Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:14 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

He didn't get to the opportunity to even talk to the 'deal brokers'.

What are you talking about? He's met with the council on several occasions, the last one being the 3 hour meeting the other week. The stalemate is caused by him being reluctant to talk practically and constructively during these meetings. Issues such as his refusal to show his drawings to the people he wants to give him the stadium for promises with about as much substance as a cigarette paper have made the council cautious as to his true intentions. His fault. Or are you calling Cllr Geraghty a liar?

He's blown it. Move on.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:14 pm  

My Uncle Harry wrote:

He didn't get to the opportunity to even talk to the 'deal brokers'.

How poor must that look to any other potential investors.


For anyone else reading, lose any idea I'm defending Mr Alam, I've mentioned a few times where he has his share of the blame. My issue is with how it's been dealt with.

Your view is completely myopic and leans totally in allam's favour. Unless you have been present at these meetings you don't have the 1st idea what went on so are not in a position to comment

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:20 pm  

so, he has bought a squash tournament without having firm plans as to where he is hosting it, an unusual approach by a sports governing body to award their flagship event to someone without a confirmed venue in place, having worked with the squash governing body in a "previous life" I find it incredibly dubious, I wonder how much in sponsorhip this cost?

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:30 pm  

Standee wrote:

so, he has bought a squash tournament without having firm plans as to where he is hosting it, an unusual approach by a sports governing body to award their flagship event to someone without a confirmed venue in place, having worked with the squash governing body in a "previous life" I find it incredibly dubious, I wonder how much in sponsorhip this cost?

I bet the "official agreement" was drawn up with the KC being an intrinsic part of the deal, anyway.

More bluff and blackmail attempts.

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:32 pm  

WormInHand wrote:

I bet the "official agreement" was drawn up with the KC being an intrinsic part of the deal, anyway.

More bluff and blackmail attempts.

I actually doubt it, to get them to agree an open air event with the spectators that far from the courts would have been nigh on impossible, I would imagine Bridlington was always the venue. Also, interesting how he think he could just get planning in Beverley, he obviously has no idea what ERYC's planning department are like on new build anywhere near central Beverley (or how expensive land and existing buildings are).

he's just an idiot

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:39 pm  

Standee wrote:

I actually doubt it, to get them to agree an open air event with the spectators that far from the courts would have been nigh on impossible, I would imagine Bridlington was always the venue. Also, interesting how he think he could just get planning in Beverley, he obviously has no idea what ERYC's planning department are like on new build anywhere near central Beverley (or how expensive land and existing buildings are).

he's just an idiot

He probably thought the squash facilities in the "Sports Village" would be ready by then

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:49 pm  

WormInHand wrote:

He probably thought the squash facilities in the "Sports Village" would be ready by then

as I said, I really cannot see the governing body agreeing to this without seeing detailed plans with evidenced finance in place etc.

Also,the world Masters are in Birmingham next year, the National Championships are at the NATIONAL SQUAH CENTRE IN MANCHESTER, why on earth would the governing body move away from it's OWN NATIONAL CENTRE?????

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:03 pm  

Standee wrote: as I said, I really cannot see the governing body agreeing to this without seeing detailed plans with evidenced finance in place etc. But we all know that this is the bit he's not very good at. Are you saying the "agreement" may not be as finalized as Allam and his lap dogs are making out?

Standee wrote: as I said, I really cannot see the governing body agreeing to this without seeing detailed plans with evidenced finance in place etc. But we all know that this is the bit he's not very good at. Are you saying the "agreement" may not be as finalized as Allam and his lap dogs are making out?

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:47 pm  

Standee wrote:

NATIONAL SQUAH CENTRE IN MANCHESTER,

Maybe he wants to re-create western films

Re: O/T - Allam the terrible ! : Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:53 pm  

The Dentist Wilf wrote:

Another dummy spat from 'The man with no plans' .

The Dentist Wilf wrote:

Well thanks for all the explainations, its nice to be in the company of the intelligencia, and I really appreciate them. I saw what you call the plans first hand a few month ago on the desk at a local media office. We all agreed at the time they they were a fine idea and good for the City but certainly as artistes impressions, which didn't even indicate what a lot of the buildings were to be used for, they were no basis for a local authority to hand over a £43m Stadium. I have not changed my mind on that one. As for me getting my facts right well I always base my comments on what I know or have seen and I still believe that producing such artistes impressions and then refusing to show them to the Council, is not the way to get this moving. Nor is calling the Council in newspapers and public lectures!

As I said and you've confirmed, you were wrong.

No self respecting company would bother producing a full complete set of final plans at the start of such a pre-application discussion. It's not like a loft conversion or moving the counter in a corner-shop.

Interesting that on a cursory glance of an outline for discussion, you and your chums felt it looked a good scheme. Instead of one man from the Council blocking it from further debate from the real decision makers, it should have led to more open discussions to find areas of compromise and agreement.

Why some of you feel I'm blindly backing Alam is more just your own blinkers. I've said repeatedly he's handled it badly and needs to accept his share of the blame. That's no excuse for slamming the door though. People of the ilk of Adam Pearson back the plan. Whose opinions would you trust more with investments, one man from a ruling party that's running up millions in debt already, or multimillionaires with proven track records?