Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:26 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

I think you're mistaken saying that plans wouldn't normally be very well developed at this stage. I do property investment appraisal for a living, including retail parks, and in order to put together an initial bid we'd have, as a minimum:
QS land assessment including contamination risk
Planning reports on existing covenants and restrictions, with strategies to address each such as indicative cost increments to satisfy, eg, modified elevations
Commercial income assessment for retail elements including sales densities, which in turn can't be assessed until factors such as car parking provision, highways, access and egress have been established.
Financial modelling of returns including 25 year cashflows with the relevant estimated build and fitout costs, EBITDAR assumptions to generate an NPV and IRR.

If you don't have this you (i.e. Mr Allam) can't make a sensible bid as he won't know what his returns and funding would have to look like. I can't see someone spending just £3k on a £120m project before putting in a serious pitch - it would be madness.

He could, however, get some cheap artists impressions on the front of the HDM as an agitating tactic, demand that even opening discussions means giving him the stadium for nothing to play a "here's what you could have won" game with the HDM readership and then try a smear campaign against a council which, like all councils, are very unpopular at present with cost-cutting measures, whilst at the same time buying the votes relatively cheaply of other groups one at a time to exert pressure.

Shabby tactics IMO but the council's "give us a sensible and costed scenario on which to vote" is the test of how serious he is as we'd see the proportion of "sport" in the "Sporting Village", the extent to which supermarkets, shops etc would be involved, with impacts on the city centre retailers and vacancy rates, planning requirements, and funding details to assess risk. If Mr Allam could not meet repayments, for example, say if he'd borrowed £50m for a commercial development and the recession continues or worsens, we'd have to understand who gets the stadium then. What if he gets the stadium for nothing and extends it but the funding for the Sporting Village falls away and he doesn't build it? We need to know the council can reclaim it's asset as the deal should be conditional on the development taking place. At present we know nothing of these crucial details but it's sensible that the council would put provisions in place for these to be understood before a vote.

Now....your being to down right sensible

Uncle arry will have to put war and peace together to respond now

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:31 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Dredge?

Brough foreshore would require a damn sight more than simple dredging. Are you aware of just how much mud & silt is shifted down the Humber on each ebb tide? The cost of the operation would far outweigh the value of any turbines built there. It would probably be cheaper to relocate Saltend

I'm fully aware that it would be a bit more then simply dredging, and yes it would be an ongoing process. I was merely pointing out that it isn't an impossible task though, and once the initial dredging had been completed it would only require the channels to be kept clear.
Agreed though, it makes much more sense to have it further up the river as originally suggested. Then the the ships doing the offshore installation can load the turbine parts from a deepwater berth and out to the worksite all in one go, rather then having a barge loaded up and towed up to the ships to unload etc.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:50 am  

Feathers wrote:

I'm fully aware that it would be a bit more then simply dredging, and yes it would be an ongoing process. I was merely pointing out that it isn't an impossible task though, and once the initial dredging had been completed it would only require the channels to be kept clear.
Agreed though, it makes much more sense to have it further up the river as originally suggested. Then the the ships doing the offshore installation can load the turbine parts from a deepwater berth and out to the worksite all in one go, rather then having a barge loaded up and towed up to the ships to unload etc.

Although OFF SUBJECT...I don't know why people are getting larthered up over Siemens.

They WILL NOT COME HERE.

Our council and government WILL NOT offer them enough financial discounts over a number of years for this to happen - SIMPLES....move on

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:57 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

I think you're mistaken saying that plans wouldn't normally be very well developed at this stage.

Indeed. This seems to have been our friend's argument since day one but, as you point out, it is totally flawed.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:51 pm  

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Although OFF SUBJECT...I don't know why people are getting larthered up over Siemens.

They WILL NOT COME HERE.

