Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:24 am  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

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.

Not at all. If you're going to bid on a site, you need to know how much money you'll make before deciding on the level of bid. You can't do that without working up the site plans, estimating "abnormal" build costs, assessing cost of highways reconfiguration if necessary, but importantly understanding the size and configuration of the income-generating commercial units, which, for this project, sounds like a supermarket at least. Your "have a bit of a guess, but get on with giving him the stadium" approach invites precisely the risk, which is a big one, (that I talked about earlier and you conveniently ignored). Allam gets the stadium for nowt and builds the extension to the KC. He then conveniently uncovers land/construction/planning/funding issues down the line which mean he can't build the "Sporting Village" as articulated in the original deal. End product - stadium is in private hands, the council have given away a major asset and the premise for the giveaway never materialises. Often in these sorts of deal, the council would state as part of the arrangement that the Village has to be up and running before the extension to the KC can happen to avoid the obligations being avoided later on when the primary objective of the whole thing, in this case the acquisition of the KC for nothing, has been achieved and the rest can be conveniently parked (as it seems the ice rink and swimming pool already have been).

My Uncle Harry wrote:

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.

Ultimately there will be a single proposal and it's the job of both parties to produce the most compelling one on which the public can then vote. The Council have already said several times that a project team is in place to support this process of working with Allam to refine the details and options as you suggest, but have not been presented with any plans yet. They have yielded and are taking a reasonable position. The ball couldn't be any more in Allam's court to deliver a proposal on which to proceed.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:40 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Not at all. If you're going to bid on a site, you need to know how much money you'll make before deciding on the level of bid. You can't do that without working up the site plans, estimating "abnormal" build costs, assessing cost of highways reconfiguration if necessary, but importantly understanding the size and configuration of the income-generating commercial units, which, for this project, sounds like a supermarket at least. Your "have a bit of a guess, but get on with giving him the stadium" approach invites precisely the risk, which is a big one, (that I talked about earlier and you conveniently ignored). Allam gets the stadium for nowt and builds the extension to the KC. He then conveniently uncovers land/construction/planning/funding issues down the line which mean he can't build the "Sporting Village" as articulated in the original deal. End product - stadium is in private hands, the council have given away a major asset and the premise for the giveaway never materialises. Often in these sorts of deal, the council would state as part of the arrangement that the Village has to be up and running before the extension to the KC can happen to avoid the obligations being avoided later on when the primary objective of the whole thing, in this case the acquisition of the KC for nothing, has been achieved and the rest can be conveniently parked (as it seems the ice rink and swimming pool already have been).

Ultimately there will be a single proposal and it's the job of both parties to produce the most compelling one on which the public can then vote. The Council have already said several times that a project team is in place to support this process of working with Allam to refine the details and options as you suggest, but have not been presented with any plans yet. They have yielded and are taking a reasonable position. The ball couldn't be any more in Allam's court to deliver a proposal on which to proceed.

My experience differs from yours. The first time I saw it in action I was amazed at the lack of detail and assumed it was a one off by a shoddy developer, but it turns out generic costs are certainly the norm at this stage of a proposal. The exception tends to be for competitive bidding and the costs and work involved highlights why it's not done until needed. Had Mr Allam done as you suggest, he'd potentially be millions out of pocket to find out it's a none starter for party political and personality reasons.

As for the rest, you're STILL stuck in the small, offer and accept mindset. It needs more expansive thinkers involved to try to broker the best deal for all. Yes, Mr Allam needs to put more meat on the bones, but rightly or wrongly their seems to have been a clash of personalities involved that prevented more open discussions. What a shame if that kills even the consideration of an opportunity.

As I see it, Mr Allam's sat comfortable and he and his family could sit out their lives without striking another bat. Our representatives in the Council need to find funding to develop Hull and initiate investment to benefit us. The ball sits squarely with the Council. The manner in which the Council are reported to want talks in the media is hardly conducive to encouraging a potential investor. It doesn't put an 'open for business' sign to investors.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:16 am  

I love this thread!!

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:18 am  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

My experience differs from yours. The first time I saw it in action I was amazed at the lack of detail and assumed it was a one off by a shoddy developer, but it turns out generic costs are certainly the norm at this stage of a proposal. The exception tends to be for competitive bidding and the costs and work involved highlights why it's not done until needed. Had Mr Allam done as you suggest, he'd potentially be millions out of pocket to find out it's a none starter for party political and personality reasons..

