New contractor has been confirmed to complete work on the Ageas Bowl hotel

Work is back underway at the Ageas Bowl hotel

Work is back underway at the Ageas Bowl hotel

First published in Sport
Last updated
Romsey Advertiser: Photograph of the Author by , Eastleigh Chief Reporter

BUILDING work on a controversial taxpayer-funded hotel at the home of Hampshire cricket is finally back underway, the Daily Echo can reveal.

A new contractor has at last been confirmed to complete the giant unfinished shell of the planned Hilton hotel at The Ageas Bowl.

RB Sport & Leisure Holdings PLC, the parent company of Hampshire Cricket Ltd, has announced that Hampshire-based Powells Group Ltd has been appointed to finish the job.

As previously reported, work on the luxury 175-bedroom hotel came to a grinding halt in September when the previous contractor, Denizen, plunged in to administration owing hundreds of thousands of pounds to small Hampshire businesses.

Since then work has been going on behind the scenes to find a new contractor with a “complex” series of agreements having to be drawn up.

Meanwhile Co-operative Bank has stepped away from the project and a new funding body, Omni Capital, has stepped in to provide the upfront building cash.

Civic chiefs are underpinning the entire project with the promise of buying the hotel for millions of pounds of tax payers money.

They insist that there will be no additional cost to the authority as a result of the delays and new deal.

The hotel is now scheduled to open in spring 2015 although the Media Centre it houses will be ready in time to host written and broadcast media at the England v India Investec Test Match starting on July 27.

Rod Bransgrove, Chairman of Hampshire Cricket said: “Through no fault of the Club or Eastleigh Borough Council, the hotel development encountered a major setback towards the end of last year.

“We have worked tirelessly alongside all the key stakeholders in this project to recommence work in the shortest time possible given the complex nature of this project.

“Our aim of creating a model Test Match ground and world-class destination resort is stronger than ever although the realisation of this aim will be just a little later than we had originally planned.”

Gordon Wells, Chairman of Powells Group said: “As a Hampshire based company, we are delighted to have been awarded the contract to complete the Hilton Hotel at the Ageas Bowl, Southampton and our aim is to continue to use local tradesmen and businesses wherever possible.

“Our forte is the production of high quality commercial interiors, including hotels, retail premises, showrooms, restaurants and offices.

“Our additional experience of heavy construction work puts us in a perfect position to complete this project on time, on budget and to the highest possible standards as evidenced by our enviable client list including the likes of Louis Vuitton, Prada, Burberry and many other world renowned high profile companies.”

The Liberal Democrat-controlled council agreed to pay more than £27m for the completed hotel - unchanged even if building charges spiral.

It has already spent around £3.4m upfront in consultancy and services fees and has bought the ground the hotel sits on for £1.1m.

The council also bought the lease of the 167-acre Ageas Bowl site for £6.5m in 2011, as revealed by the Daily Echo.

The facility in West End was set to create 500 jobs, pumping up to £55m a year into the local economy on its expected opening this spring.

The announcement comes after the Daily Echo revealed how leaked documents showed that Denizen went bust after bosses revealed they would lose more than £2m by completing the Hampshire project.

The Co-operative Bank withdrew further funding when bank bosses became aware of Denizen's financial problems, according to the report.

Keith House, Leader of Eastleigh Borough Council said: “This is a very significant scheme for the borough and it is important that we have taken the time to ensure that outstanding issues have been resolved.

“It's fantastic news that work has started on finishing the Hilton Hotel so that people and businesses in the borough can begin to enjoy the benefits of this investment”.

“Funding for the completion of the Hotel is being provided by Omni Capital - one of the UK's leading specialist providers of short and medium-term residential property funding. This means that The Co-operative Bank, who provided the early seed funding for the development, will now step back from the project.”

Grahame McGirr, Managing Director of Co-operative Asset Management and Chief Risk Officer of the Co-operative Bank said: “The Co-operative Bank has a long history of investing in local communities and working with partners to ensure sustainable funding over the longer term.

“We believe this project will make a significant contribution to the local community and economy. The Bank's seed funding for this project is now at an end, though we continue to support Hampshire Cricket In the Community, the Club's official charity, as it delivers an increasing amount of local and regional community activity.”

