And what exactly do the non Football or Rugby community get out of the KC stadium?

The build is a 52 week build. However the 52 weeks started when they started piling. It'll be next July before it's complete. Apparently most of the delays has been because of silly arguments between Hull CC and Rovers.

Ironically, one of those silly arguments was over the scheduling of Rovers stand. I don't know what the outcome is but Rovers asked for the stand (and the adjoining facilities) to be ready for the start of SL 2013.

I would have thought they could finish the stand and seating for the start of next season with some toilets and basic facilities and finish the rest as and when. Does not sound like an unreasonable request.

Depends how you define "unreasonable". The funding is coming from the council through them taking out a loan and ERDF funding, Rovers are paying nothing up front. To demand the stand gets built first after all the hoops the council have had to jump though to help Rovers out here, would be a bit rich.

According to the site manager, the whole thing consisted of two contracts. The first contract was to clear the ground and lay the piling mat. The second was for the build itself. He was saying that if it was one contract then they would have ordered all equipment up front but they refused to order any equipment until the second contract was signed. The 52 week build started from when they started piling. He said Rovers were being real picky and that at meetings they were having to explain things in minute detail making the meetings last double what they were supposed to be. Also Rovers were asking for things which weren't on the plans which also held up things.

I suspect that the devil is (as always) in the detail here. If the structure is completed, and the internals are the last parts to completion, it would make sense to prioritise installation of stadium seating over buying nice conference room furniture. The final fit of any build often takes the longest portion of time.

A client being picky and wanting details of a building at the design phase? That doesn't sound like Rovers. That sounds like a normal organisation and we all know that doesn't describe our rugby team.

Fancy wanting an input into the design, How dare they?

The design had already been completed and signed off before all this nit picking started.

And possibly impractical?

It's one shared building not two. Much as I'm no expert on building, I'm not sure you could build one part then the other, as I imagine they'd be structurally interlinked.

Tbf, it is as (or more) important that it is done right as it is that it is done quick.

The site manager might well have legitimate gripes, but equally he's not an unbiassed observer - might just want an easy life, I know I do.

I've yet to be involved in a project where the client didn't make adjustments AFTER design sign off. It happens all the time, and professional building companies cope with it. The client has every right to change details, its not nit picking at all.

Rovers aren't the client, though, just a future tenant. It's a council project and a council asset.

So that means rovers wont have to pay any monies back on this project great bit of business done by rovers then cool

A tenant is a type of client. As a long-term tenant it isn't unreasonable to want input into what you are are going to be getting.

And actually, GS makes a decent point - we're paying back a loan rather than or as well as paying rent, innit?

Not that I care. The semantics of finance is mostly about misrepresentation, it seems to me.

Do you think Hull City had zero input into the design of the KC?

Does this mean we're going to have the rubbish council tat of yellow/blue on the exterior?

I do make sum good points once in a while MR were gonna have a shiny new stand and not have to pay anything I think it's great

If we had been more nit picking when the build was first done maybe we would have had a better ground then we have, the pitch should have been the other way and the east stand would have stopped the bloody wind we used to have in winter, it was freezing their so nit pick all you like rovers but get it right

Yeah, I mean how unreasonable. A professional sports club involved in buliding a new stand would like it to be available for use as a stand as soon as possible.

The point is that rovers signed off on the design then decided they wanted to change it after it had gone through planning etc..

Similar to the peppercorn rental on the freehold, you mean?

I believe that one of the 'nit picking' requests that Rovers have made was on my behalf.

As a well-known international superstar (especially in South East Asia), I require my own seating arrangements at Craven Park. I thought what better than to have my own designated area in the new stand.

I therefore asked Rovers to alter the designs to add a 'la z boy' recliner chair situated at the top of the new chimney thing, with a beer fridge, ladder (to access the chair) and a large umbrella incase it rains.

Hudgell agreed and the plans were altered.

I find that hard to believe. This thing's been ongoing for years, Lakin said it would be open in 2010 IIRC. After all the project reviews, why request another change after planning consent if the aim is to open ASAP?

Tail trying to wag the dog, surely?