By “it turns out”, I assume you mean “someone on City’s messageboard reckons”. I agree that if the council were not prepared in any way to entertain any development, costs would have been sunk unnecessarily. However, they’ve invited the detail and had more than one meeting with Allam, which suggests they are interested in progressing. Based on this, it’s standard practice to incur initial feasibility costs to enhance chances of a scheme progressing with provision of detail and a business case. In reality what’s happened is that no plans have been presented and Allam has refused to start talks until he’s guaranteed the freehold of the most valuable element of the site. This is beyond unreasonable. We all know it.

My Uncle Harry wrote:

As for the rest, you're STILL stuck in the small, offer and accept mindset. It needs more expansive thinkers involved to try to broker the best deal for all. Yes, Mr Allam needs to put more meat on the bones, but rightly or wrongly their seems to have been a clash of personalities involved that prevented more open discussions. What a shame if that kills even the consideration of an opportunity..

No I’m not. If you’d bothered to read what I put, it was that the council don’t have a proposal to discuss on the table but still have a team in place to work up feasibility and consider the various options, to put together the best scheme. Allam has some £3k plans which he won’t share and won’t negotiate until the transfer of the KC is signed off as a pre-requisite to any talks. If the lead on a scheme in my organisation went to a landowner and/or council adopting with an opening gambit of “I’ve got some plans which I’ll not share at this point, but I want half the land for nothing before we start talking” our reputation in the market would be destroyed. It’s a nonsensical position. You might want to dismiss it as a “clash of personalities” but that’s trying to gloss over the ridiculousness of Allam’s upfront demands.

My Uncle Harry wrote:

As I see it, Mr Allam's sat comfortable and he and his family could sit out their lives without striking another bat. Our representatives in the Council need to find funding to develop Hull and initiate investment to benefit us. The ball sits squarely with the Council. The manner in which the Council are reported to want talks in the media is hardly conducive to encouraging a potential investor. It doesn't put an 'open for business' sign to investors.

And the Council are "sat comfortable" on an asset that costs nothing to maintain and provides a home to the city’s main professional sporting clubs. We’ve established so far that in the recent meeting the swimming pool and ice rink were regarded as expendable by Allam in face of the apparently "new information" that there are already facilities in place nearby, so from their point of view, the development opportunity vs the original Sporting Village concept is unclear, apart from the supermarket. The ball is therefore in Allam’s court to provide something, anything, to frame the discussion. Hull City Council btw have a decent reputation in encouraging development from a property perspective. Can’t see at all that them struggling to negotiate with a proposer who won’t start talking until he’s guaranteed the freehold of the main element of the land would mean any serious developer would be put off.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:26 am  

Even i have "lost the will to live" on my own thread.

Mrs B....give up......Arry obviously doesn't have a life and is completely unable to accept defeat on the matter.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:40 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

By “it turns out”, I assume you mean “someone on City’s messageboard reckons”. I agree that if the council were not prepared in any way to entertain any development, costs would have been sunk unnecessarily. However, they’ve invited the detail and had more than one meeting with Allam, which suggests they are interested in progressing. Based on this, it’s standard practice to incur initial feasibility costs to enhance chances of a scheme progressing with provision of detail and a business case. In reality what’s happened is that no plans have been presented and Allam has refused to start talks until he’s guaranteed the freehold of the most valuable element of the site. This is beyond unreasonable. We all know it.

No I’m not. If you’d bothered to read what I put, it was that the council don’t have a proposal to discuss on the table but still have a team in place to work up feasibility and consider the various options, to put together the best scheme. Allam has some £3k plans which he won’t share and won’t negotiate until the transfer of the KC is signed off as a pre-requisite to any talks. If the lead on a scheme in my organisation went to a landowner and/or council adopting with an opening gambit of “I’ve got some plans which I’ll not share at this point, but I want half the land for nothing before we start talking” our reputation in the market would be destroyed. It’s a nonsensical position. You might want to dismiss it as a “clash of personalities” but that’s trying to gloss over the ridiculousness of Allam’s upfront demands.
And the Council are "sat comfortable" on an asset that costs nothing to maintain and provides a home to the city’s main professional sporting clubs. We’ve established so far that in the recent meeting the swimming pool and ice rink were regarded as expendable by Allam in face of the apparently "new information" that there are already facilities in place nearby, so from their point of view, the development opportunity vs the original Sporting Village concept is unclear, apart from the supermarket. The ball is therefore in Allam’s court to provide something, anything, to frame the discussion. Hull City Council btw have a decent reputation in encouraging development from a property perspective. Can’t see at all that them struggling to negotiate with a proposer who won’t start talking until he’s guaranteed the freehold of the main element of the land would mean any serious developer would be put off.

The childish comment about 'someone on a Hull City message board' is wrong. To assume it's a football v rl issue also shows a limited and inaccurate perception.

It's interesting you see the stadium as an asset. Due to the money that will need spending on it and the area, it could be seen as a liability. It's also only worth anything as an asset if its value can be realised.

