Joined: Apr 01 2003 Posts: 2155 Location: The Land Of The Sand
rover49 wrote:The ratepayers see sod all of it, I think it will be a much better deal for US as ratepayers with the North stand deal as its not costing the ratepayer anything over the 30 yr span of the deal.
Blame the council for the lack of money it receives from the KC stadium
Diablo1967 said ''A pub-landlord running a professional sporting outfit in the best league in the hemisphere? Laughable''
Joined: Mar 11 2007 Posts: 5659 Location: Next to Ramsgate Sands c.1850 in West Hull
Is it just me, but the Hull Daily Mail stating:
"At a meeting of the authority's ruling cabinet, plans were passed to build a new Enterprise Hub and Training Centre at Craven Park, with the council agreeing to build a new north stand as part of the project.
The £6.5m project will see the council meet £4.2m of the bill, although the local authority is hopeful of attracting European funding to reduce that cost. The remaining £2.3m was said to be from 'external funding'."
... is actually the polar opposite of Phil Webbo's wafflings (as an individual posting on a local rag's message board) to attempt to distance the council's coffers from this project:
"Just to help with a few facts, The council is using a facility available called prudential borrowing, (that means using the asset against the borrow) let me make it quite clear, there is no outlay of any money by the council, 3 partners will pay rent to cover the cost of the borrowing (so no cost to the council) the shortfall in funding is to be met by a ERDF grant (which has been agreed) the council is taking a risk as to the rental payments, which has been fully risk assessed by a proffesional body,
To sum up, The stand will go ahead, and will be of no cost to the tax payers of Hull, and as an earlier poster said this will be a valuble enterprise asset to Hull."
If I've read this right, the Hull Daily Mail has got completely the wrong end of the stick and should be pilloried by the council's legal team.
Either that or Phil Webbo is undertaking it upon himself to play down the council's true contribution. I'd be interested to see the council's official press release confirming it's position.
"At a meeting of the authority's ruling cabinet, plans were passed to build a new Enterprise Hub and Training Centre at Craven Park, with the council agreeing to build a new north stand as part of the project.
The £6.5m project will see the council meet £4.2m of the bill, although the local authority is hopeful of attracting European funding to reduce that cost. The remaining £2.3m was said to be from 'external funding'."
... is actually the polar opposite of Phil Webbo's wafflings (as an individual posting on a local rag's message board) to attempt to distance the council's coffers from this project:
"Just to help with a few facts, The council is using a facility available called prudential borrowing, (that means using the asset against the borrow) let me make it quite clear, there is no outlay of any money by the council, 3 partners will pay rent to cover the cost of the borrowing (so no cost to the council) the shortfall in funding is to be met by a ERDF grant (which has been agreed) the council is taking a risk as to the rental payments, which has been fully risk assessed by a proffesional body,
To sum up, The stand will go ahead, and will be of no cost to the tax payers of Hull, and as an earlier poster said this will be a valuble enterprise asset to Hull."
If I've read this right, the Hull Daily Mail has got completely the wrong end of the stick and should be pilloried by the council's legal team.
Either that or Phil Webbo is undertaking it upon himself to play down the council's true contribution. I'd be interested to see the council's official press release confirming it's position.
Joined: Apr 06 2006 Posts: 1103 Location: The Heart of East Hull
WormInHand wrote:Is it just me, but the Hull Daily Mail stating:
"At a meeting of the authority's ruling cabinet, plans were passed to build a new Enterprise Hub and Training Centre at Craven Park, with the council agreeing to build a new north stand as part of the project.
The £6.5m project will see the council meet £4.2m of the bill, although the local authority is hopeful of attracting European funding to reduce that cost. The remaining £2.3m was said to be from 'external funding'."
... is actually the polar opposite of Phil Webbo's wafflings (as an individual posting on a local rag's message board) to attempt to distance the council's coffers from this project:
"Just to help with a few facts, The council is using a facility available called prudential borrowing, (that means using the asset against the borrow) let me make it quite clear, there is no outlay of any money by the council, 3 partners will pay rent to cover the cost of the borrowing (so no cost to the council) the shortfall in funding is to be met by a ERDF grant (which has been agreed) the council is taking a risk as to the rental payments, which has been fully risk assessed by a proffesional body,
To sum up, The stand will go ahead, and will be of no cost to the tax payers of Hull, and as an earlier poster said this will be a valuble enterprise asset to Hull."
