York community stadium plan unveiled - building to start next spring

A new artist’s impression showing the proposed community stadium for York City football club and York City Knights rugby league team

An impression of how the new swimming pool will look

Outside the stadium

Community stadium announcement - new swimming pool on site - building to start next spring - stadium opening summer 2016

Cllr Crisp, Cllr Alexander and Tim Atkins, the stadium project manager, unveil the new plans

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

WORK will start next spring on York's Community Stadium - including a brand new swimming pool - the city council has announced.

A brand new 8,000 seater stadium, swimming pool to replace Waterworld, gym, and community hub will be  built on the site of Huntington stadium.

GLL - the company currently in charge of Waterworld and the on site gym - will head up the consortium building and operating the site, and will take on the running of the council's leisure centres at Yearsley Baths and Energise.

Building will start in spring 2015, and the site is due to open in summer 2016.

As well as a new swimming pool complex with a six lane 25 metre pool, a teaching pool and a leisure pool, the site will house five-a-side pitches, an Explore library, NHS services, York St John University's Institute of Community Sport and Wellbeing, and an independent living assessment centre.

Tim Atkins, the council's Community Stadium Project Manager, has hailed the new scheme as a sports facility of regional significance while GLL's Chris Symons said the company was delighted to be involved in the "groundbreaking" project.

Social enterprise GLL already runs 140 leisure centres in England and Wales, he added, meaning the firm has the "operational skills and community focus" to make York's new site a success, he added.

Mr Symons said: “Our focus at GLL is to help more people, get more active, more often, and the inclusion of partners such as York City FC, NHS Hospital Trust, Library services, and York St John, allows us to develop world class facilities that will thrive at the heart of the city.”

Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend."

Among the sports and community facilities will be new retail space - which council cabinet member Cllr Sonja Crisp said would be either one or a number of sports and leisure outlets in total around the size of the Next store on the nearby Vangarde site.

The council will put forward a total £8 million of the £37 million budget - £2 million already committed to the replacement athletics track and £2 million to the stadium, and an extra £4 million of council funding to come from prudential borrowing, subjct to approval by councillors, Cllr Alexander added.

The announcement came after an 18 month long procurement process, which had prompted fears of delays for the project.

Mr Atkins said that having worked on the scheme for a long time, he can understand the frustration of fans who thought they might never see the long awaited stadium.

"It's fantastic we now have something to show people," he added.

The 18 month search for a joint design, build and operation contract has been chosen to protect the council tax payer from risk and to ensure all the companies involved communicate properly, Cllr Alexander added.

York City FC's communications and community director Sophie Hicks has said the club was delighted to see the project progressing.

"We are extremely pleased that the capacity is now proposed to be 8,000, as this really helps our footballing aspirations.

"There's been a lot of hard work behind the scenes with the football club and the city council, and we look forward to moving into a fantastic first class facility in July 2016."

A paper with details of the project will go before councillors in the coming weeks, and a new full planning application is expected to be submitted in November or December this year.

Both Waterworld and the stadium will close at Christmas,  for work - beginning with a community archaeological dig - to start in the New Year, and the athletics track at Heslington West built as a replacement to the current Huntington track - is scheduled to open in October or November.

 

Comments (113)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:03pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Justin7 says...

Absolutely love it. That will be a very nice new home for York City FC, which we'll get rocking.

Need singing sections behind the goal.

Now get it built!
Absolutely love it. That will be a very nice new home for York City FC, which we'll get rocking. Need singing sections behind the goal. Now get it built! Justin7
  • Score: 31

7:10pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Justin7 says...

Oh and there's more images. Press missed two, including the best one:

https://www.facebook
.com/media/set/?set=
a.10152455083734442&
type=3&l=6fc2736ba2
Oh and there's more images. Press missed two, including the best one: https://www.facebook .com/media/set/?set= a.10152455083734442& type=3&l=6fc2736ba2 Justin7
  • Score: 20

7:14pm Tue 26 Aug 14

yorkonafork says...

Looks like a great asset for both teams and more importantly the wider community. Was worried there would be a poor stadium and a lone hockey pitch or something similar.

Lot of money has been wasted over the years designing, researching, accessing and delaying, but now it's ready to go and it looks great, let's get it built and move forward!!
Looks like a great asset for both teams and more importantly the wider community. Was worried there would be a poor stadium and a lone hockey pitch or something similar. Lot of money has been wasted over the years designing, researching, accessing and delaying, but now it's ready to go and it looks great, let's get it built and move forward!! yorkonafork
  • Score: 22

7:21pm Tue 26 Aug 14

AB- says...

Unless something is done to improve the traffic on the by pass this will be a disaster for anyone coming in from the north of York
Unless something is done to improve the traffic on the by pass this will be a disaster for anyone coming in from the north of York AB-
  • Score: -24

7:33pm Tue 26 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

This is fantastic news. Just what York needed; good community facilities and a home for our professional sports clubs.

York starting to feel like the sizeable city it is. Not just about tourism, citizens deserve something too and I am loving the NHS facilities, Explore, pools, sports as well as the stadium.

Just brilliant.
This is fantastic news. Just what York needed; good community facilities and a home for our professional sports clubs. York starting to feel like the sizeable city it is. Not just about tourism, citizens deserve something too and I am loving the NHS facilities, Explore, pools, sports as well as the stadium. Just brilliant. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 31

7:40pm Tue 26 Aug 14

pedalling paul says...

AB- wrote:
Unless something is done to improve the traffic on the by pass this will be a disaster for anyone coming in from the north of York
How do you expect traffic to be "improved" Are you referring to more infrastructure or fewer private car journeys?
[quote][p][bold]AB-[/bold] wrote: Unless something is done to improve the traffic on the by pass this will be a disaster for anyone coming in from the north of York[/p][/quote]How do you expect traffic to be "improved" Are you referring to more infrastructure or fewer private car journeys? pedalling paul
  • Score: 23

7:51pm Tue 26 Aug 14

gmsgop says...

Can we just establish please the financial situation? Now wasn't there £13 million from the John Lewis etc S106 payments? Or did I imagine that? So we know some has been thrown away on the futile 'free' parking- but that leaves £12.7m - so why is James Alexander using 'prudential (how careful that sounds ) borrowing - there should none at all. Our account should be full with all that plus accrued interest shouldn't it? Why is he borrowing anything?or has he spent it all on his vanity projects?
And regarding the 'retail' why not mention the actual square footage than say 'like the size of NEXT'? We are talking outlets here- I'm not being grumpy just fed up with the council treating us like fools. How much footage for what type of retail units- should the centre of the city be worrying about this or not?

Whilst we are about it can we have the exact size of the pool please and ancillilary facilities like kiddies pool, remedial care pool etc - just so we know.

