I love this thread!!

By “it turns out”, I assume you mean “someone on City’s messageboard reckons”. I agree that if the council were not prepared in any way to entertain any development, costs would have been sunk unnecessarily. However, they’ve invited the detail and had more than one meeting with Allam, which suggests they are interested in progressing. Based on this, it’s standard practice to incur initial feasibility costs to enhance chances of a scheme progressing with provision of detail and a business case. In reality what’s happened is that no plans have been presented and Allam has refused to start talks until he’s guaranteed the freehold of the most valuable element of the site. This is beyond unreasonable. We all know it.


No I’m not. If you’d bothered to read what I put, it was that the council don’t have a proposal to discuss on the table but still have a team in place to work up feasibility and consider the various option[us[/u, to put together the best scheme. Allam has some £3k plans which he won’t share and won’t negotiate until the transfer of the KC is signed off as a pre-requisite to any talks. If the lead on a scheme in my organisation went to a landowner and/or council adopting with an opening gambit of “I’ve got some plans which I’ll not share at this point, but I want half the land for nothing before we start talking” our reputation in the market would be destroyed. It’s a nonsensical position. You might want to dismiss it as a “clash of personalities” but that’s trying to gloss over the ridiculousness of Allam’s upfront demands.

And the Council are "sat comfortable" on an asset that costs nothing to maintain and provides a home to the city’s main professional sporting clubs. We’ve established so far that in the recent meeting the swimming pool and ice rink were regarded as expendable by Allam in face of the apparently "new information" that there are already facilities in place nearby, so from their point of view, the development opportunity vs the original Sporting Village concept is unclear, apart from the supermarket. The ball [uis[/u therefore in Allam’s court to provide something, anything, to frame the discussion. Hull City Council btw have a decent reputation in encouraging development from a property perspective. Can’t see at all that them struggling to negotiate with a proposer who won’t start talking until he’s guaranteed the freehold of the main element of the land would mean any serious developer would be put off.

Even i have "lost the will to live" on my own thread.

Mrs B....give up......Arry obviously doesn't have a life and is completely unable to accept defeat on the matter.

The childish comment about 'someone on a Hull City message board' is wrong. To assume it's a football v rl issue also shows a limited and inaccurate perception.

It's interesting you see the stadium as an asset. Due to the money that will need spending on it and the area, it could be seen as a liability. It's also only worth anything as an asset if its value can be realised.

As for the stance about needing the freehold, that in itself shouldn't be an end to talks. There are ways of encouraging negotiations without having to commit to that.

I keep saying I'm neither for or against either party. I just want to see avenues explored rather than dismissed out of hand for the wrong reasons. If reports are to be believed, the Council has no problem in gifting assets to Mr Alam, they supposedly offered Costello, so the issue seems to be on the specific asset. As they're our representatives, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to make clear what their alternative intentions for the site are.

I'll accept defeat when it arrives. Just as long as you realise having a different perspective than a few posters on here doesn't make me wrong.

Tend to agree. In summary as I see it, the council have called Allam's bluff on bringing forward a proposal to discuss. No sign of one yet. As said, if the lead on a scheme in my organisation went to a landowner and/or council adopting with an opening gambit of “I’ve got some plans which I’ll not share at this point, but I want half the land for nothing before we start talking” our reputation in the market would be destroyed. Ball's in his court. If this scheme is so compelling for him, the council, the developers with their margins to satisfy and the people of Hull, the refined proposal worked up in conjunction with the council will be a no-brainer for the electorate.

There's little wonder you are struggling with the arguments presented to you on here, if your comprehension of Mrs B's post is anything to go by. Just where has she suggested that it's a soccer v rugby issue?

OK then, your comment "it turns out" is a bit hazy. Perhaps you could share who your sources are that say it's normal to have a £3k plan as a basis for demanding a £40m asset before negotations can even commence. I'd suggest [uthat[/u, rather than my experience, is a “singular” situation.



It's an asset because it generates future economic value. The council don’t have to spend anything on it as that’s the responsibility of the SMC who are responsible for its custodianship and upkeep. The stadium costs the council next to nothing to run. That’s the point of the SMC agreement.


Removing it as the pre-requisite would be the blindingly obvious first step, then, surely?



They're willing to gift a sporting venue allocated under planning policy for sporting activities for Allam’s sporting gift. Their alternative intentions for the KC/West Park site are, in all probability, the same as they were 10 years ago, namely to house the club’s two largest professional sporting clubs and provide the appropriate volume of carparking, provide a site for the fairground with hundreds of thousands of visitors, and retain park areas for the people of West Hull. I’m not too sure they would have dreamt up a plan for a supermarket and “boutiques” on West Park given the vacancy rates in sequentially preferable sites in the city centre. It seems to me evident that the council have already been too generous in retail consents in the centre, to the extent that supply outstrips demand. It would be inappropriate if they were focussing on putting money into another out of town site when businesses are vacating Kingston Park and other units in the already sprawling city centre. If they had, I doubt the local populace would have been giddy at the prospect.

Would it be nice to have an Olympic sized swimming pool here, and an ice rink, and squash courts? Possibly, although outside of London I'm not sure how many cities have two ice rinks, so you could say the requirement is tenuous. If anything, what should be remembered is that even in the extreme case that Allam "gifts" all these fantastic sporting facilities to the city, it's highly likely that the council will be on the hook to pay the running costs ongoing. In my experience, there's a reason why municipal facilities are municipal facilities, and it's because they run at a loss that the council would have to sign up for in perpetuity. They might love the idea of underwriting the costs of not one but two ice arenas within 2 miles of each other, but in the current economic environment, I'd suggest it would be unlikely and, frankly, a bit stupid.

Exactly, Mrs B.

The fact is that there simply is no need for development of West Park or the Fairground - if fact, to do so would be heinous crimes.

There could be an argument for development of the land east of the stadium - the apparent waste land to either side of the walkway between Argyle street and the KC, between the railway lines. Not actually sure who owns this - is it the Council?

However, even here, there is no requisite for a retail park of any description. A leisure park would be nice but only if self sufficient and, frankly, in light of the use of existing Council facilities, it probably isn't going to be. So Heigh Ho. No crucial pressing need for development at all - despite the Red Herring Blind Uncle Harry keeps chucking up in the air.

A retail park would be inappropriate given the devastating effect even current overkill has had on the city centre and existing retail complexes, and would give nothing to the community at all.

So, in direct contrast to BUH

's assertions, it is the council who can afford to sit back and do nothing - and rightly so, there being no need for imminent action. It's the Allams - for whom it is essential they get their hands on the KC - who must therefore approach the Council with humility and an astounding idea that doesn't involve shops.

They can't - not possible in the current climate. That's why the Council feel safe in calling their bluff.

A different perspective does not make you wrong.
The blind Allam is right tack you appear to be taking is though making you look a little foolish.
Allam needs to make a concrete proposal which is going to cost him a significant amount of money to do. If he does that, and the council and the public agree that it is a good idea, then he will be repayed 20/30 fold. So, if he is serious, he needs to put up or shut up. To me, it seems that simple.

No, foolish would be someone STILL trying to claim I'm saying the Allam's are right, despite me pointing out many times that's not my position.

Little wonder the rest of the discussion's lost on you.

You think the area around the stadium doesn't need developing? There's no accounting for taste.