And so it continues... North Stand Triquel.

Quote: phil webbo "Firstly let me thank you for your admission to being a bit slow, I shall place that in my extensive quote library.

Re your remarks on Hull Training, I am not in the treasury so I am not party to how these grants are put together, I suppose we could say they used North Sea revenue or even the billions received from the sale of licences to the mobile companies, but it is here Cocklette that I will not play your game, to enable you to tell all and sundry that you were right after all that it is going to cost the tax payer.

On your other points the prudential borrowing does attract interest and the repayment shedule takes that into account. The ERDF targets are around jobs with the Hull Training Element so no worries on the HKR front.

I now intend to pay heed to Mild Rovers comments on this subject. FIN.'"

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

I think you are saying the following:
1) Rovers will repay the cost of the stand element with repayments incorporating the relevant interest charge on the prudential loan. Hull City Council underwrite this debt.
2) The Hull Training element is paid for by the Treasury from the public purse.
3) ERDF funding has been provided for the balance (maybe the Treasury pays into this grant fund too, who knows?) but the funding is conditional on achieving KPIs (number of business start-ups IIRC). I think I am right in saying that the ERDF funding was paid to the Council as assemblers of the project. So a final question - in the event of failing to meet the business start-ups targets, or whatever the KPIs are, who would be liable to repay ERDF?