Don't be ridiculous Phil, the Golf stand was wonderful. I missed my first game at CP since Rovers' promotion last season because of it's demise. Had great character.

It's 'shirt' written in a Hull accent. As per my username, I like to throw the odd word in, written in a Hull accent. No offence meant or owt. Not living in 'Ull anymore, it helps me to reminisce. Probably should've written 'perple' in the ferst perst I made. Apologies.

Surely Rovers and the council's company would've signed off each stage jointly? Are you saying Rovers failed to examine the plans detailing the loos, for example? Hudge is a solicitor for goodness' sake.

Still feel a bit for Phil, here. Without the council there wouldn't be a stand at all, which many on here seem to have completely forgotten when unilaterally criticising which are, after all, mere cosmetic details when compared to the financial implications of no new stand at all.

Bravo, Phil and the council.

The cladding was a major faux pas and it was a stupid remark about the sky, as I made quite clear at the time, as for the toilets they do make the legal requirements, if they didn't it would not get its safety certificate, the problem is because of the nature of Stadia, people tend to use the loos at the same time, legally there are enough, but practically it would have helped if there were more, but where do you draw the line (outside the toilets it looks like) seriously it's a difficult call.

You are also right that it doesn't look like the original drawings, the reason for that is that the original bid from Wilmott Dixon was a screw up, it was undervalued by circa £1m, that left 2 options re submit for tender or scrap the scheme as we couldn't get further funding, so we ran a value engineering exercise to reduce costs and a lot of the features were changed, it was literally this or nothing.

I didn't say I knew how it worked over there(?), I obviously understand the concept of that being a main board for general RL issues, and each club having it's own dedicated board with it's own moderators. I'm not too sure what you mean to be honest. I was just surprised that I was threatened with a ban after one post, that's all.

Transparent as glass.

I rather like the towers, actually. Especially the red light idea shining through.

The comment about the sky isn't the real point though Phil it's more about who in their right mind decided that sky blue was right for a team that plays in red and white? You say we have to share with partners but I get the impression they didn't request this. If not then who did?
I'll happily withdraw the point on legal requirements Phil. But getting the amount wrong (As you hint) means on that score surely they are not going to really fit for purpose due to them being so few for the amount that will be needed in what is a very short space in time with now way to now fix the problem. That will mean if the stand is well used then it is a situation that we as a club are stuck with. Who didn't know that sporting toilets get used in a huge way at HT/FT?

The thing is that the colours being wrong is a major part of what I am getting at (externally anyway) with regard to the look of the stand.

I understand that you are probably sick of hearing this Phil but it seems that there have been major screw-ups and nobody is being held to account over it.

Are the loos blue, too? If there's too few you'll need a lot of blue down 'em. Though Ginge and I prefer bleach.

Darth, repeating Phil's name often during converstions sounds a bit intimidating. Just saying. Didn't Rovers have any say at all, then? Seems strange.

Not wanting to be pedantic but Blue is one of Rovers colours, and before the banner went up on the RM stand that was nearly all blue with a red and white V.
The error occurred at planning, there were a number of colour fobs for different parts of the stand and that's where the screw up happened as they thought it was to match the RM stand, we all thought it was an undercoat that was to be painted so nobody picked up on it until later, it wouldn't have mattered anyway as they are made to order, and being self cleaning are a very expensive panel, to paint them now would be too expensive and we would lose the guarantee, all in all a bit of a mess, but I still think that we need to look at it when it's finished and then there is still a possibility of putting up red covers to drain pipes to break up the colour, and don't forget all of the signage is yet to be added.
Lets see when the seats are in and it's finished, because it's been a living nightmare for me, I've had more fall outs with friends over this than anything i've ever done, TBH be glad when it's over.

re the frame....and illumination...

difficult to achieve on that build as they was not initially designed for that purpose... a flexface sign approach may solve your problem as this can be fastened onto the the frame and would be designed in such a way as to illuminate outside of the frame ....

Why would someone think that you would paint cladding after it is installed/ It would be an eyesore within 5 years.
Phil scrap this red light idea and try and save some credibility. " large Rovers badges and 2 large sponsors badges illuminated from the outside would be a better option. How many times a season would the towers be illuminated? 3 at best.

Wormisbland

At least try and be funny.

Irony alert!

