1. Okay. But I don't know that the council borrowed a penny though - funding these projects through borrowing would seem inefficient for an organisation that large.
The enterprise hub will have to be judged on its own merits, but with the cuts in public spending, trying support a re-alignment of the local economy seems a sensible intention, at least.
It's good of the council to underwrite our loan. They could have labelled it a community facility and given us a bizarro tenancy agreement, akin to yours. This is better in some ways and worse in others, but simpler at least. And as it is no cash up front for that part of it, that's good for the council. Clawing back investment on a community facility is unlikely. If we go bust, it's a white elephant. Whereas the KC becomes more commercially sustainable if Hull FC go pop*. So that is one difference.
2. Rovers only get 100% of the revenue from the minority stake they hold. The value to the council of facilitating the process is 'community', rather than 'commercial'. The appropriateness of helping out local sports clubs is open to debate, but we're not the first and we won't be the last. Depends whether they're seen mainly as commercial entities or civic institutions. They're a little of each IMO.

* Pearson is down on accountancy practice at the SMC, I noticed in Wilf's diary. Bad accountants!

Being serious - it's good for the city and the sport that we have these facilities.

Currently doing some work, which broadly relates to tying up 500k in additional stock. Affecting cash flow and effectively tying up that cash is equivalalent to £50k per annum, I am told by our beanies. So I imagine it is not inefficient to borrow or that the council should not expect to at least cover the loan costs.

Oh please. Rovers fan Phil Webster said in the press "The council is using a facility available called prudential borrowing, (that means using the asset against the borrow)". FYI, prudential loans aren't interest free. Re-alignment of the local economy? I don't even know what that means.

Your point 2 doesn't really address the point I made which is this. Council and council-lite related party training organisations are paying their way here (funded by the public purse). Rovers are a minority stakeholder financially, yet Easty says you're creaming off all commercial benefits. Seems a bit unbalanced in the current austere environment. Any facility can be badged as better than nothing. Does that make it a worthy priority, and a fair commercial return for the majority stakeholder? Not really.

Dude, seriously? This going to be patronising, after [ithat[/i 'FYI', I shan't feel guilty.
So, whether you blame Fred Goodwin or Fungi off benefits street, the economy is in the toilet. It is known, Khaleesi. It was on the news and that. The government has made what might be described as fiscally-conservative response. They mainly blame Fungi. So public spending is being cut quite dramatically. All areas of the country have many people working in the public sector. Many relatively deprived, so-called post-industrial areas are particularly reliant on this sector - I'd not be surprised if Hull is among them. When these jobs disappear, it'd be desirable if more people try to emulate James Dyson, than Jim Royle.
I think you're deliberately misrepresenting or misconstruing Easty.
For clarity, we get that revenue, but yes, only from our bit. And again, you're right, it then has to contribute to loan repayments (interest and capital - where's the v-flicking emoticon?). So it's not all gravy, but what Easty said and meant, I think, was accurate. Whether he was right to be so ebullient about it, is as yet unclear.
Value is subjective, when there's a hand-wavy community element to it. The KC has offered no commercial return, but it wasn't really intended to. I assume you think that was a worthy priority?

North ferriby aren't exactly a money making machine there top of the league and struggle to get 200 fans at the ground in the village city reserves pull in bigger crowds there

Ferribys crowds will improve dramatically at the KCLS and will increase again when they reach league 2

What I mean is that when Rovers host a function the profits are Rovers, When we get a sponsor the sponsorship money is Rovers, When we sell a ticket the ticket money is Rovers, When we rename the stadium the money made from those rights is 100% Rovers, When we gain sponsorship for a stand that money is again 100% Rovers. What you do Mrs B is what you always do, You twist and turn things around for your own personal gains to suit whatever agenda your running that week. You've now twistied it to talk about the elements of the build that isn't in anyway connected with the North stand and Hull Kingston Rovers.

Without wishing to state the obvious (again) the council have borrowed money via prudential loans to build a stand that you say you take "100% of the profits" on from a commercial perspective. When added to the peppercorn rent (on the freehold repurchased from Rovers to keep them afloat when in a CVA), and the fact that Rovers are minority stakeholders in this council-funded facility, it would seem from an external perspective, a quite generous arrangement in times of cost-cutting at the council. There's no twisting involved, and all points are entirely relevant to the ownership of the ground, North Stand and Hull KR, which I believe is the topic in hand.

I'm not asking Rovers to do anything. I'm saying the facility cost £8m. Reportedly Rovers are paying a mortgage on £2m and taking all commercial revenues. If you think that's equitable, crack on, which I'm sure you will. Takes your mind off the Ben Cockayne no try from last week and posting photos about it - that has to be a good thing in terms of closure.

I'll refer to my comment above.



Rovers are paying dues on our part of the project. It doesn't cost £8m to build 2600 seats, the facilities for the supporters in those seats, 10 corporate boxes and a new restaurant.

Great, you're a QS too.

You don't have to be concerned in the construction costs and contract business to know that Rovers part of the North stand never cost £8m.