Hotel management company, Interstate Hotels & Resorts, will operate the hotel when it opens.

The global company currently has 50 hotels in the UK under franchise agreements with companies including Hilton Worldwide, InterContinental Hotels Group, Accor, Wyndham and Best Western.

How the Daily Echo reported the story:

 

 

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:50pm Mon 31 Mar 14

dolomiteman says...

The title screams 'Tax payer funded' yet in the article is states 'Funding for the completion of the Hotel is being provided by Omni Capital'

EBC are not in any way funding the hotel so what is the DE's obsession with them claiming this every time the hotel is mentioned?
The title screams 'Tax payer funded' yet in the article is states 'Funding for the completion of the Hotel is being provided by Omni Capital' EBC are not in any way funding the hotel so what is the DE's obsession with them claiming this every time the hotel is mentioned? dolomiteman
  • Score: 4

3:18pm Mon 31 Mar 14

alan.of.eastleigh says...

dolomiteman wrote:
The title screams 'Tax payer funded' yet in the article is states 'Funding for the completion of the Hotel is being provided by Omni Capital'

EBC are not in any way funding the hotel so what is the DE's obsession with them claiming this every time the hotel is mentioned?
Perhaps it is because once built, the Council hand over £27m to Omni Capital.
[quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: The title screams 'Tax payer funded' yet in the article is states 'Funding for the completion of the Hotel is being provided by Omni Capital' EBC are not in any way funding the hotel so what is the DE's obsession with them claiming this every time the hotel is mentioned?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it is because once built, the Council hand over £27m to Omni Capital. alan.of.eastleigh
  • Score: -1

3:29pm Mon 31 Mar 14

townieboy says...

This is great news for Southampton
This is great news for Southampton townieboy
  • Score: -1

3:42pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Kingontail says...

alan.of.eastleigh wrote:
dolomiteman wrote:
The title screams 'Tax payer funded' yet in the article is states 'Funding for the completion of the Hotel is being provided by Omni Capital'

EBC are not in any way funding the hotel so what is the DE's obsession with them claiming this every time the hotel is mentioned?
Perhaps it is because once built, the Council hand over £27m to Omni Capital.
yep and end up with an investment paying a return - fine.
[quote][p][bold]alan.of.eastleigh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: The title screams 'Tax payer funded' yet in the article is states 'Funding for the completion of the Hotel is being provided by Omni Capital' EBC are not in any way funding the hotel so what is the DE's obsession with them claiming this every time the hotel is mentioned?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it is because once built, the Council hand over £27m to Omni Capital.[/p][/quote]yep and end up with an investment paying a return - fine. Kingontail
  • Score: 1

3:59pm Mon 31 Mar 14

03alpe01 says...

Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.
Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this. 03alpe01
  • Score: 1

4:18pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Kingontail says...

03alpe01 wrote:
Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.
. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays.

It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why?

Do you have anything positive to say about anything?
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.[/p][/quote]. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays. It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why? Do you have anything positive to say about anything? Kingontail
  • Score: 1

4:24pm Mon 31 Mar 14

03alpe01 says...

Kingontail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.
. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays.

It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why?

Do you have anything positive to say about anything?
If this was privately funded through and through then nobody would be saying anything about it. It would just be a case of yep ok get on with it. Why am I happy it won't be ready for the test match? Because like most people I am angry about taxpayers money going on it.
[quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.[/p][/quote]. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays. It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why? Do you have anything positive to say about anything?[/p][/quote]If this was privately funded through and through then nobody would be saying anything about it. It would just be a case of yep ok get on with it. Why am I happy it won't be ready for the test match? Because like most people I am angry about taxpayers money going on it. 03alpe01
  • Score: -1

5:00pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Kingontail says...

03alpe01 wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.
. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays.

It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why?

Do you have anything positive to say about anything?
If this was privately funded through and through then nobody would be saying anything about it. It would just be a case of yep ok get on with it. Why am I happy it won't be ready for the test match? Because like most people I am angry about taxpayers money going on it.
so you would rather a semi built hotel just sat there for ever? Great idea.