A new BOY OR GIRL welcome nice of you to come on here

I am 1 person on the board, and this idea has been discussed and is currently being explored, the idea of lighting the towers would not just be on night games, they would be on every night using an LED system,

Not sure about the remark about me saving SOME credibility, considering I have fought tooth and nail to get this stand, I just find the remark a bit disingenuous, If people think I have lost credibility by this, words fail me

You say the blue cladding was to match the blue on the west stand but neither are blue ones grey and ones lilac

The colour of the cladding is the same colour used on just about every other council building in the city. Doesn't bother me, what does moaning do, anyway?

There'll be a club crest on the outside, the RM stand looks 10x better and the capacity and comfort of the ground will increase.

I'd give it up squire, I think you've been pretty reasonable and honest in your answers, you've had to (well, you and others) manage multiple revenue streams and budgets to come up with a multi use project during a recession.

I think the cladding looks fine, and I'd much rather it be self cleaning than worry about the colour. Nothing worse than a big mucky plastic wall five years down the line.

I'm not a fan of the multi coloured windows, but at the end of the day, as you say, Rovers are not the only tenant. I like the garden and think it's a great use of the prisoners work.

Once this is finished it'll look a lot more like a proper stadium, sure it's not 100% perfect but it's a damn sight better tan the golf stand.

nope...new account due too forgetting acc login details.... prior acc was the same name minus the number... KR_RRTR_KR

I don't think anybody is holding you personally responsible for the mistakes and design alterations, but you put yourself in the firing line and therefore you should expect the full spectrum of ambivalence; right or wrong, thats the nature of the beast in public relations!

Whilst I take on board what you say (wait until the finished article) I am afraid the on going inquest into this (instigated by Rover's Board) will trudge along, and TBH the lighting up of the Red Towers and saying the overall build (warts and all) is better than what was there before only fuels the debate further.

IMO it is a cooky idea - much rather see Rovers 'emblem' displayed.

It does not matter where the funding came from. The fact is that the council picked a company to manage it (jobs for the boys) without any experience in building stadia. Of course projects encounter problems that need to be addressed. But getting the main colour of the build wrong, not having enough toilets to cater for fans at half time and trying to bodge some towers that are not getting used because the original design was flawed in not acceptable. Do you think any other company would accept it without major repercussions? It seems that some people at senior level are out of their depths.

Not trying to be funny. I did like the Golf stand, have many happy memories of sun, pints and large hairy bottoms in sweaty proximity to my face at least eight times a match. You could see the game, but not the south 'stand' from there, too. I much prefer old things to new.

I also think the illuminated towers could look good and if there's only three loos you are going to need a lot of blue, matching or otherwise.And a decent bog brush. And Dyno-rod on call. Can't believe Neil missed that one. Lost a bit of credibility there, I'm afraid.

No. Not funny. More indignant. As Rovers fans you should be kissing Cllr Webster's feet. Against all odds and, some would say, reason, he's engineered funding from various convoluted sources, involving the complete relocation of Hull Training and numerous legally-binding caveats and targets to be met, purely to ensure the manifestation of this stand, this being ablsolutely critical to Rovers' future in SL. Hudge's subsequent volte-face once the work was, safely, almost complete over seemingly trivial details compared to the alternative of [ino stand at all[/i is preposterous and grossly unreasonable. As are the digs and disbelief on here. You think the council(lor) has lost credibility? As a Hull tax payer, I thought that when this exraneous project achieved sign-off at all, never mind in a recession, in the first place. As Rovers fans, your gratitude should be unbounded. As it is, your churlishness diminishes you.

What is even worse, is that it will only get use next season as a stand, as Rovers will probably be bust. Larvin only has so much cash free to pump in.

It does matter where the funding came from, there are strict criteria surrounding ERDF funding.

The council did not pick a company to manage it, former Councillor Andy Sloane (Lib-Dem) signed a 20 year deal with NPS (Norfolk Property Services) that was put together by the then Lib-Dem administration in Norfolk, the deal is for the marketing and property management including all design and build which is legally binding contract, so your infantile remarks around "jobs for the boys" is way off.

It's quite clear to me that you have no knowledge of what is actually going on and choose to believe what anyone tells you, as I said the toilets are legal but there will be queues or maybe we should have built 2600 toilets? there was an offer to remove the towers but the club want them to stay so we are exploring different ways to use them.

So who is out of their depth? The Council? for trying to help Rovers, NPS? for being a company with a water tight contract to deliver it, Hobson and Porter ? for putting in an affordable bid and rescuing the project? or maybe Rovers? for not wanting to pay rent on something they didn't expect, the truth is mistakes have been made, but from where i'm sitting Rovers will be in a lot better place than they were.

It seems to me that you would have a moan whatever the outcome!