I am trying to protect the identity of my friend when I say he is a season ticket holder. He is an employee of Hull City.

Unfortunately Hull, and the East Riding in general, has been regarded as a low cost workforce area for decades now. I'd hear from some of the old blokes when I worked in pubs in Hull when I was a teenager saying that since the fishing industry collapsed the city was effectively run by a small number of rich men who dictated corrupt council officials and ensured that wages in teh region would be modest to say the least. At the time I dismissed a lot of this , but as time has progressed I have realised that there is a fair element of truth in this.

What has been needed for far too long is major emplyoer to set up in the area creating competition for jobs. This would increase the need for greater skills and subsequently wages would rise. You have a point that potential investors will look at the current situation and hardly be impressed. But when you consider that Allam has been a resident of the area for 40+ years, his dismissive attitude and short sighted approach is unfortunately styreotypical of what many from outside the area consider of people from Hull.

I am not defending the council at any point here, but Allams approach has done as much to prevent investment as what is now a safety first council.

All fair points, and there's no doubt at all that all parties are at fault.

What I would say is that one individual that's accumulated a large wealth by his own endeavors has the freedom to behave that way, someone elected to represent the people of Hull (not dictate to) should show respect. They should also not act unilaterally and put investors off before the true authorities have had the opportunity to negotiate. It hasn't been a Council decision as such, more the attitude of one individual seems to have lost the City potential investors at a time when finances are tight.

You keep baging on about one individual councillor taking unilateral action to prevent Allam's (pipe) dream ever growing wings. This is despite the fact that the only man who has publicly stated the situation is closed, is Allam himself. The councillors (see the use of the plural there), involved in the meeting have publicly stated that the door is still open to a SENSIBLE proposal.

I also find your assertion that because Allam has a few bob, Hull CC should be in thrall to the man, is crass in the extreme. Councillors are elected by the voting public, they have a legal duty to husband the council's wealth and assets in a proper manner. I have seen nothing in this case that suggests otherwise.

If you think deterring investors is good finance and democratic, there's little point discussing it with you. I've not said we should be in thrall to Mr Allam due to his wealth or for any other reason. To suggest it is the crass statement and another reason I tend to pay little credence to your posts.

right, answer me this,

a man walks into your home and says "give me your car, for free, in return I will get a loan against it and buy a trailer, you wont own the trailer, but you can pay me to borrow it, but you'll also have to find yourself a car to tow it, as your car will belong to me, and by the way, your daughter can remain using it because I know you agreed to let her, but I might change my mind on a whim if she doesn't so as I say, or maybe just increase the cost"

how the f'k is he an INVESTOR?

And round we go again.

he can't Chris, because he's a fool.

Apart from it being a nonsense of a hypothetical scenario?

Someone suggests they want your friend to be involved on a £150 million development. You have some responsibility to making sure your friends finances are well cared for and have free access to good legal, marketing and financial advice should you bother asking for it.

They suggest your friend would need to contribute something to buy his share. One option involves a building he inherited from his gran. It cost nothing, is unlikely to ever grown in value and is going to need a huge chunk spent on it very soon. They assign a value to it of at least twice its market value and the overall investment will benefit him financially and please his neighbours, as well as encouraging others to invest in his area.

Would you say, 'go away you idiot he like his grans place' and then misrepresent the offer to anyone that will listen without asking your friend, suggesting that, despite the assurances of the trusted agent who says it's nonsense, one of the tenants will be evicted or would you mention it to your friend, suggesting he asks people with experience in these things for advice and to see if their are alternative ways of brokering the deal?

If you were the property owner, would you thank your trusted friend for chasing off these potential investors before you'd seen the options and damaging the relationships with future investors before they've even cropped up?

still no way it's an investment, there is no return for the original owner of his grans house, keep trying.

You seem to be stuck in one small minded loop. There are ways of generating a return, although a Council's roll is to provide cost effective services, not make a profit.


What you keep missing is that discussions could open up other options and scenarios that your peculiar scenario just doesn't have. If these discussions find no suitable agreement, then fine, we move on. But to not have these discussions is foolish and reckless.

And once again, in the vain hope that it might sink in with you, the [iCouncil[/i are still open to discussions. It's Allam that's taken his ball home in a sulky fit.

And once again, in the vain hope it might sink in with you, the [iCouncil[/i hasn't addressed the initial problem that created this impasse in the first place.

If the Council were serious, they should remove the problem from the equation and invite Mr Allam to sensible, open minded discussions with people better informed on such things or use a third party, such as Adam Pearson who has offered his services as mediator.

Only a short sighted person would be stupid enough to sit and wait for multi-million pound deals to beat a path to their door, especially in this current climate. The ball's firmly in the Council's court to explore all avenues.

didnt the council offer costello?

why didn't allam want costello?

The 'initial problem' isn't up to the council to address. Allam wants the KC for free and that isn't negotiable - in fact it's doubtful that it's even legal. He's free to come back with a sensible proposal at any time. He is choosing not to.

Nowhere have I read that the Council are refusing to meet with either Allam or anyone else who wishes to become involved. I'm open to evidence to the contrary however. Pearson is hardly a 'third party' as he is directly employed by Allam and is a stakeholder in the KC twice over.

Only a fool would spend time sulking and spitting his dummy in the press rather than get on with serious negotiations based on solid plans and a sensible proposal.