My comment about the yield that as an investment throws up compared to bank returns - does that actually not make financial sense? Furthermore, the council could sell the completed development and make a profit on their expenditure.

Personally I would like Southampton to be presented in the best possible light to outsiders - but maybe that's just me.
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.[/p][/quote]. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays. It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why? Do you have anything positive to say about anything?[/p][/quote]If this was privately funded through and through then nobody would be saying anything about it. It would just be a case of yep ok get on with it. Why am I happy it won't be ready for the test match? Because like most people I am angry about taxpayers money going on it.[/p][/quote]so you would rather a semi built hotel just sat there for ever? Great idea. My comment about the yield that as an investment throws up compared to bank returns - does that actually not make financial sense? Furthermore, the council could sell the completed development and make a profit on their expenditure. Personally I would like Southampton to be presented in the best possible light to outsiders - but maybe that's just me. Kingontail
  • Score: 4

5:01pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Poppy22 says...

And as Eastleigh Borough Council Lib Dems are continually telling us, there's an urgent need for affordable (especially social) housing in the area so why haven't they spent the £27m on that? And in the right places, rather than building mostly "executive" houses on our best countryside in the next 0-5 years of a 15-year Plan and leaving large brownfield sites out of the Local Plan, calling them "countryside" (eg Bursledon Car Boot sale site) because they're scared of losing part of the Borough to Southampton. It's time the Eastleigh Lib Dem councillors remembered it's public money, and not their own money for their pet projects. We've plenty of large hotels in this area, especially EBC's area, and when no-one wants to visit this area because the roads are at a standstill all day, not just several hours a day, there'll be noone in the hotels anyway!
And as Eastleigh Borough Council Lib Dems are continually telling us, there's an urgent need for affordable (especially social) housing in the area so why haven't they spent the £27m on that? And in the right places, rather than building mostly "executive" houses on our best countryside in the next 0-5 years of a 15-year Plan and leaving large brownfield sites out of the Local Plan, calling them "countryside" (eg Bursledon Car Boot sale site) because they're scared of losing part of the Borough to Southampton. It's time the Eastleigh Lib Dem councillors remembered it's public money, and not their own money for their pet projects. We've plenty of large hotels in this area, especially EBC's area, and when no-one wants to visit this area because the roads are at a standstill all day, not just several hours a day, there'll be noone in the hotels anyway! Poppy22
  • Score: 1

5:03pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Whether people like the hotel or not it is basically half finished.
.
The best thing that can happen is to get it finished and then start trying to a return on the invest.
.
All the moaning in the world is not going to change the current situation,
.
Get it finished ...... get some money back.
Whether people like the hotel or not it is basically half finished. . The best thing that can happen is to get it finished and then start trying to a return on the invest. . All the moaning in the world is not going to change the current situation, . Get it finished ...... get some money back. Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 7

5:08pm Mon 31 Mar 14

03alpe01 says...

Kingontail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.
. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays.

It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why?

Do you have anything positive to say about anything?
If this was privately funded through and through then nobody would be saying anything about it. It would just be a case of yep ok get on with it. Why am I happy it won't be ready for the test match? Because like most people I am angry about taxpayers money going on it.
so you would rather a semi built hotel just sat there for ever? Great idea.

My comment about the yield that as an investment throws up compared to bank returns - does that actually not make financial sense? Furthermore, the council could sell the completed development and make a profit on their expenditure.