If I've read this right, the Hull Daily Mail has got completely the wrong end of the stick and should be pilloried by the council's legal team.
Either that or Phil Webbo is undertaking it upon himself to play down the council's true contribution. I'd be interested to see the council's official press release confirming it's position.
WormInHand wrote:Is it just me, but the Hull Daily Mail stating:
"At a meeting of the authority's ruling cabinet, plans were passed to build a new Enterprise Hub and Training Centre at Craven Park, with the council agreeing to build a new north stand as part of the project.
The £6.5m project will see the council meet £4.2m of the bill, although the local authority is hopeful of attracting European funding to reduce that cost. The remaining £2.3m was said to be from 'external funding'."
... is actually the polar opposite of Phil Webbo's wafflings (as an individual posting on a local rag's message board) to attempt to distance the council's coffers from this project:
"Just to help with a few facts, The council is using a facility available called prudential borrowing, (that means using the asset against the borrow) let me make it quite clear, there is no outlay of any money by the council, 3 partners will pay rent to cover the cost of the borrowing (so no cost to the council) the shortfall in funding is to be met by a ERDF grant (which has been agreed) the council is taking a risk as to the rental payments, which has been fully risk assessed by a proffesional body,
To sum up, The stand will go ahead, and will be of no cost to the tax payers of Hull, and as an earlier poster said this will be a valuble enterprise asset to Hull."
If I've read this right, the Hull Daily Mail has got completely the wrong end of the stick and should be pilloried by the council's legal team.
Either that or Phil Webbo is undertaking it upon himself to play down the council's true contribution. I'd be interested to see the council's official press release confirming it's position.
Joined: Mar 11 2007 Posts: 5659 Location: Next to Ramsgate Sands c.1850 in West Hull
sandy wrote:surely the daily fail don't get stories wrong?
In this economic climate this is a big one to get wrong, given the council redundancies, cutbacks and belt tightening. I'd be fuming if I were Minns and co, at the effect this sort of "mistake" would have on the image of the council to it's electorate.
Philip Larkin wrote:
There ain’t no music East side of this city That’s mellow like mine is, That’s mellow like mine.
Joined: Jan 16 2010 Posts: 7138 Location: Ramsey Street, Brough
WormInHand wrote:In this economic climate this is a big one to get wrong, given the council redundancies, cutbacks and belt tightening. I'd be fuming if I were Minns and co, at the effect this sort of "mistake" would have on the image of the council to it's electorate.
Get over it it's happening whether u like it or not it's all a bit boring going on and on and on
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29816 Location: West Yorkshire
WormInHand wrote:Is it just me, but the Hull Daily Mail stating:
"At a meeting of the authority's ruling cabinet, plans were passed to build a new Enterprise Hub and Training Centre at Craven Park, with the council agreeing to build a new north stand as part of the project.
The £6.5m project will see the council meet £4.2m of the bill, although the local authority is hopeful of attracting European funding to reduce that cost. The remaining £2.3m was said to be from 'external funding'."
... is actually the polar opposite of Phil Webbo's wafflings (as an individual posting on a local rag's message board) to attempt to distance the council's coffers from this project:
"Just to help with a few facts, The council is using a facility available called prudential borrowing, (that means using the asset against the borrow) let me make it quite clear, there is no outlay of any money by the council, 3 partners will pay rent to cover the cost of the borrowing (so no cost to the council) the shortfall in funding is to be met by a ERDF grant (which has been agreed) the council is taking a risk as to the rental payments, which has been fully risk assessed by a proffesional body,
To sum up, The stand will go ahead, and will be of no cost to the tax payers of Hull, and as an earlier poster said this will be a valuble enterprise asset to Hull."
If I've read this right, the Hull Daily Mail has got completely the wrong end of the stick and should be pilloried by the council's legal team.
Either that or Phil Webbo is undertaking it upon himself to play down the council's true contribution. I'd be interested to see the council's official press release confirming it's position.