Not trying to pour could water- just treat us with respect- it is our money after all.

Gwen Swinburn

Oh and PS is the plan to close Yearsley pool and sell off for development? How is that finance factored into the deal?
Can we just establish please the financial situation? Now wasn't there £13 million from the John Lewis etc S106 payments? Or did I imagine that? So we know some has been thrown away on the futile 'free' parking- but that leaves £12.7m - so why is James Alexander using 'prudential (how careful that sounds ) borrowing - there should none at all. Our account should be full with all that plus accrued interest shouldn't it? Why is he borrowing anything?or has he spent it all on his vanity projects? And regarding the 'retail' why not mention the actual square footage than say 'like the size of NEXT'? We are talking outlets here- I'm not being grumpy just fed up with the council treating us like fools. How much footage for what type of retail units- should the centre of the city be worrying about this or not? Whilst we are about it can we have the exact size of the pool please and ancillilary facilities like kiddies pool, remedial care pool etc - just so we know. Not trying to pour could water- just treat us with respect- it is our money after all. Gwen Swinburn Oh and PS is the plan to close Yearsley pool and sell off for development? How is that finance factored into the deal? gmsgop
  • Score: -43

7:52pm Tue 26 Aug 14

nottoooldtocare says...

It is indeed great news, but I do think it would have been better on the land behind York station. If they could have worked with De Vere similar to what has been done at Bolton Wanderers. Walking distance from the station would cut down on car and coach travel, and locals can all get a bus into the town and walk to the ground. Sadly I can't see me sitting on the A1237 for an hour each way, and I suspect many others will feel the same, I used to watch nearly all of York Wasp's home games as you could use one bus have a few "looseners" and get the bus home again. Travelling from the west of York to Huntington aint going to be easy!
regardless of the location I do wish York City and their fans all the success they deserve and I hope they continue to follow them to the new ground.
It is indeed great news, but I do think it would have been better on the land behind York station. If they could have worked with De Vere similar to what has been done at Bolton Wanderers. Walking distance from the station would cut down on car and coach travel, and locals can all get a bus into the town and walk to the ground. Sadly I can't see me sitting on the A1237 for an hour each way, and I suspect many others will feel the same, I used to watch nearly all of York Wasp's home games as you could use one bus have a few "looseners" and get the bus home again. Travelling from the west of York to Huntington aint going to be easy! regardless of the location I do wish York City and their fans all the success they deserve and I hope they continue to follow them to the new ground. nottoooldtocare
  • Score: 28

7:54pm Tue 26 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

gmsgop wrote:
Can we just establish please the financial situation? Now wasn't there £13 million from the John Lewis etc S106 payments? Or did I imagine that? So we know some has been thrown away on the futile 'free' parking- but that leaves £12.7m - so why is James Alexander using 'prudential (how careful that sounds ) borrowing - there should none at all. Our account should be full with all that plus accrued interest shouldn't it? Why is he borrowing anything?or has he spent it all on his vanity projects?
And regarding the 'retail' why not mention the actual square footage than say 'like the size of NEXT'? We are talking outlets here- I'm not being grumpy just fed up with the council treating us like fools. How much footage for what type of retail units- should the centre of the city be worrying about this or not?

Whilst we are about it can we have the exact size of the pool please and ancillilary facilities like kiddies pool, remedial care pool etc - just so we know.

Not trying to pour could water- just treat us with respect- it is our money after all.

Gwen Swinburn

Oh and PS is the plan to close Yearsley pool and sell off for development? How is that finance factored into the deal?
Oh I think you are being grumpy, Gwen!
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: Can we just establish please the financial situation? Now wasn't there £13 million from the John Lewis etc S106 payments? Or did I imagine that? So we know some has been thrown away on the futile 'free' parking- but that leaves £12.7m - so why is James Alexander using 'prudential (how careful that sounds ) borrowing - there should none at all. Our account should be full with all that plus accrued interest shouldn't it? Why is he borrowing anything?or has he spent it all on his vanity projects? And regarding the 'retail' why not mention the actual square footage than say 'like the size of NEXT'? We are talking outlets here- I'm not being grumpy just fed up with the council treating us like fools. How much footage for what type of retail units- should the centre of the city be worrying about this or not? Whilst we are about it can we have the exact size of the pool please and ancillilary facilities like kiddies pool, remedial care pool etc - just so we know. Not trying to pour could water- just treat us with respect- it is our money after all. Gwen Swinburn Oh and PS is the plan to close Yearsley pool and sell off for development? How is that finance factored into the deal?[/p][/quote]Oh I think you are being grumpy, Gwen! CaroleBaines
  • Score: 25

7:56pm Tue 26 Aug 14

bolero says...

Will there be a private box provided for PP so that he can sit and adjust the scores on the scoreboard?
Will there be a private box provided for PP so that he can sit and adjust the scores on the scoreboard? bolero
  • Score: -23

7:59pm Tue 26 Aug 14

windowlicker says...

No terracing though, so pretty poor.
No terracing though, so pretty poor. windowlicker
  • Score: -10

8:10pm Tue 26 Aug 14

duffy says...

At last, and before we get the usual posters complaining about using tax payers money, this is fantastic value for money and will benefit the whole York community.
At last, and before we get the usual posters complaining about using tax payers money, this is fantastic value for money and will benefit the whole York community. duffy
  • Score: 18

8:36pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....? Fanny Free House
  • Score: -18

9:13pm Tue 26 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 24

9:38pm Tue 26 Aug 14

windowlicker says...

These "income streams" that have often been talked about, where are they?
These "income streams" that have often been talked about, where are they? windowlicker
  • Score: -4

9:45pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Tug job says...