Personally I would like Southampton to be presented in the best possible light to outsiders - but maybe that's just me.
Now it has been started it has to be finished but that does not mean it should be publically funded. The Council picked the initial developer, so were aware of their previous problems. It was the Council trying to do it on the cheap and it has backfired on them. If there is such a demand for this then it must be privately funded. Council services being cut left right and centre and yet the Council have £27m to spend on this? Everyone wants the area to be presented in the best possible manner, but even still no public money should be used. Do you defend the use of taxpayers money on this?
[quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.[/p][/quote]. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays. It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why? Do you have anything positive to say about anything?[/p][/quote]If this was privately funded through and through then nobody would be saying anything about it. It would just be a case of yep ok get on with it. Why am I happy it won't be ready for the test match? Because like most people I am angry about taxpayers money going on it.[/p][/quote]so you would rather a semi built hotel just sat there for ever? Great idea. My comment about the yield that as an investment throws up compared to bank returns - does that actually not make financial sense? Furthermore, the council could sell the completed development and make a profit on their expenditure. Personally I would like Southampton to be presented in the best possible light to outsiders - but maybe that's just me.[/p][/quote]Now it has been started it has to be finished but that does not mean it should be publically funded. The Council picked the initial developer, so were aware of their previous problems. It was the Council trying to do it on the cheap and it has backfired on them. If there is such a demand for this then it must be privately funded. Council services being cut left right and centre and yet the Council have £27m to spend on this? Everyone wants the area to be presented in the best possible manner, but even still no public money should be used. Do you defend the use of taxpayers money on this? 03alpe01
  • Score: -1

7:17pm Mon 31 Mar 14

billy_whizz says...

03alpe01 wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.
. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays.

It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why?

Do you have anything positive to say about anything?
If this was privately funded through and through then nobody would be saying anything about it. It would just be a case of yep ok get on with it. Why am I happy it won't be ready for the test match? Because like most people I am angry about taxpayers money going on it.
so you would rather a semi built hotel just sat there for ever? Great idea.

My comment about the yield that as an investment throws up compared to bank returns - does that actually not make financial sense? Furthermore, the council could sell the completed development and make a profit on their expenditure.

Personally I would like Southampton to be presented in the best possible light to outsiders - but maybe that's just me.
Now it has been started it has to be finished but that does not mean it should be publically funded. The Council picked the initial developer, so were aware of their previous problems. It was the Council trying to do it on the cheap and it has backfired on them. If there is such a demand for this then it must be privately funded. Council services being cut left right and centre and yet the Council have £27m to spend on this? Everyone wants the area to be presented in the best possible manner, but even still no public money should be used. Do you defend the use of taxpayers money on this?
I was under the impression that the development was privately funded. Eastleigh were going to purchase it after it was built and then rent it out to HCCC. This would be no different to either you or I buying a house from a builder and then renting it out to someone else.

As far as I know it is standard practice for Councils and other not for profit organisations to invest money into things like land and property in order to receive rental payments and (in the long term) see an appreciation in their investment.
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.[/p][/quote]. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays. It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why? Do you have anything positive to say about anything?[/p][/quote]If this was privately funded through and through then nobody would be saying anything about it. It would just be a case of yep ok get on with it. Why am I happy it won't be ready for the test match? Because like most people I am angry about taxpayers money going on it.[/p][/quote]so you would rather a semi built hotel just sat there for ever? Great idea. My comment about the yield that as an investment throws up compared to bank returns - does that actually not make financial sense? Furthermore, the council could sell the completed development and make a profit on their expenditure. Personally I would like Southampton to be presented in the best possible light to outsiders - but maybe that's just me.[/p][/quote]Now it has been started it has to be finished but that does not mean it should be publically funded. The Council picked the initial developer, so were aware of their previous problems. It was the Council trying to do it on the cheap and it has backfired on them. If there is such a demand for this then it must be privately funded. Council services being cut left right and centre and yet the Council have £27m to spend on this? Everyone wants the area to be presented in the best possible manner, but even still no public money should be used. Do you defend the use of taxpayers money on this?[/p][/quote]I was under the impression that the development was privately funded. Eastleigh were going to purchase it after it was built and then rent it out to HCCC. This would be no different to either you or I buying a house from a builder and then renting it out to someone else. As far as I know it is standard practice for Councils and other not for profit organisations to invest money into things like land and property in order to receive rental payments and (in the long term) see an appreciation in their investment. billy_whizz
  • Score: 2

7:30pm Mon 31 Mar 14

good-gosh says...

