Damn. Could've said "the throbbing pulse of light, once strong, now gone, left the shaft a limp shadow of before", too. Am losing grip and spiralling down the slippery pole.

Alfresco buggery.

Really? Must've missed your answer to the 1/3 or 2/3 council risk question. Please point me to it, particularly in view of Mrs B's perturbing link on the last page.

Not just for Phil, of course not! Everything's open on here.

I do remember having a ludicrous vision of the screen propped at the back of the plastic stand, toppling onto the fans as they jumped up and bent the floor. Liked that Golf stand, me. Fond of it.

Shame, really, if the screen can't be incorporated into the new scheme. If it can't, and still languishes elephantly (new word?), it remains an even more inadequate return for the good ol' taxpayers of Hull. I'm sure Phil would've negotiated a decent rent for those he represents. Perhaps he still might do so?

The screen was mentioned at the first fans forum.

Basically, it's so old and decrepit, it'd be better signing for Hull. No, that's not right. It's so old, parts aren't available to repair it if it breaks down.

You think Inglis paid over the odds, then?



You're a leccy with a garden shed. You'll have bits, I'm sure.

Wormy and and mrs barista, if you're trying to make a specific point about the North stand could you give us a brief and explicit summary?
I get the feeling you're writing, thinking A-HAA! While we're reading thinking uh-huh, but perhaps I'm missing something subtle. Despite the repetition.


Do you want us to acknowledge that the council have helped? because I'm pretty confident most of us would admit it. Or just voicing your disapproval that they have? Any disagreement over the structure of the deal appears to be purely presentational now - on its substance we appear to be agreeing at length.

Sorry, MR. Got thoroughly over-excited about all the erections sprouting up everywhere and got distracted. Then remembered the screen promise, and thought it might be relevant to the new build. So back on topic.

Would be nice if Phil could confirm one way or another the level of risk the council could be potentially exposed to, then I wouldn't have to keep nagging on. Fair?

As i understand it, they,ve underwritten the loan to Rovers. I can't remember exactly how much it was - roughly of the order of £2 million, perhaps. If we go under they'd have to cover what we hadn't paid back to that point.
That sort of ball park. Close enough?

This question goes back to pages 28 and 29 of the thread, but remains unanswered.

Sorry, MR, I'm worried that you may be potentially a third of the total cost out. An additonal £2M or so. Still waiting for the finance portfolio holder to confirm or deny. Which he appears reluctant to do?

I don't think those monies are anything directly to do with Rovers' part of the project, other than the whole couldn't have gone ahead without each part.

Page 23,

You're quite right MR, whether Rovers are there or not Hull Training will still be there, only exposure to risk is on the prudential borrowing, as the targets for the ERDF will be met.
only build from now on!

Goodness, that's clever of you, as the question you seem reluctant to answer was not raised until page 27, following a serious challenge to the validity of your answer on page 23. Let me refresh you. In response to your claim that the council were potentially only liable for the prudential loan, to which was replied (on page 27):



The new question being "What is the risk to the council if the ERDF targets are not met?" [iThe Mighty F90[/i amusingly hoped it was "The tax payers of Hull" and there was no contradiction of this.

At least he offered an answer though. You skirted it, by posting on page 28:


Which seemed to infer that you agreed it was the council's risk. Rather vaguely. So to ensure clarity, you were asked (on page 29)

And again on the next page:


No response, so a nudge on page 34:


Then, mystifyingly, you ascertained that all the financial queries had been done to death, so I asked again, today:

Then, Hurray! You're here, but seem to have completely missed the point, waffling on about page 23.

So, once and for all:

If the ERDF targets are not met are Hull city council liable for the risk for that part of the debt in that they will have to repay ERDF?

[size=150Yes or No?[/size

What are the targets? You seem confident in your post that they will be met, but how can you guarantee it?

Lastly, this is a thread about the North Stand build, therefore questions to it's financing are wholly relevant. I think it a bit rich of you to insist that everyone talks about colours, light erections and photos only. It's like me telling everyone on injury threads not to discuss potential absence times because that could be a bit unpalatable but to insist that posters only discuss how big the bandages are and how many aspirins the injured party is on.