nottoooldtocare wrote:
It is indeed great news, but I do think it would have been better on the land behind York station. If they could have worked with De Vere similar to what has been done at Bolton Wanderers. Walking distance from the station would cut down on car and coach travel, and locals can all get a bus into the town and walk to the ground. Sadly I can't see me sitting on the A1237 for an hour each way, and I suspect many others will feel the same, I used to watch nearly all of York Wasp's home games as you could use one bus have a few "looseners" and get the bus home again. Travelling from the west of York to Huntington aint going to be easy!
regardless of the location I do wish York City and their fans all the success they deserve and I hope they continue to follow them to the new ground.
I often ysed to work at the Bolton Arena. The Bolton Arena isn't even in Bolton, it's in Horwich! Yes, it's within easy walking distance (for thise that can) of Horwich Parkway station but this is a 20 minute rail journey from Bolton, with a service that is frequently replaced by buses. It is no secret that land values in central York are far in excess if what they are for a brownfield site on the outskirts of a deprived town in Lancashire, which is why Bolton built their ground where they did (closer to the two centre was too expensive for them, in the same way that the tear drop site has been too expensive for the York development). You really cannot compare the two developments as they are very different, serving very different communities.
[quote][p][bold]nottoooldtocare[/bold] wrote: It is indeed great news, but I do think it would have been better on the land behind York station. If they could have worked with De Vere similar to what has been done at Bolton Wanderers. Walking distance from the station would cut down on car and coach travel, and locals can all get a bus into the town and walk to the ground. Sadly I can't see me sitting on the A1237 for an hour each way, and I suspect many others will feel the same, I used to watch nearly all of York Wasp's home games as you could use one bus have a few "looseners" and get the bus home again. Travelling from the west of York to Huntington aint going to be easy! regardless of the location I do wish York City and their fans all the success they deserve and I hope they continue to follow them to the new ground.[/p][/quote]I often ysed to work at the Bolton Arena. The Bolton Arena isn't even in Bolton, it's in Horwich! Yes, it's within easy walking distance (for thise that can) of Horwich Parkway station but this is a 20 minute rail journey from Bolton, with a service that is frequently replaced by buses. It is no secret that land values in central York are far in excess if what they are for a brownfield site on the outskirts of a deprived town in Lancashire, which is why Bolton built their ground where they did (closer to the two centre was too expensive for them, in the same way that the tear drop site has been too expensive for the York development). You really cannot compare the two developments as they are very different, serving very different communities. Tug job
  • Score: 18

9:53pm Tue 26 Aug 14

OLD - HEAD says...

Its time to get the project up and running, the delay has gone on for far too long. Although I personally will never be enthusiastic about its location, we all know that this Community Stadium has got to happen.
Its time to get the project up and running, the delay has gone on for far too long. Although I personally will never be enthusiastic about its location, we all know that this Community Stadium has got to happen. OLD - HEAD
  • Score: 18

9:57pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.
Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others.

I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing".

Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea.

It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures.

The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it.

£12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident.

Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from.

Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.[/p][/quote]Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others. I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing". Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea. It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures. The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it. £12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident. Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from. Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -13

10:08pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

My above post minus 20 in 7 minutes.

You sad paranoid incapables.

This council has screwed up everything it has had a hand in, and we are expected to accept a £29 million debt on nothing more than a whim.

Whats the maximum investment a council can make without a referendum on the proposal, I'm sure there is one, otherwise democracy is stuffed.

Crack on you sad little elves.
My above post minus 20 in 7 minutes. You sad paranoid incapables. This council has screwed up everything it has had a hand in, and we are expected to accept a £29 million debt on nothing more than a whim. Whats the maximum investment a council can make without a referendum on the proposal, I'm sure there is one, otherwise democracy is stuffed. Crack on you sad little elves. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -35

10:19pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Jack Ham says...

Considering the story includes Cllr Sonja Crisp it's surprising Bloodaxe, York2000 or Hoof hearted are not on here giving gushing support.

We do have CarolBaines though.

Odd that we never see them all posting at the same time...
Considering the story includes Cllr Sonja Crisp it's surprising Bloodaxe, York2000 or Hoof hearted are not on here giving gushing support. We do have CarolBaines though. Odd that we never see them all posting at the same time... Jack Ham
  • Score: 10

10:24pm Tue 26 Aug 14

gmsgop says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.
Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others.

I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing".

Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea.

It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures.

The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it.

£12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident.

Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from.

Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.
Well said FFH
Gwen
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.[/p][/quote]Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others. I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing". Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea. It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures. The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it. £12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident. Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from. Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.[/p][/quote]Well said FFH Gwen gmsgop
  • Score: -28

10:24pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Geoffers says...

The council will put forward a total £8 million of the £37 million budget - £2 million already committed to the replacement athletics track and £2 million to the stadium, and an extra £4 million of council funding to come from prudential borrowing, subjct to approval by councillors, Cllr Alexander added.


Prudential borrowing and Cllr Alexander in the same sentence?
Gawd help us all!
[quote]The council will put forward a total £8 million of the £37 million budget - £2 million already committed to the replacement athletics track and £2 million to the stadium, and an extra £4 million of council funding to come from prudential borrowing, subjct to approval by councillors, Cllr Alexander added. [/quote] Prudential borrowing and Cllr Alexander in the same sentence? Gawd help us all! Geoffers
  • Score: -4

10:33pm Tue 26 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.
Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others.

I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing".

Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea.

It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures.

The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it.

£12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident.

Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from.

Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.
I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?)

This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.[/p][/quote]Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others. I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing". Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea. It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures. The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it. £12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident. Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from. Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.[/p][/quote]I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?) This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 36

10:42pm Tue 26 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

Jack Ham wrote:
Considering the story includes Cllr Sonja Crisp it's surprising Bloodaxe, York2000 or Hoof hearted are not on here giving gushing support.

We do have CarolBaines though.

Odd that we never see them all posting at the same time...
You are accusing me of being a Cllr Crisp? Just to be clear, 'Jack', are you? Need to know, so if you could just confirm. Thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: Considering the story includes Cllr Sonja Crisp it's surprising Bloodaxe, York2000 or Hoof hearted are not on here giving gushing support. We do have CarolBaines though. Odd that we never see them all posting at the same time...[/p][/quote]You are accusing me of being a Cllr Crisp? Just to be clear, 'Jack', are you? Need to know, so if you could just confirm. Thanks. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 21

10:46pm Tue 26 Aug 14

rogue84 says...

I am a York City fan and I am pleased the stadium plans are off and running - but I do echo some posters about the plans in place to get people to the ground?? This is going to be a total nightmare. It's bad enough on weekends round there with traffic heading to Monks Cross & the east coast, but add 3,000 football fans to it as well and it just can't work. Gridlock will occur every single Saturday when we are at home.
I am a York City fan and I am pleased the stadium plans are off and running - but I do echo some posters about the plans in place to get people to the ground?? This is going to be a total nightmare. It's bad enough on weekends round there with traffic heading to Monks Cross & the east coast, but add 3,000 football fans to it as well and it just can't work. Gridlock will occur every single Saturday when we are at home. rogue84
  • Score: 22

10:47pm Tue 26 Aug 14

gmsgop says...

Geoffers wrote:
The council will put forward a total £8 million of the £37 million budget - £2 million already committed to the replacement athletics track and £2 million to the stadium, and an extra £4 million of council funding to come from prudential borrowing, subjct to approval by councillors, Cllr Alexander added.


Prudential borrowing and Cllr Alexander in the same sentence?
Gawd help us all!
Well done James, finally you got it! You have to say 'subject to approval by Councillors ' -It took nearly 4 years and no doubt some very firm words from legal and audit staff!!! -but we got there,,,,

Pity you didn't grasp this when you folded on the lendal bridge pilot -announcing the key decision you had no right to make -& you did it on telly.!