Kingontail wrote:
alan.of.eastleigh wrote:
dolomiteman wrote:
The title screams 'Tax payer funded' yet in the article is states 'Funding for the completion of the Hotel is being provided by Omni Capital'

EBC are not in any way funding the hotel so what is the DE's obsession with them claiming this every time the hotel is mentioned?
Perhaps it is because once built, the Council hand over £27m to Omni Capital.
yep and end up with an investment paying a return - fine.
A more likely scenario would be that Eastleigh will have to borrow the £27m when the time comes, and pay it off with interest for years to come.
[quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alan.of.eastleigh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: The title screams 'Tax payer funded' yet in the article is states 'Funding for the completion of the Hotel is being provided by Omni Capital' EBC are not in any way funding the hotel so what is the DE's obsession with them claiming this every time the hotel is mentioned?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it is because once built, the Council hand over £27m to Omni Capital.[/p][/quote]yep and end up with an investment paying a return - fine.[/p][/quote]A more likely scenario would be that Eastleigh will have to borrow the £27m when the time comes, and pay it off with interest for years to come. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Reality-man says...

Great news for west end :-)
Great news for west end :-) Reality-man
  • Score: 0

9:37am Tue 1 Apr 14

From the sidelines says...

Construction has started at the same time the nearby roundabout, providing access to the M27, is undergoing extensive roadworks.

A fine plan coming together. And this time, it's not even Rayment's fault.
Construction has started at the same time the nearby roundabout, providing access to the M27, is undergoing extensive roadworks. A fine plan coming together. And this time, it's not even Rayment's fault. From the sidelines
  • Score: -2

11:34pm Tue 1 Apr 14

dolomiteman says...

billy_whizz wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.
. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays.

It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why?

Do you have anything positive to say about anything?
If this was privately funded through and through then nobody would be saying anything about it. It would just be a case of yep ok get on with it. Why am I happy it won't be ready for the test match? Because like most people I am angry about taxpayers money going on it.
so you would rather a semi built hotel just sat there for ever? Great idea.

My comment about the yield that as an investment throws up compared to bank returns - does that actually not make financial sense? Furthermore, the council could sell the completed development and make a profit on their expenditure.

Personally I would like Southampton to be presented in the best possible light to outsiders - but maybe that's just me.
Now it has been started it has to be finished but that does not mean it should be publically funded. The Council picked the initial developer, so were aware of their previous problems. It was the Council trying to do it on the cheap and it has backfired on them. If there is such a demand for this then it must be privately funded. Council services being cut left right and centre and yet the Council have £27m to spend on this? Everyone wants the area to be presented in the best possible manner, but even still no public money should be used. Do you defend the use of taxpayers money on this?
I was under the impression that the development was privately funded. Eastleigh were going to purchase it after it was built and then rent it out to HCCC. This would be no different to either you or I buying a house from a builder and then renting it out to someone else.

As far as I know it is standard practice for Councils and other not for profit organisations to invest money into things like land and property in order to receive rental payments and (in the long term) see an appreciation in their investment.
Thank you, you are the only person that seems to understand this.
It is privately funded. EBC are not funding it, they will pay on completion. Personally I thought that was a simple concept to understand.
[quote][p][bold]billy_whizz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.[/p][/quote]. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays. It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why? Do you have anything positive to say about anything?[/p][/quote]If this was privately funded through and through then nobody would be saying anything about it. It would just be a case of yep ok get on with it. Why am I happy it won't be ready for the test match? Because like most people I am angry about taxpayers money going on it.[/p][/quote]so you would rather a semi built hotel just sat there for ever? Great idea. My comment about the yield that as an investment throws up compared to bank returns - does that actually not make financial sense? Furthermore, the council could sell the completed development and make a profit on their expenditure. Personally I would like Southampton to be presented in the best possible light to outsiders - but maybe that's just me.[/p][/quote]Now it has been started it has to be finished but that does not mean it should be publically funded. The Council picked the initial developer, so were aware of their previous problems. It was the Council trying to do it on the cheap and it has backfired on them. If there is such a demand for this then it must be privately funded. Council services being cut left right and centre and yet the Council have £27m to spend on this? Everyone wants the area to be presented in the best possible manner, but even still no public money should be used. Do you defend the use of taxpayers money on this?[/p][/quote]I was under the impression that the development was privately funded. Eastleigh were going to purchase it after it was built and then rent it out to HCCC. This would be no different to either you or I buying a house from a builder and then renting it out to someone else. As far as I know it is standard practice for Councils and other not for profit organisations to invest money into things like land and property in order to receive rental payments and (in the long term) see an appreciation in their investment.[/p][/quote]Thank you, you are the only person that seems to understand this. It is privately funded. EBC are not funding it, they will pay on completion. Personally I thought that was a simple concept to understand. dolomiteman
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Red_Rock says...

dolomiteman wrote:
billy_whizz wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.
. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays.