Our council and government WILL NOT offer them enough financial discounts over a number of years for this to happen - SIMPLES....move on

I disagree. The ConDems will do whatever is necessary to mitigate the effects of mass redundancies at Brough

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:59 pm  

☺East-Sard☺ wrote:

They'd never get the turbines under the bridge
+ Shallow water

Correct , the Humber between Hull and Brough is not deep enough.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:46 pm  

HFC Boy wrote:

Correct , the Humber between Hull and Brough is not deep enough.

Not deep enough for what exactly? We're not talking about vessels with an excessive draft. Remember many feeder ships go down the Humber to Goole every day.

Sorry to be off topic.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:10 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

I disagree. The ConDems will do whatever is necessary to mitigate the effects of mass redundancies at Brough

Cant believe im agreeing with coddy. Know someone who works with Siemens and they have the factory at brough in their sights.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:32 pm  

Feathers wrote:

Not deep enough for what exactly? We're not talking about vessels with an excessive draft. Remember many feeder ships go down the Humber to Goole every day.

Sorry to be off topic.

Maximum draft vessels of 5m for 3 days every 2 weeks (spring tides). Dredging is not possible nor feasable as the banks are continually shifting on each and every tide. Any construction of berth/jetty at Brough is also not possible as this would alter the flow of the river in that area and could well make it worse than what it is now.
The river from the bridge to Apex is actually flowing over a hill (Wolds) the rivers Trent and Ouse are deeper than the Whittons where Brough sits, ships run aground regularly due to the unpredictability of the shifting sands, therefore there isn't a snowball in hells chance of what you are thinking.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:41 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

I think you're mistaken saying that plans wouldn't normally be very well developed at this stage. I do property investment appraisal for a living, including retail parks, and in order to put together an initial bid we'd have, as a minimum:
QS land assessment including contamination risk
Planning reports on existing covenants and restrictions, with strategies to address each such as indicative cost increments to satisfy, eg, modified elevations
Commercial income assessment for retail elements including sales densities, which in turn can't be assessed until factors such as car parking provision, highways, access and egress have been established.
Financial modelling of returns including 25 year cashflows with the relevant estimated build and fitout costs, EBITDAR assumptions to generate an NPV and IRR.

If you don't have this you (i.e. Mr Allam) can't make a sensible bid as he won't know what his returns and funding would have to look like. I can't see someone spending just £3k on a £120m project before putting in a serious pitch - it would be madness.

He could, however, get some cheap artists impressions on the front of the HDM as an agitating tactic, demand that even opening discussions means giving him the stadium for nothing to play a "here's what you could have won" game with the HDM readership and then try a smear campaign against a council which, like all councils, are very unpopular at present with cost-cutting measures, whilst at the same time buying the votes relatively cheaply of other groups one at a time to exert pressure.

Shabby tactics IMO but the council's "give us a sensible and costed scenario on which to vote" is the test of how serious he is as we'd see the proportion of "sport" in the "Sporting Village", the extent to which supermarkets, shops etc would be involved, with impacts on the city centre retailers and vacancy rates, planning requirements, and funding details to assess risk. If Mr Allam could not meet repayments, for example, say if he'd borrowed £50m for a commercial development and the recession continues or worsens, we'd have to understand who gets the stadium then. What if he gets the stadium for nothing and extends it but the funding for the Sporting Village falls away and he doesn't build it? We need to know the council can reclaim it's asset as the deal should be conditional on the development taking place. At present we know nothing of these crucial details but it's sensible that the council would put provisions in place for these to be understood before a vote.

You have a strange and almost unique way of working if you're putting firm plans together, including a contaminated land assessment at this stage in discussions. The most people tend to do is make a quick assessment for the potential for contamination based on the lands previous use rather than the expense of full assessments as without knowing where the buildings are, an assessment's isn't even possible to assess if it's suitable.
At this stage, most schemes use generic building costs until much later in the process. To do otherwise doesn't make business sense.

I suspect the schemes you're talking of are further down the line and more simple.

As for the rest of it, you're STILL stuck in the belief that the Council should be looking at this as a singular proposal. It's that that makes them and you look very small minded.

What they should be doing is looking to see if there's a way of stitching together the elements of the concept that meet Mr Alams needs with those of the Council.