It's such a shame you don't have a bit of time on your hands Wormy, you could write a post like Le Smerking Jackete.

I think worminhand and Mrs Boreister should worry more about the goings on at YPI then our North stand.

It will make you both ill worrying so much.

The problem is dum dum, despite using all those splendid big words and fancy termis to show us how clever, in a Baristaish way, she is, she failed to read Phil Webbos post properly. If she had she'd had noticed the last line said "build only now", and wouldn't have wasted her time quoting, and typing the last facinating offering for us to enjoy, because she would realised there wouldn't be a reply.
Perhaps we should have a politics thread on here, I'm sure it would go down a storm, while we're at it let's have a religion one too, then the rest of the board could be left to Rovers topics.
Just for those bothered about the finance for the stand I'll explain it for you. Rovers wanted to build a new stand at the North of the ground, we needed money for this, we met any necessary criteria needed for grants, funding etc and got the money, hence the stand is now being built. Get over it, if you have a problem with the councils involvment take it up at Guildhall, 99.99% of people on here don't give a shiny poop so ling as it gets built!

I think we've established that the project is initially being funded by ERDF, which the taxpayer contributes to, and the Treasury, which the taxpayer contributes to. Rovers will repay part over the long term, the taxpayer underwriting the risk. Comments by Hull KR chairman that Rovers might not go round again arguably add to the perceived risk. In terms of the stand element, at best the council have enabled and underwritten material borrowing facilities for operational infrastructure of a private limited company. Does this happen a lot or only in special cases?

Of course, initial capital outlay is just one aspect. Ongoing there are operating costs to cover, which will be shared by tenants. I seem to remember reading the allocation of some running costs would be allocated on the basis of days of use? Rovers share would be 13/365 in that case, that can't be right. Will check the project scoping document later.

Wanted stand, needed money, got money building stand, what more could you possibly need to know? It's a rugby forum afterall, not council minutes, accounts.com or the Andrew Marr show.

YAAAAAAAWN

WiH
The answer is 'yes'. If the conditions of the grant weren't met. Which seems unlikely to me personally. But worst case, the facilities would still be there and they sound like the sort of thing that a council should be doing. As it is more to do with the wider development, rather than Rovers bit, if I could ask you to take it up directly with the council or perhaps on a website were your interest in the minutiae of this sort thing is widely shared, I'd be grateful.

Mrs b, councils supporting local professional sports clubs is nothing new. On principle, I don't think they should, but they do, so now our turn has come I find it pretty easy to be sanguine.

Round in circles now, so I think 'freedom of speech' has been protected at the expense of the thread plenty long enough, so I'll be taking the opposite approach for a while.

Quite possibly the most sensible comment on this thread.

Jeez, if there is a solid market for insomnia-curing consultants, I think MrsB & WIH are onto something. Get yourselves onto Dragon's Den with it.

The easiest way to stop the inane OCD ramblings of the caffeine fueled Mrs. Coffee Cup is not to reply, no one on here but Mrs Coffee Cup and Wormy are interested so they should just PM each other until one falls asleep or slits his/her wrists simples cockles.

I'm a worm, not a termite. Silly. As for Phil insisting on only discussing the build... well, I think that's the third or fourth time he's insisted on that.

I doubt he'll be any more clear, though, so I'll take MR's assertion it's a "Yes" as being the logical interpretation of what Phil's been trying not to say, and will, indeed, seek clarification elsewhere. [url=http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Funding-KR-s-pound-8-2m-stand-approved/story-13986466-detail/story.html#axzz2KF46NoCAStill, it's a far cry from the impression he gave in the Mail:[/url

Now we know more, perhaps it'd have been more accurate to say, "It might not cost them a penny but it could potentially cost several million if things don't go to plan."

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Just the same thing with different emphasis. Which is nice, I like it when we agree.

Shame it won't be open this season. But, clutching at straws, SL's refusal to give us many bigger gate home fixtures in the later rounds is rendered moot. And it will make the grand opening a bit more of an event.