Quote Standee="Standee"That was my assumption, I mentioned that even in Housing Associations ALL staff a required to list any gifts, hospitality etc. over a value of £5, including buffet lunches etc. I got a stoney silence back. Quote Standee all interests are on the website. Here : https://web5.hullcc.gov.uk/akshull/user ... /kab110.pl

Quote Standee="Standee"That was my assumption, I mentioned that even in Housing Associations ALL staff a required to list any gifts, hospitality etc. over a value of £5, including buffet lunches etc. I got a stoney silence back. Quote Standee all interests are on the website. Here : https://web5.hullcc.gov.uk/akshull/user ... /kab110.pl

My mate who works at a stadium seat making co just text me to say they have got an order for 1300 black and 1300 white seats in to be delivered to Hull in a couple of months.

Stop it nearly wet myself

I wonder where he got that idea?



The 'debate' has been degraded beyond any possible redemption, it seems. A partisan discourse spun on all sides until we're dizzy. People should still be able to see through it though, even when it originates from their own side.



In this case, your* obsession-your board. Ta though.

*Not you personally, obviously.

Maybe I (as an unbiased Hull FC supporter for 55 years) should try to respond.



The viability of a new Stadium in Hull was based on both Hull FC and City becoming long term tenants.

Neither club were financially sound, and Hull FC, like City, negotiated a contract based on their own particlular circumstances.

Lets take catering first:

Hull FC made a reasonable profit. Lots of volunteers and full control. The SMC said, quite understandably, that the SMC would have to
run the catering side of the stadium because there were multiple tenants and it was impractical to do anything else.

The SMC run profit margins based on Hull FC's expected attendances fell well short of Hull FC's own forcasts.

Rental:

The SMC felt that £600000 per year was a reasonable figure. (Very similar, perhaps, pro-rata, to Hull City's.)

Hull FC felt that, based on current attendance figures, this figure was excessive. If attendances fell they would struggle and

this would compromise the whole concept behind the building of the Stadium.

So Hull FC negotiated a "performance related" deal.

To ensure that Hull FC were not financially compromised, £140000 worth of season passes were to be bought by the SMC each year.

Hull FC would be paid £70000 a year instead of taking any catering profits.

The SMC would receive 50% of all income from attendances in excess of 8500.

Now lets do some sums:

This seasons average attendance is as low as it been in a long time, 10500, say.

Lets assume a very low figure of £10 per supporter to attend matches.

(10500-8500)*15 games creates addition income of £300000/2 for the SMC, which pays for the passes with £10000 to spare.

Policing and stewarding costs will have been easily covered in previous seasons, and the figure of £10 might just be a bit low.

The catering subsidy of £70000 doesn't meantion the profits which go to the SMC. If catering is losing money then so is, surely,

Hull City's side of the catering.

Typed in haste - rant over.

We should try and get the Daily Wail to print something like this.

Is it correct, then, that barring delays Rovers would have spent £0 on the stand this year but banked £500,000 income from a catering deal. The council and ERDF would have spent £8m and banked £0 income from a catering deal in their own facility?

Correct about the the stand.

But no about the catering deal, from what I can make out it looks like they have lost out on a deal worth 500k due to the delay in the stand being completed and it looks like Hudgel had counted ( looks like he could have included these in his budget for the year) on that deal and others that where connected with the completion of the stand.

It is plausible. The thing is we have incomplete information and people seem to want to compete to control of the 'truth' rather than find the facts. And because it is easier to attack a position rather than defend, a fair bit of mud is flung and some of it sticks - to Rovers, to Hull FC, to City and to the Council. Everybody loses. We're fed snippets (and grab onto them those we like), that suit each agenda - but in a wider context, they're close to meaningless.

So yeah - Hudgell comparing payments to be made by Hull KR, not to payments made by Hull FC, but to the profit/loss they make for the council/KC SMC isn't fair or sensible. Pearson talking about paying the highest rent in SL, without mentioning extras such as free stewarding and guaranteed ticket sales, or (if it is true) the loss each fixture costs the venue, is misleading. You've got Ehab Allam giving the word 'commercial' yet another kicking and ignoring a clear (if possibly expensive) conflict of interest. The council playing the 'community' card when it suits - see also everybody else - or wading in, then swiftly out of the Whiteley-gate thing. Unusually, the only people whose repuatations are on the up are the MPs - which says something in itself, I think.

Edited

MS3 Craven Park is going to become Carlsberg Craven Park in 2014. Hull KR don't do completed superleage stadiums, but if they did..............