling. Either will be in vain, but why should we make it easy?


Also, the details aren't fully and verifiably in the public domain, as far as I'm aware.



£40+ million out of pocket for the KC whether Hull FC and Hull City go tits up or not - at least there is a chance of recovering the outlay this time.

It's not fair, its not fair:



[urlhttp://viewtopic.php?f=34&t=476798[/url

You lot have the depth of a puddle.