Red Arrow

More FACTS from the West Cumbria Independents

Today's Times & Star Political Column. How he has the gall to write this is beyond me.

https://www.in-cumbria.com/news/17884230.shelved-workington-stadium-gives-allerdale-council-extra-5m-budget/ Report today by John Connell, Jenkinsons puppet.

https://www.in-cumbria.com/news/17884230.shelved-workington-stadium-gives-allerdale-council-extra-5m-budget/ Reported today by John Connell, Jenkinsons puppet.

Exactly, we've been lied to for months. Once in lifetime opportunity ruined by personal and political agendas. Surely some kind of inquiry should be held. 1.4 million allegedly spent on the scheme. Absolutely scandalous.

Here we are 7 weeks on since the disgraceful decision and still no convincing evidence the new Stadium wasn't viable. There only reason given is no firm commitment from Sellafield & NHS. I would like to see a statement from both these tenants & not Jenkinson & co.

They've deleted the post.

Don't worry folks the cons/ind alliance have promised to provide a new stadium.

Yet again a biased report in today's T&S by John Connell, headline 'No commitment to occupy stadium' I will repeat a quote from an earlier poster. "He's so far up Jenkinsons backside they share the same passport photo"

Very interesting post from the Reds forum today

Post from Reds forum

All we are hearing from the new administration is how risky the deal was for the Stadium project. I've put together some of the comments from financial expert Andrew Lapping. I hope everyone can share these comments.

This is Jenkinsons Facebook comment today. Two main reasons for there decision. 1. Expensive PFI Stadium . 2.No tenants. No.1 The current PFl deal is nothing close to old PFI deals, as Andrew Lapping as been saying for months,there as never been a better time to build the Stadium. Interest rates around 2%, the old rates were 6/7% ,you wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. No.2 I'm sure Sellafield & NHS would have agreements in principle, they would only sign the tenancy when they new the Stadium was definitely going ahead. If not Mr Jenkinson will have to prove otherwise .

I'm sure Sellafield would have agreements in principle,or why would the build cost rise from 15m to 25m, it increased to include offices. Also extra cost to redraw plans . I would think neither would sign any lease until the Stadium got the go ahead . You wouldn't sign for a new house if there was a doubt it wouldn't be built. None of this could be the case but I think Jenkinson & Co should prove otherwise.

Brian Allinson on Facebook: Mark Jenkinson Why do you refuse to answer the question directly? I asked what the figure used was in the 95 million business case you keep quoting not what you put into the model. You have repeatedly avoided answering the question, I assume this is because you say you can fudge the outcome to suit yourself and is just based on assumptions how can you then say a stress test has shown a 1m a year loss when that too will also be based on assumptions? You can't have it both ways. This wasn't a politically motivated question, the deficit is another subject entirely. As is the Labour parties motives behind the project and also your own objection to it from day one. I queried this to try and decide for myself whether this really was the right decision to stop the stadium as on the face of it the benefits appeared to outweigh the negatives. You have done nothing in this conversation to change that view, and by you repeatedly dodging my question now makes me suspicious of your motives. Would you be prepared to publish this independant stress test and explain why their figures should be believed over the figures in the business case? That would surely end the debate and change a lot of minds wouldn't it?