Wormy and and mrs barista, if you're trying to make a specific point about the North stand could you give us a brief and explicit summary?
I get the feeling you're writing, thinking A-HAA! While we're reading thinking uh-huh, but perhaps I'm missing something subtle. Despite the repetition.
Do you want us to acknowledge that the council have helped? because I'm pretty confident most of us would admit it. Or just voicing your disapproval that they have? Any disagreement over the structure of the deal appears to be purely presentational now - on its substance we appear to be agreeing at length.

As i understand it, they,ve underwritten the loan to Rovers. I can't remember exactly how much it was - roughly of the order of £2 million, perhaps. If we go under they'd have to cover what we hadn't paid back to that point.
That sort of ball park. Close enough?

This question goes back to pages 28 and 29 of the thread, but remains unanswered.

I don't think those monies are anything directly to do with Rovers' part of the project, other than the whole couldn't have gone ahead without each part.

Page 23,

You're quite right MR, whether Rovers are there or not Hull Training will still be there, only exposure to risk is on the prudential borrowing, as the targets for the ERDF will be met.
only build from now on!

The problem is dum dum, despite using all those splendid big words and fancy termis to show us how clever, in a Baristaish way, she is, she failed to read Phil Webbos post properly. If she had she'd had noticed the last line said "build only now", and wouldn't have wasted her time quoting, and typing the last facinating offering for us to enjoy, because she would realised there wouldn't be a reply.
Perhaps we should have a politics thread on here, I'm sure it would go down a storm, while we're at it let's have a religion one too, then the rest of the board could be left to Rovers topics.
Just for those bothered about the finance for the stand I'll explain it for you. Rovers wanted to build a new stand at the North of the ground, we needed money for this, we met any necessary criteria needed for grants, funding etc and got the money, hence the stand is now being built. Get over it, if you have a problem with the councils involvment take it up at Guildhall, 99.99% of people on here don't give a shiny poop so ling as it gets built!

I think we've established that the project is initially being funded by ERDF, which the taxpayer contributes to, and the Treasury, which the taxpayer contributes to. Rovers will repay part over the long term, the taxpayer underwriting the risk. Comments by Hull KR chairman that Rovers might not go round again arguably add to the perceived risk. In terms of the stand element, at best the council have enabled and underwritten material borrowing facilities for operational infrastructure of a private limited company. Does this happen a lot or only in special cases?

Of course, initial capital outlay is just one aspect. Ongoing there are operating costs to cover, which will be shared by tenants. I seem to remember reading the allocation of some running costs would be allocated on the basis of days of use? Rovers share would be 13/365 in that case, that can't be right. Will check the project scoping document later.

Wanted stand, needed money, got money building stand, what more could you possibly need to know? It's a rugby forum afterall, not council minutes, accounts.com or the Andrew Marr show.

YAAAAAAAWN

WiH
The answer is 'yes'. If the conditions of the grant weren't met. Which seems unlikely to me personally. But worst case, the facilities would still be there and they sound like the sort of thing that a council should be doing. As it is more to do with the wider development, rather than Rovers bit, if I could ask you to take it up directly with the council or perhaps on a website were your interest in the minutiae of this sort thing is widely shared, I'd be grateful.

Mrs b, councils supporting local professional sports clubs is nothing new. On principle, I don't think they should, but they do, so now our turn has come I find it pretty easy to be sanguine.

Round in circles now, so I think 'freedom of speech' has been protected at the expense of the thread plenty long enough, so I'll be taking the opposite approach for a while.