And again when you blundered into one if your more recent fiascos -announcing that you were going to pay back Lendal bridge fines as a 'goodwill' gesture, weeks before the democratic nicety of a legal decision - but at least this time you got it right- it was a key decision ! Lurching towards getting a decision right -but not quite-that would be too much to hope for-want a quiz on what is still wrong???

Gwen not as grumpy!
[quote][p][bold]Geoffers[/bold] wrote: [quote]The council will put forward a total £8 million of the £37 million budget - £2 million already committed to the replacement athletics track and £2 million to the stadium, and an extra £4 million of council funding to come from prudential borrowing, subjct to approval by councillors, Cllr Alexander added. [/quote] Prudential borrowing and Cllr Alexander in the same sentence? Gawd help us all![/p][/quote]Well done James, finally you got it! You have to say 'subject to approval by Councillors ' -It took nearly 4 years and no doubt some very firm words from legal and audit staff!!! -but we got there,,,, Pity you didn't grasp this when you folded on the lendal bridge pilot -announcing the key decision you had no right to make -& you did it on telly.! And again when you blundered into one if your more recent fiascos -announcing that you were going to pay back Lendal bridge fines as a 'goodwill' gesture, weeks before the democratic nicety of a legal decision - but at least this time you got it right- it was a key decision ! Lurching towards getting a decision right -but not quite-that would be too much to hope for-want a quiz on what is still wrong??? Gwen not as grumpy! gmsgop
  • Score: -27

10:51pm Tue 26 Aug 14

jbell76 says...

I think it will be a good thing for york eventually, but whether it will be run by the right company remains to be seen. They say it is a community stadium, however after 2 years of fobbing off member's and staff. Half of them found out about it as the news broke in the press and other's found our via staff, ex-staff or through facebook. If it is really a community project it would have been nice of them to contact all staff about the fact that by christmas they will be made redundant. Supposedly they are for the community and a charitable organisation?

this is statement from their website "GLL makes community services and spaces better for everyone. And it’s about more than just money. Our people invest time, energy and effort into helping and improving communities through the services we offer - and with great results."

Time will tell?
I think it will be a good thing for york eventually, but whether it will be run by the right company remains to be seen. They say it is a community stadium, however after 2 years of fobbing off member's and staff. Half of them found out about it as the news broke in the press and other's found our via staff, ex-staff or through facebook. If it is really a community project it would have been nice of them to contact all staff about the fact that by christmas they will be made redundant. Supposedly they are for the community and a charitable organisation? this is statement from their website "GLL makes community services and spaces better for everyone. And it’s about more than just money. Our people invest time, energy and effort into helping and improving communities through the services we offer - and with great results." Time will tell? jbell76
  • Score: -6

10:55pm Tue 26 Aug 14

big boy york says...

just when premiership are going to announce a return of some standing areas, we go n build all seater, you watch sky on a sunday aft n theres not many sitting down so why not leave staning only behind the goals, a £37m stadium john lewis putting £18m council £8m so wheres the other £11m coming from
just when premiership are going to announce a return of some standing areas, we go n build all seater, you watch sky on a sunday aft n theres not many sitting down so why not leave staning only behind the goals, a £37m stadium john lewis putting £18m council £8m so wheres the other £11m coming from big boy york
  • Score: 6

10:55pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.
Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others.

I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing".

Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea.

It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures.

The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it.

£12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident.

Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from.

Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.
I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?)

This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.
Wow, so if I roll over and have my belly tickled and chase the stick thats thrown, you will take me more seriously.

Please don't hold your breath, this council has treated the residents of York with absolute contempt on so many levels and so many occasions.

Their track record says don't trust them, they will misinform regardless of the facts.

You might be happy with £29 million debt on the strength of this article, I'm not, more facts, the real ones, this is big borrowing.

As for the elves, actually they are the ridiculous ones who perpetuate the paranoia of a poor performing council, not really bothered what you think about that, it happens and it's real.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.[/p][/quote]Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others. I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing". Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea. It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures. The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it. £12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident. Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from. Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.[/p][/quote]I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?) This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.[/p][/quote]Wow, so if I roll over and have my belly tickled and chase the stick thats thrown, you will take me more seriously. Please don't hold your breath, this council has treated the residents of York with absolute contempt on so many levels and so many occasions. Their track record says don't trust them, they will misinform regardless of the facts. You might be happy with £29 million debt on the strength of this article, I'm not, more facts, the real ones, this is big borrowing. As for the elves, actually they are the ridiculous ones who perpetuate the paranoia of a poor performing council, not really bothered what you think about that, it happens and it's real. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -36

11:05pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

After years of effort and fund raising, York at last had its own Athletics stadium in 1989 and soon it will be gone. Like Eastlands, Manchester's Commonwealth games stadium and Wembley stadium the tracks removed to leave just another football pitch.
Huntington stadium was not broken and worked fine as it was AND now it is costing £2 Million to move the track to the other side of the City.
When Atkins was made project manager I thought it was to find a site for a new stadium, perhaps with another track but never in a million years to destroy a perfectly good athletics stadium many of us had raised funds for and then add £2 Million to the bill to move what we already had!
Total incompetence, if the Knights were happy at Huntington then why is it York Council Tax payers job to bail out the football club and to pay for a so called stadium Tzar?
After years of effort and fund raising, York at last had its own Athletics stadium in 1989 and soon it will be gone. Like Eastlands, Manchester's Commonwealth games stadium and Wembley stadium the tracks removed to leave just another football pitch. Huntington stadium was not broken and worked fine as it was AND now it is costing £2 Million to move the track to the other side of the City. When Atkins was made project manager I thought it was to find a site for a new stadium, perhaps with another track but never in a million years to destroy a perfectly good athletics stadium many of us had raised funds for and then add £2 Million to the bill to move what we already had! Total incompetence, if the Knights were happy at Huntington then why is it York Council Tax payers job to bail out the football club and to pay for a so called stadium Tzar? ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -44

11:12pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Martin true Viking says...

Let's be honest it's got over spend written all over it. The crowds will drop just like the rugby did and it will become another York barbican centre. A soul less stadium for a city that is having it's soul ripped from it by passion less career politicians. At least build a 50 metre pool so it won't be out dated like energise after 6 months.
Let's be honest it's got over spend written all over it. The crowds will drop just like the rugby did and it will become another York barbican centre. A soul less stadium for a city that is having it's soul ripped from it by passion less career politicians. At least build a 50 metre pool so it won't be out dated like energise after 6 months. Martin true Viking
  • Score: 4

11:15pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Martin true Viking says...