As for the stance about needing the freehold, that in itself shouldn't be an end to talks. There are ways of encouraging negotiations without having to commit to that.

I keep saying I'm neither for or against either party. I just want to see avenues explored rather than dismissed out of hand for the wrong reasons. If reports are to be believed, the Council has no problem in gifting assets to Mr Alam, they supposedly offered Costello, so the issue seems to be on the specific asset. As they're our representatives, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to make clear what their alternative intentions for the site are.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:42 am  

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Even i have "lost the will to live" on my own thread.

Mrs B....give up......Arry obviously doesn't have a life and is completely unable to accept defeat on the matter.

I'll accept defeat when it arrives. Just as long as you realise having a different perspective than a few posters on here doesn't make me wrong.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:43 am  

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Even i have "lost the will to live" on my own thread.

Mrs B....give up......Arry obviously doesn't have a life and is completely unable to accept defeat on the matter.

Tend to agree. In summary as I see it, the council have called Allam's bluff on bringing forward a proposal to discuss. No sign of one yet. As said, if the lead on a scheme in my organisation went to a landowner and/or council adopting with an opening gambit of “I’ve got some plans which I’ll not share at this point, but I want half the land for nothing before we start talking” our reputation in the market would be destroyed. Ball's in his court. If this scheme is so compelling for him, the council, the developers with their margins to satisfy and the people of Hull, the refined proposal worked up in conjunction with the council will be a no-brainer for the electorate.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:18 am  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

The childish comment about 'someone on a Hull City message board' is wrong. To assume it's a football v rl issue also shows a limited and inaccurate perception.

There's little wonder you are struggling with the arguments presented to you on here, if your comprehension of Mrs B's post is anything to go by. Just where has she suggested that it's a soccer v rugby issue?

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:43 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

The childish comment about 'someone on a Hull City message board' is wrong. To assume it's a football v rl issue also shows a limited and inaccurate perception.

OK then, your comment "it turns out" is a bit hazy. Perhaps you could share who your sources are that say it's normal to have a £3k plan as a basis for demanding a £40m asset before negotations can even commence. I'd suggest that, rather than my experience, is a “singular” situation.

My Uncle Harry wrote:

It's interesting you see the stadium as an asset. Due to the money that will need spending on it and the area, it could be seen as a liability. It's also only worth anything as an asset if its value can be realised.

It's an asset because it generates future economic value. The council don’t have to spend anything on it as that’s the responsibility of the SMC who are responsible for its custodianship and upkeep. The stadium costs the council next to nothing to run. That’s the point of the SMC agreement.

My Uncle Harry wrote:

As for the stance about needing the freehold, that in itself shouldn't be an end to talks. There are ways of encouraging negotiations without having to commit to that.

Removing it as the pre-requisite would be the blindingly obvious first step, then, surely?

My Uncle Harry wrote:

I keep saying I'm neither for or against either party. I just want to see avenues explored rather than dismissed out of hand for the wrong reasons. If reports are to be believed, the Council has no problem in gifting assets to Mr Alam, they supposedly offered Costello, so the issue seems to be on the specific asset. As they're our representatives, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to make clear what their alternative intentions for the site are.

They're willing to gift a sporting venue allocated under planning policy for sporting activities for Allam’s sporting gift. Their alternative intentions for the KC/West Park site are, in all probability, the same as they were 10 years ago, namely to house the club’s two largest professional sporting clubs and provide the appropriate volume of carparking, provide a site for the fairground with hundreds of thousands of visitors, and retain park areas for the people of West Hull. I’m not too sure they would have dreamt up a plan for a supermarket and “boutiques” on West Park given the vacancy rates in sequentially preferable sites in the city centre. It seems to me evident that the council have already been too generous in retail consents in the centre, to the extent that supply outstrips demand. It would be inappropriate if they were focussing on putting money into another out of town site when businesses are vacating Kingston Park and other units in the already sprawling city centre. If they had, I doubt the local populace would have been giddy at the prospect.

Would it be nice to have an Olympic sized swimming pool here, and an ice rink, and squash courts? Possibly, although outside of London I'm not sure how many cities have two ice rinks, so you could say the requirement is tenuous. If anything, what should be remembered is that even in the extreme case that Allam "gifts" all these fantastic sporting facilities to the city, it's highly likely that the council will be on the hook to pay the running costs ongoing. In my experience, there's a reason why municipal facilities are municipal facilities, and it's because they run at a loss that the council would have to sign up for in perpetuity. They might love the idea of underwriting the costs of not one but two ice arenas within 2 miles of each other, but in the current economic environment, I'd suggest it would be unlikely and, frankly, a bit stupid.