It's not you. I've asked if anyone can explain how this works, i.e. who has legal title on the stand, where the assets and liabilities sit, but no one can articulate it so far.
On balance with, as you say, these 2 somewhat contradictory statements, I'd say the council take out a loan for £4.2m from a prudential borrowing fund, which as I understand it is usually from the Public Works Loan Board, ie central government. So council owes PWLB £4.2m, and pays for the stand. Rovers and friends pay the Council each month the capital repayments plus the interest, which seems to be around 3% each year for the next 30 years (about £200k total a year @3%), which the council then uses to pay back the PWLB. Presumably the council actually owns the stand. In this scenario, the council bears the risk of Rovers defaulting. So in Year 1, the council owes £4m to the prudential borrowing fund, and if Rovers went t1ts up the Hull taxpayer would be liable for the full amount plus interest on a stand that's pretty much neither use nor ornament.
WormInHand wrote:Is it just me, but the Hull Daily Mail stating:
"At a meeting of the authority's ruling cabinet, plans were passed to build a new Enterprise Hub and Training Centre at Craven Park, with the council agreeing to build a new north stand as part of the project.
The £6.5m project will see the council meet £4.2m of the bill, although the local authority is hopeful of attracting European funding to reduce that cost. The remaining £2.3m was said to be from 'external funding'."
... is actually the polar opposite of Phil Webbo's wafflings (as an individual posting on a local rag's message board) to attempt to distance the council's coffers from this project:
"Just to help with a few facts, The council is using a facility available called prudential borrowing, (that means using the asset against the borrow) let me make it quite clear, there is no outlay of any money by the council, 3 partners will pay rent to cover the cost of the borrowing (so no cost to the council) the shortfall in funding is to be met by a ERDF grant (which has been agreed) the council is taking a risk as to the rental payments, which has been fully risk assessed by a proffesional body,
To sum up, The stand will go ahead, and will be of no cost to the tax payers of Hull, and as an earlier poster said this will be a valuble enterprise asset to Hull."
If I've read this right, the Hull Daily Mail has got completely the wrong end of the stick and should be pilloried by the council's legal team.
Either that or Phil Webbo is undertaking it upon himself to play down the council's true contribution. I'd be interested to see the council's official press release confirming it's position.
It's not you. I've asked if anyone can explain how this works, i.e. who has legal title on the stand, where the assets and liabilities sit, but no one can articulate it so far.
On balance with, as you say, these 2 somewhat contradictory statements, I'd say the council take out a loan for £4.2m from a prudential borrowing fund, which as I understand it is usually from the Public Works Loan Board, ie central government. So council owes PWLB £4.2m, and pays for the stand. Rovers and friends pay the Council each month the capital repayments plus the interest, which seems to be around 3% each year for the next 30 years (about £200k total a year @3%), which the council then uses to pay back the PWLB. Presumably the council actually owns the stand. In this scenario, the council bears the risk of Rovers defaulting. So in Year 1, the council owes £4m to the prudential borrowing fund, and if Rovers went t1ts up the Hull taxpayer would be liable for the full amount plus interest on a stand that's pretty much neither use nor ornament.
Joined: Sep 18 2005 Posts: 8742 Location: 2017 City of Culture
WormInHand wrote:In this economic climate this is a big one to get wrong, given the council redundancies, cutbacks and belt tightening. I'd be fuming if I were Minns and co, at the effect this sort of "mistake" would have on the image of the council to it's electorate.
You don't have to be "Minns & Co" to be fuming, you could be just as angry by supporting Hull FC.
Joined: Sep 18 2005 Posts: 8742 Location: 2017 City of Culture
Mrs Barista wrote:It's not you. I've asked if anyone can explain how this works, i.e. who has legal title on the stand, where the assets and liabilities sit, but no one can articulate it so far.
We could all articulate, but in reality it would really be speculation, something you excel in (e.g. speculation regarding Clinton's HKR salary).
The real reason nobody has answered you is that only you and other supporters of your club are interested to such an obsessive level. We just want a better stadium, you just want the city to yourselves (like pre-2007). Well, it ain't gonna happen.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 46 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