And prudent borrowing from any thing to do with the Labour Party don't make me laugh we still remember Blair and Brown and there prudent borrowing.
And prudent borrowing from any thing to do with the Labour Party don't make me laugh we still remember Blair and Brown and there prudent borrowing. Martin true Viking
  • Score: -23

11:37pm Tue 26 Aug 14

york central says...

The McGills bank manager will be loving this news.
The "investment" will be getting re-paid in full.
Anyone heard of recent money taken out of the club because "we are owed that" ?
Or have all the people who were witnesses to these types of practices been sacked ?
The McGills bank manager will be loving this news. The "investment" will be getting re-paid in full. Anyone heard of recent money taken out of the club because "we are owed that" ? Or have all the people who were witnesses to these types of practices been sacked ? york central
  • Score: -8

12:54am Wed 27 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

Hold on a minute. I thought the whole scheme was c.£19m with CYC putting in £4m. Where has the £37m figure come from? CYC are now putting in double the amount previously advised at £8m, with the extra cash borrowed - who's idea was that ?

Alexander complains that the council has had it's government funding cut, with many frontline services suffering, but, has no problem loading up the council with yet more debt. Is this his leaving present to York - trying to bust the council?

This all needs looking into.
Hold on a minute. I thought the whole scheme was c.£19m with CYC putting in £4m. Where has the £37m figure come from? CYC are now putting in double the amount previously advised at £8m, with the extra cash borrowed - who's idea was that ? Alexander complains that the council has had it's government funding cut, with many frontline services suffering, but, has no problem loading up the council with yet more debt. Is this his leaving present to York - trying to bust the council? This all needs looking into. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -28

12:55am Wed 27 Aug 14

Tug job says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
I think you have misread, or have misunderstood, the article. The full cost of developing ALL OF THE FACILITIES to be included on this site - St John's, NHS, library, gym, the other leisure facilities, etc - is expected to be £37m. This is not just the expected cost of the stadium for YCK and YCFC. Where have you got your "borrowing £29m" from? I understood that around £19m was coming from the Vangarde site, £8m from the Council and the rest was in contributions from the other partners who will use the community hub, as well as from the two clubs. I cannot recall having read anywhere else that the Council will be borrowing anywhere near the sum you claim.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]I think you have misread, or have misunderstood, the article. The full cost of developing ALL OF THE FACILITIES to be included on this site - St John's, NHS, library, gym, the other leisure facilities, etc - is expected to be £37m. This is not just the expected cost of the stadium for YCK and YCFC. Where have you got your "borrowing £29m" from? I understood that around £19m was coming from the Vangarde site, £8m from the Council and the rest was in contributions from the other partners who will use the community hub, as well as from the two clubs. I cannot recall having read anywhere else that the Council will be borrowing anywhere near the sum you claim. Tug job
  • Score: 21

1:18am Wed 27 Aug 14

PeoplesRevolution says...

The Anyone think good idea do not know the full facts.

The money spent on the stadium could be put to much better use. Such as housing and social care.

Due to the cuts a lot vulnerable people are have there support cut due lack funds. Social service are struggling to operate.

This council are bunch of idiots and are not fit to be in charge of public funds. They just do not have any common sense and clue on issues.
The Anyone think good idea do not know the full facts. The money spent on the stadium could be put to much better use. Such as housing and social care. Due to the cuts a lot vulnerable people are have there support cut due lack funds. Social service are struggling to operate. This council are bunch of idiots and are not fit to be in charge of public funds. They just do not have any common sense and clue on issues. PeoplesRevolution
  • Score: -38

5:55am Wed 27 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

Tug job wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
I think you have misread, or have misunderstood, the article. The full cost of developing ALL OF THE FACILITIES to be included on this site - St John's, NHS, library, gym, the other leisure facilities, etc - is expected to be £37m. This is not just the expected cost of the stadium for YCK and YCFC. Where have you got your "borrowing £29m" from? I understood that around £19m was coming from the Vangarde site, £8m from the Council and the rest was in contributions from the other partners who will use the community hub, as well as from the two clubs. I cannot recall having read anywhere else that the Council will be borrowing anywhere near the sum you claim.
Neither misread or misunderstood, the total cost of the project with all facilities, estimated £37 million. Add to this the additional costs of £2 million already committed to the replacement athletics track and £2 million to the stadium, real cost £41 million.

Council contribution on behalf of the tax payer = £16 million, leaving a funding requirement of £25 million. Who is paying the £25 million and what guarantees have been put in place to ensure tax payers are not underwriting the additional funding and any shortfalls/overspend
.

Superficially it all looks very nice and cosy, but what are the real plans.

Library, we have a central library housed in a substantial valuable building accessible to all residents. If I'm not mistaken we have just contracted out our library services based on cost. Are there plans to close the central library and sell-off the building....?, tell us the truth.

NHS on site, all well and good but they are already struggling with budget overspends, so why add costs for staff, equipment and rents when they already struggling to fund treatments and services.

Yearsley swimming pool, the writing is on the wall for this one, another sell-off, mark my words.

What is being proposed is not what is being reported, conveniently we are not being told what we will loose as a consequence of this plan. We need full facts and answers for costs and impact.

The 18 month search for a joint design, build and operation contract has been chosen to protect the council tax payer from risk and to ensure all the companies involved communicate properly, Cllr Alexander added.

Look forward to hearing some communication done properly, open, honest and factual.
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]I think you have misread, or have misunderstood, the article. The full cost of developing ALL OF THE FACILITIES to be included on this site - St John's, NHS, library, gym, the other leisure facilities, etc - is expected to be £37m. This is not just the expected cost of the stadium for YCK and YCFC. Where have you got your "borrowing £29m" from? I understood that around £19m was coming from the Vangarde site, £8m from the Council and the rest was in contributions from the other partners who will use the community hub, as well as from the two clubs. I cannot recall having read anywhere else that the Council will be borrowing anywhere near the sum you claim.[/p][/quote]Neither misread or misunderstood, the total cost of the project with all facilities, estimated £37 million. Add to this the additional costs of £2 million already committed to the replacement athletics track and £2 million to the stadium, real cost £41 million. Council contribution on behalf of the tax payer = £16 million, leaving a funding requirement of £25 million. Who is paying the £25 million and what guarantees have been put in place to ensure tax payers are not underwriting the additional funding and any shortfalls/overspend . Superficially it all looks very nice and cosy, but what are the real plans. Library, we have a central library housed in a substantial valuable building accessible to all residents. If I'm not mistaken we have just contracted out our library services based on cost. Are there plans to close the central library and sell-off the building....?, tell us the truth. NHS on site, all well and good but they are already struggling with budget overspends, so why add costs for staff, equipment and rents when they already struggling to fund treatments and services. Yearsley swimming pool, the writing is on the wall for this one, another sell-off, mark my words. What is being proposed is not what is being reported, conveniently we are not being told what we will loose as a consequence of this plan. We need full facts and answers for costs and impact. The 18 month search for a joint design, build and operation contract has been chosen to protect the council tax payer from risk and to ensure all the companies involved communicate properly, Cllr Alexander added. Look forward to hearing some communication done properly, open, honest and factual. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -43

6:28am Wed 27 Aug 14

York1234 says...