It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why?

Do you have anything positive to say about anything?
If this was privately funded through and through then nobody would be saying anything about it. It would just be a case of yep ok get on with it. Why am I happy it won't be ready for the test match? Because like most people I am angry about taxpayers money going on it.
so you would rather a semi built hotel just sat there for ever? Great idea.

My comment about the yield that as an investment throws up compared to bank returns - does that actually not make financial sense? Furthermore, the council could sell the completed development and make a profit on their expenditure.

Personally I would like Southampton to be presented in the best possible light to outsiders - but maybe that's just me.
Now it has been started it has to be finished but that does not mean it should be publically funded. The Council picked the initial developer, so were aware of their previous problems. It was the Council trying to do it on the cheap and it has backfired on them. If there is such a demand for this then it must be privately funded. Council services being cut left right and centre and yet the Council have £27m to spend on this? Everyone wants the area to be presented in the best possible manner, but even still no public money should be used. Do you defend the use of taxpayers money on this?
I was under the impression that the development was privately funded. Eastleigh were going to purchase it after it was built and then rent it out to HCCC. This would be no different to either you or I buying a house from a builder and then renting it out to someone else.

As far as I know it is standard practice for Councils and other not for profit organisations to invest money into things like land and property in order to receive rental payments and (in the long term) see an appreciation in their investment.
Thank you, you are the only person that seems to understand this.
It is privately funded. EBC are not funding it, they will pay on completion. Personally I thought that was a simple concept to understand.
Absolutely correct but I'm afraid you will never get some people to understand the way the world works. They would rather close their eyes and trot out their prejudices.
[quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy_whizz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Luckily it won't be finished in time for the Test Match. The Nation needs to see how much of a sham this all is. Not a single penny of taxpayers money should have gone on this.[/p][/quote]. They have bough what will be a standing investment that will throw off a 5% yield. Don't think this is too bad considering what a bank pays. It is not the councils fault that a developer decides to fold a company. You are pleased that it wont be ready for the test match - why? Do you have anything positive to say about anything?[/p][/quote]If this was privately funded through and through then nobody would be saying anything about it. It would just be a case of yep ok get on with it. Why am I happy it won't be ready for the test match? Because like most people I am angry about taxpayers money going on it.[/p][/quote]so you would rather a semi built hotel just sat there for ever? Great idea. My comment about the yield that as an investment throws up compared to bank returns - does that actually not make financial sense? Furthermore, the council could sell the completed development and make a profit on their expenditure. Personally I would like Southampton to be presented in the best possible light to outsiders - but maybe that's just me.[/p][/quote]Now it has been started it has to be finished but that does not mean it should be publically funded. The Council picked the initial developer, so were aware of their previous problems. It was the Council trying to do it on the cheap and it has backfired on them. If there is such a demand for this then it must be privately funded. Council services being cut left right and centre and yet the Council have £27m to spend on this? Everyone wants the area to be presented in the best possible manner, but even still no public money should be used. Do you defend the use of taxpayers money on this?[/p][/quote]I was under the impression that the development was privately funded. Eastleigh were going to purchase it after it was built and then rent it out to HCCC. This would be no different to either you or I buying a house from a builder and then renting it out to someone else. As far as I know it is standard practice for Councils and other not for profit organisations to invest money into things like land and property in order to receive rental payments and (in the long term) see an appreciation in their investment.[/p][/quote]Thank you, you are the only person that seems to understand this. It is privately funded. EBC are not funding it, they will pay on completion. Personally I thought that was a simple concept to understand.[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct but I'm afraid you will never get some people to understand the way the world works. They would rather close their eyes and trot out their prejudices. Red_Rock
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree