So the so called unseen plans provide enough information to predict the impact of the development on Costello? It's acceptable to gift the Costello land, but not the KC stadium?

There's an important difference here you seem to be missing. The council offered that Costello could be a site for the Sporting Village "gift". They were less keen on gifting the land for the supermarket/restaurant/boutique development. I'm not sure what your point is on the impact of the squash courts/ice rink on Costello.

According to Allam, and to some degree confirmed by Cllr Geraghty's interview, the so called boutique version was never really a serious proposition. Some of the sports developments, such as the ice rink, appeared to be obstructions, so consideration was given to their removal. It would seem this was latched on as an offer, rather than a suggestion. It's just another red herring.

Allam talked about "wives going the to the supermarket" on the development, didn't he?

Yes, but that doesn't preclude anything else from being in the development.

Some people have got far too hung up on some of the words and latch on like limpets to the soundbites.

It's possible the whole thing would have come to nothing at some point, but I'll say again, for me the issue is the way it's been handled.

We need money to redevelop that area. I've yet to see the councils plans, but those rusty street lights at the park entrance hardly fill me with the belief that they have a grand plan. Having one offered should have lead to more investigation of the options, not some shabby half truths on a two bob radio show and local rag.

It became "boutiques" and "shops" after Messr Allam was duly told that KuH is not actually bereft of swimming pools and an icerink.

ATEOTD, Allam wanted Hull City Council to relenquish a 40 million pound assett that belongs to the occupats of Hull for 305k so he could borrow against it to build f***in shops!!!

There's nothing in the replies I've posted that's contradicted by any of the excited chatter and childish abuse that's come back as 'responses'.

The Council (that's us) need to find money to revamp the area around west park. It depends on what's done, but it's liable to cost us £10's of millions at least.

A concept is offered for discussion that has the potential to generate money for a £150 million + development that could also encourage other investment.

The Council were wanted on board with the project, one option for this was to include the KC stadium as their contribution and that value could well be greater than the asset was liable to realise on the open market.

So, so far we have a potential liability that could become an asset, both financially and in respect of our public image.

The (now) leader of the Council previously suggested that he'd welcome full discussions and possibly even offer it to a referendum.

A meeting recently took place with Councillors and some Officers. At such an early stage the discussion can only be about concepts and agreements in principal. From the comments at interview of one person at the meeting, it seems some expected more meat on the bone.

Some of the perceptions of that individual have been shown to be wrong, such as Hull FC being kicked out in 15 months. The manner he came across on the radio didn't come across as someone being constructive, but more as someon looking for obstacles.

Some people have latched on to the soundbites of this interview and ignored the comments of others involved.

People seem attached to the thought that it would be donating cash to a business man, and even over inflate the value of the Stadium. The same people seem happy for that to happen if it's a different piece of land that was 'offered' even though that land would be of significant value. This land is also seen as suitable for the scheme, even though another big argument is that we don't know what the scheme is as nobody's seen the plans! So the will for the concept seems to be there in principal.


I keep saying the proposal may well turn out to be unworkable in any form, but shouldn't have been dismissed until every avenue has been fully explored.

There's no doubt that both parties played their part in the breakdown, but as we're the ones that need the money, it's our duty to do everything practically possible to make the talks happen. There's a clear clash of personality and understanding involving one person that was involved in the last talks and they should step back from further talks.

Personally I would rather the Council own the KC and at least if anything ever happened to either club we have a roof over our heads. Plus, if these are the facts, why would the council give the KC away to a prospective developer for them to mortgage and make money for themselves? Where is the gain for the council in that?

A gift without caveats could still be a gain for the Council in a number of ways, for example we'd gain the money saved from not having to develop the area ourselves.

If that turns out to be the final position of Mr Alam then yes, the Council should walk away, but not before every avenue's explored.

If, as most business men do, Mr Alam's not planning to use his own money, but generate other investment, the Council could even tease out as much detail as possible and look to do it themselves.

Since when has this been of paramount importance to the city of Hull?

Hull needs investment, but not specifically to the area around the KC. The Victorian park does not need development, nor does the fairground and semiweekly market ground and car park - save for a bit of tarting up to the latter's surface. Why lose these already functional areas at the expense or others in more need of investment? If fact, as a Hull resident I would be extremely indignant at the pointless sacrifice of either if these facilities. The whole thing smacks carving out the cheekbone of an already pretty face in order to extract a tooth.

There could be an argument for development of the land east of the stadium - around the area between the two railway lines and the stadium - but in the scheme of things, this is low down on the list of urgent priorities.


And has ordered several meetings to hear the plans, which were unfortunately not forthcoming, therefore offering him no criteria on which to hold a referendum.

You're doing it again - labelling Mr Geraghty as the sole concluder of events at that meeting, instead of the spokesperson of the group. Cllr Geraghty described on air and in the paper why the consensus decision [iof that meeting[/i concluded that the council could not offer the stadium freehold to Mr Allam based on the information he supplied. He stated the council remained open to further discussion once Mr Allam was in a position to describe more fully his intentions.

That's because it would be.

It's funny, isn't it, that when Pearson and the SMC were in discussion to bring the rlleisure complex and casino to the site a few years back,rl it did not involve the need to give the stadium to the Casino owner.

Any other location for the devlopment is not palatable to Mr Allam, as it does not include the stadium's freehold.


There is absolutely no evidence at all that the council were responsible in any way for the breakdown. It is Allam who has spat his dummy and made his last word on the subject and the council that are happy to reconvene if he comes up with anything new. And, as pointed out above - we [idon't[/i need the money for that particular area.

Please stop alluding to your fantasy of Clr Geraghty being an Allam sceptic here, and, in fact, the only one. I know for a fact that other councillors not present at the meeting could not believe the weakness of the "proposals" submitted by Allam. Your persecution of Cllr Geraghty's character is erring on the side of not being very cautious at all.