CYC employ the wrong people to manage projects of this scale. I know I sit with them.

It was only a couple of years ago when 3 additional resources were thrown into this to support the Project Manager as the project wasn't going anywhere.

This project, like so many others here, are poorly planned and costed with benefits either not defined or wishy washy. The reason all these over spend is due to the people running them.

You want proper delivery use people trained in the field. You want proper budget management use people who know what they are doing.
CYC employ the wrong people to manage projects of this scale. I know I sit with them. It was only a couple of years ago when 3 additional resources were thrown into this to support the Project Manager as the project wasn't going anywhere. This project, like so many others here, are poorly planned and costed with benefits either not defined or wishy washy. The reason all these over spend is due to the people running them. You want proper delivery use people trained in the field. You want proper budget management use people who know what they are doing. York1234
  • Score: 22

7:35am Wed 27 Aug 14

YorkRes says...

Once again the elderly and disabled in York are being short changed. At the moment the independent living assessment centre is fairly central off James St. When it moves to the stadium how much is it going to cost in taxi fares for an 80 year old from Acomb to get equipment for their toilet or bath. Everyone should be seen at home to make it fair for all. Once again CYC are fixing something that wasn't broken. Stop wasting mega bucks on stupid projects and fund Social Care adequately.
Once again the elderly and disabled in York are being short changed. At the moment the independent living assessment centre is fairly central off James St. When it moves to the stadium how much is it going to cost in taxi fares for an 80 year old from Acomb to get equipment for their toilet or bath. Everyone should be seen at home to make it fair for all. Once again CYC are fixing something that wasn't broken. Stop wasting mega bucks on stupid projects and fund Social Care adequately. YorkRes
  • Score: 6

8:05am Wed 27 Aug 14

pedalling paul says...

rogue84 wrote:
I am a York City fan and I am pleased the stadium plans are off and running - but I do echo some posters about the plans in place to get people to the ground?? This is going to be a total nightmare. It's bad enough on weekends round there with traffic heading to Monks Cross & the east coast, but add 3,000 football fans to it as well and it just can't work. Gridlock will occur every single Saturday when we are at home.
What is sown gets reaped. I was at the Planning Committee meeting at the Park Inn, when the decision was made to loud cheers from the football fraternity, to approve the new stadium. So desperate to escape from Bootham Crescent, that the consequences of a peripheral site did not perhaps register.
I'm sure that BT Police and NY Police would have welcomed a brownfield site within walking distance of the rail station.....far easier to manage.
[quote][p][bold]rogue84[/bold] wrote: I am a York City fan and I am pleased the stadium plans are off and running - but I do echo some posters about the plans in place to get people to the ground?? This is going to be a total nightmare. It's bad enough on weekends round there with traffic heading to Monks Cross & the east coast, but add 3,000 football fans to it as well and it just can't work. Gridlock will occur every single Saturday when we are at home.[/p][/quote]What is sown gets reaped. I was at the Planning Committee meeting at the Park Inn, when the decision was made to loud cheers from the football fraternity, to approve the new stadium. So desperate to escape from Bootham Crescent, that the consequences of a peripheral site did not perhaps register. I'm sure that BT Police and NY Police would have welcomed a brownfield site within walking distance of the rail station.....far easier to manage. pedalling paul
  • Score: 35

8:18am Wed 27 Aug 14

holden79 says...

Yearsley Pool.......

From January 2011:

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/8807234.
Future_of_Yearsley_S
wimming_Pool_in_doub
t/?ref=rc

It's costing a fortune to run (in council subsidies) and the report mentioned in the article recommends adding a pool to the community stadium to provide for a Yearsley closure.

Looks like CoYC are instead handing it over to 'social enterprise' GLL to run, hopefully they can make a profitable business out of it - maybe they'll notionally run it for a while before declaring it insolvent (or blaming the pipes mentioned in the report) hoping that customers will flock to their flagship community pool only a few miles away - who knows.

Yearsley Baths isn't currently listed, but looking at the proposed Nestle conservation zone from circa 2007 the entire forecourt was to be protected - thus I can't quite see it being turned into something else, but you never know.

file:///C:/Users/rsa
76228/Downloads/Nest
leSouth_CACALeaflet.
pdf
Yearsley Pool....... From January 2011: http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/8807234. Future_of_Yearsley_S wimming_Pool_in_doub t/?ref=rc It's costing a fortune to run (in council subsidies) and the report mentioned in the article recommends adding a pool to the community stadium to provide for a Yearsley closure. Looks like CoYC are instead handing it over to 'social enterprise' GLL to run, hopefully they can make a profitable business out of it - maybe they'll notionally run it for a while before declaring it insolvent (or blaming the pipes mentioned in the report) hoping that customers will flock to their flagship community pool only a few miles away - who knows. Yearsley Baths isn't currently listed, but looking at the proposed Nestle conservation zone from circa 2007 the entire forecourt was to be protected - thus I can't quite see it being turned into something else, but you never know. file:///C:/Users/rsa 76228/Downloads/Nest leSouth_CACALeaflet. pdf holden79
  • Score: 10

8:20am Wed 27 Aug 14

holden79 says...

holden79 wrote:
Yearsley Pool.......

From January 2011:

http://www.yorkpress

.co.uk/news/8807234.

Future_of_Yearsley_S

wimming_Pool_in_doub

t/?ref=rc

It's costing a fortune to run (in council subsidies) and the report mentioned in the article recommends adding a pool to the community stadium to provide for a Yearsley closure.

Looks like CoYC are instead handing it over to 'social enterprise' GLL to run, hopefully they can make a profitable business out of it - maybe they'll notionally run it for a while before declaring it insolvent (or blaming the pipes mentioned in the report) hoping that customers will flock to their flagship community pool only a few miles away - who knows.

