As I say, you can line the numbers up however you like, papering over the gaps with assumptions and inference. My assumption is that if an independent assessment were made it might well give a different (lower) number, but from memory Hudgell defined that figure loosely, and the answer depends on how you frame or interpret the question.
So yeah, it can probably go alongside Pearson's comparison of your rent and Bradford's. or whatever it was. it doesn't mean, in either case, that there isn't arguably a valid point behind the (possibly) dodgy advocacy. Whatever the number, the delays to the North Stand have cost us (ie him), relative to if it had been on or closer to schedule.
But we are where we are. The simple equation is new money = good. No new money = bad. From our pov, obviously.
PS. You're a self-acknowledged troll, you don't get to decide where the rails or tracks are. Soz. Why haven't I got the finger wagging emoticon?