Yearsley Baths isn't currently listed, but looking at the proposed Nestle conservation zone from circa 2007 the entire forecourt was to be protected - thus I can't quite see it being turned into something else, but you never know.

file:///C:/Users/rsa

76228/Downloads/Nest

leSouth_CACALeaflet.

pdf
oops, correct link for conservation area:

www.york.gov.uk/down
load/downloads/id/15
48/summary_leaflet
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Yearsley Pool....... From January 2011: http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/8807234. Future_of_Yearsley_S wimming_Pool_in_doub t/?ref=rc It's costing a fortune to run (in council subsidies) and the report mentioned in the article recommends adding a pool to the community stadium to provide for a Yearsley closure. Looks like CoYC are instead handing it over to 'social enterprise' GLL to run, hopefully they can make a profitable business out of it - maybe they'll notionally run it for a while before declaring it insolvent (or blaming the pipes mentioned in the report) hoping that customers will flock to their flagship community pool only a few miles away - who knows. Yearsley Baths isn't currently listed, but looking at the proposed Nestle conservation zone from circa 2007 the entire forecourt was to be protected - thus I can't quite see it being turned into something else, but you never know. file:///C:/Users/rsa 76228/Downloads/Nest leSouth_CACALeaflet. pdf[/p][/quote]oops, correct link for conservation area: www.york.gov.uk/down load/downloads/id/15 48/summary_leaflet holden79
  • Score: 8

8:22am Wed 27 Aug 14

duffy says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.
Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others.

I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing".

Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea.

It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures.

The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it.

£12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident.

Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from.

Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.
I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?)

This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.
Wow, so if I roll over and have my belly tickled and chase the stick thats thrown, you will take me more seriously.

Please don't hold your breath, this council has treated the residents of York with absolute contempt on so many levels and so many occasions.

Their track record says don't trust them, they will misinform regardless of the facts.

You might be happy with £29 million debt on the strength of this article, I'm not, more facts, the real ones, this is big borrowing.

As for the elves, actually they are the ridiculous ones who perpetuate the paranoia of a poor performing council, not really bothered what you think about that, it happens and it's real.
You really do have one huge ax to grind don't you, you don't even have the figures correct, but hey York residents never let you down.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.[/p][/quote]Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others. I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing". Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea. It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures. The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it. £12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident. Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from. Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.[/p][/quote]I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?) This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.[/p][/quote]Wow, so if I roll over and have my belly tickled and chase the stick thats thrown, you will take me more seriously. Please don't hold your breath, this council has treated the residents of York with absolute contempt on so many levels and so many occasions. Their track record says don't trust them, they will misinform regardless of the facts. You might be happy with £29 million debt on the strength of this article, I'm not, more facts, the real ones, this is big borrowing. As for the elves, actually they are the ridiculous ones who perpetuate the paranoia of a poor performing council, not really bothered what you think about that, it happens and it's real.[/p][/quote]You really do have one huge ax to grind don't you, you don't even have the figures correct, but hey York residents never let you down. duffy
  • Score: 50

8:38am Wed 27 Aug 14

bolero says...

Go on PP give yourself a good score.
Go on PP give yourself a good score. bolero
  • Score: -23

8:52am Wed 27 Aug 14

The Great Buda says...

I see the paid political Trolls are already spouting their masters guff.

Its about time the City of York had the World Class Sporting facilities its people deserve.
I see the paid political Trolls are already spouting their masters guff. Its about time the City of York had the World Class Sporting facilities its people deserve. The Great Buda
  • Score: 10

8:56am Wed 27 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

James Alexander has been asked on twitter what the stadium element is costing, but, he is avoiding the question. Something is amiss?

I suspect that it has come in over budget, and they are throwing other elements in to cover up the cost overun.

This needs looking into!
James Alexander has been asked on twitter what the stadium element is costing, but, he is avoiding the question. Something is amiss? I suspect that it has come in over budget, and they are throwing other elements in to cover up the cost overun. This needs looking into! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -6

9:14am Wed 27 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

duffy wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.
Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others.

I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing".

Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea.

It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures.

The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it.

£12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident.

Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from.

Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.
I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?)

This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.
Wow, so if I roll over and have my belly tickled and chase the stick thats thrown, you will take me more seriously.

Please don't hold your breath, this council has treated the residents of York with absolute contempt on so many levels and so many occasions.

Their track record says don't trust them, they will misinform regardless of the facts.

You might be happy with £29 million debt on the strength of this article, I'm not, more facts, the real ones, this is big borrowing.

As for the elves, actually they are the ridiculous ones who perpetuate the paranoia of a poor performing council, not really bothered what you think about that, it happens and it's real.
You really do have one huge ax to grind don't you, you don't even have the figures correct, but hey York residents never let you down.
I don't need to have the figures correct, I'm not spending the money.

Those spending the money need to ensure they have figures right and ensure residents are accurately informed.

Big axe to grind, yea but the size of the axe is a reflection of the contempt this stinking council has for residents.
[quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.[/p][/quote]Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others. I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing". Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea. It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures. The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it. £12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident. Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from. Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.[/p][/quote]I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?) This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.[/p][/quote]Wow, so if I roll over and have my belly tickled and chase the stick thats thrown, you will take me more seriously. Please don't hold your breath, this council has treated the residents of York with absolute contempt on so many levels and so many occasions. Their track record says don't trust them, they will misinform regardless of the facts. You might be happy with £29 million debt on the strength of this article, I'm not, more facts, the real ones, this is big borrowing. As for the elves, actually they are the ridiculous ones who perpetuate the paranoia of a poor performing council, not really bothered what you think about that, it happens and it's real.[/p][/quote]You really do have one huge ax to grind don't you, you don't even have the figures correct, but hey York residents never let you down.[/p][/quote]I don't need to have the figures correct, I'm not spending the money. Those spending the money need to ensure they have figures right and ensure residents are accurately informed. Big axe to grind, yea but the size of the axe is a reflection of the contempt this stinking council has for residents. Fanny Free House
  • Score: 4

9:14am Wed 27 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

duffy wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.
Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others.

I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing".

Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea.

It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures.

The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it.

£12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident.

Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from.

Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.
I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?)

This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.
Wow, so if I roll over and have my belly tickled and chase the stick thats thrown, you will take me more seriously.

Please don't hold your breath, this council has treated the residents of York with absolute contempt on so many levels and so many occasions.

Their track record says don't trust them, they will misinform regardless of the facts.

You might be happy with £29 million debt on the strength of this article, I'm not, more facts, the real ones, this is big borrowing.

As for the elves, actually they are the ridiculous ones who perpetuate the paranoia of a poor performing council, not really bothered what you think about that, it happens and it's real.
You really do have one huge ax to grind don't you, you don't even have the figures correct, but hey York residents never let you down.
I don't need to have the figures correct, I'm not spending the money.

Those spending the money need to ensure they have figures right and ensure residents are accurately informed.

Big axe to grind, yea but the size of the axe is a reflection of the contempt this stinking council has for residents.
[quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.[/p][/quote]Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others. I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing". Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea. It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures. The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it. £12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident. Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from. Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.[/p][/quote]I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?) This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.[/p][/quote]Wow, so if I roll over and have my belly tickled and chase the stick thats thrown, you will take me more seriously. Please don't hold your breath, this council has treated the residents of York with absolute contempt on so many levels and so many occasions. Their track record says don't trust them, they will misinform regardless of the facts. You might be happy with £29 million debt on the strength of this article, I'm not, more facts, the real ones, this is big borrowing. As for the elves, actually they are the ridiculous ones who perpetuate the paranoia of a poor performing council, not really bothered what you think about that, it happens and it's real.[/p][/quote]You really do have one huge ax to grind don't you, you don't even have the figures correct, but hey York residents never let you down.[/p][/quote]I don't need to have the figures correct, I'm not spending the money. Those spending the money need to ensure they have figures right and ensure residents are accurately informed. Big axe to grind, yea but the size of the axe is a reflection of the contempt this stinking council has for residents. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -9

9:17am Wed 27 Aug 14

Zetkin says...

On the face of it, this looks good, but my long-term concern about the idea of farming out the running of the stadium has been that money would flow out of the two professional clubs rather than into them.

Specifically, as a YCFC fan, I was hoping City might be able to get the contract to run the stadium; as it seems they haven't, I'm not sure how they (or the Knights) will be able to tap into the "revenue streams" such as the conference and banqueting facilities, etc.

City will benefit by not having to fork out a six-figure sum every year to stop Bootham Crescent from falling down, but the club really does need extra non-playing income if it's to keep moving forward, and I guess the same applies to the Knights.

I note that GLL bills itself as a "not-for-profit" "social enterprise"; does anyone with more time than I to google these things know if this means they actually put something back into the projects they run, or is it just doublespeak?
On the face of it, this looks good, but my long-term concern about the idea of farming out the running of the stadium has been that money would flow out of the two professional clubs rather than into them. Specifically, as a YCFC fan, I was hoping City might be able to get the contract to run the stadium; as it seems they haven't, I'm not sure how they (or the Knights) will be able to tap into the "revenue streams" such as the conference and banqueting facilities, etc. City will benefit by not having to fork out a six-figure sum every year to stop Bootham Crescent from falling down, but the club really does need extra non-playing income if it's to keep moving forward, and I guess the same applies to the Knights. I note that GLL bills itself as a "not-for-profit" "social enterprise"; does anyone with more time than I to google these things know if this means they actually put something back into the projects they run, or is it just doublespeak? Zetkin
  • Score: 6

9:18am Wed 27 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

YorkRes wrote:
Once again the elderly and disabled in York are being short changed. At the moment the independent living assessment centre is fairly central off James St. When it moves to the stadium how much is it going to cost in taxi fares for an 80 year old from Acomb to get equipment for their toilet or bath. Everyone should be seen at home to make it fair for all. Once again CYC are fixing something that wasn't broken. Stop wasting mega bucks on stupid projects and fund Social Care adequately.
is this another sell-off building, independent living assessment.

C'mon slime balls whats really going to be sold, Central Library, Yearsley Pool, Independent Living Assessment Centre.

Tell the truth.
[quote][p][bold]YorkRes[/bold] wrote: Once again the elderly and disabled in York are being short changed. At the moment the independent living assessment centre is fairly central off James St. When it moves to the stadium how much is it going to cost in taxi fares for an 80 year old from Acomb to get equipment for their toilet or bath. Everyone should be seen at home to make it fair for all. Once again CYC are fixing something that wasn't broken. Stop wasting mega bucks on stupid projects and fund Social Care adequately.[/p][/quote]is this another sell-off building, independent living assessment. C'mon slime balls whats really going to be sold, Central Library, Yearsley Pool, Independent Living Assessment Centre. Tell the truth. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -5

9:21am Wed 27 Aug 14

Zetkin says...

I should also add that if the demolition of the existing facilities means people being laid off, the council and GLL have a moral responsibility to employ them elsewhere until the new facilities are ready.

Eighteen months' wages are small beer compared to the scale of this project.
I should also add that if the demolition of the existing facilities means people being laid off, the council and GLL have a moral responsibility to employ them elsewhere until the new facilities are ready. Eighteen months' wages are small beer compared to the scale of this project. Zetkin
  • Score: 14

9:27am Wed 27 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

I am no expert on this sort of thing, but the funding for me looks fine. 80% private enterprise money seems a good deal. It is also fitting for a city the size of York, heaven knows we do not get much for citizens and its about time we were dragged into the 21st century. The 'money could be spent on areas cut back such as social care' argument does not wash. This is a capital project, not revenue and is value for money because of the private sector element. At the end of the day, Councils do have a duty to provide leisure facilities and the 106 agreement seems to have been used well.
So what worries me? Traffic. Sorry - but that area is a nightmare already. Didn't we struggle with planning issues for the smaller 6000 stadium? A (say) 4000 crowd up there every other Saturday, plus increased shoppers to the new John Lewis etc, plus swimmers and the rest. Is there provision for road expansion - surely this would cost a fortune.
Sort the traffic and I think this all looks very positive and dare I say it, even affordable/value for money. But the congestion element worries me. I guess we wait for more detail in September.
I am no expert on this sort of thing, but the funding for me looks fine. 80% private enterprise money seems a good deal. It is also fitting for a city the size of York, heaven knows we do not get much for citizens and its about time we were dragged into the 21st century. The 'money could be spent on areas cut back such as social care' argument does not wash. This is a capital project, not revenue and is value for money because of the private sector element. At the end of the day, Councils do have a duty to provide leisure facilities and the 106 agreement seems to have been used well. So what worries me? Traffic. Sorry - but that area is a nightmare already. Didn't we struggle with planning issues for the smaller 6000 stadium? A (say) 4000 crowd up there every other Saturday, plus increased shoppers to the new John Lewis etc, plus swimmers and the rest. Is there provision for road expansion - surely this would cost a fortune. Sort the traffic and I think this all looks very positive and dare I say it, even affordable/value for money. But the congestion element worries me. I guess we wait for more detail in September. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 8

9:39am Wed 27 Aug 14

Tug job says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
duffy wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.
Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others.

I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing".

Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea.

It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures.

The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it.

£12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident.

Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from.

Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.
I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?)

This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.
Wow, so if I roll over and have my belly tickled and chase the stick thats thrown, you will take me more seriously.

Please don't hold your breath, this council has treated the residents of York with absolute contempt on so many levels and so many occasions.

Their track record says don't trust them, they will misinform regardless of the facts.

You might be happy with £29 million debt on the strength of this article, I'm not, more facts, the real ones, this is big borrowing.

As for the elves, actually they are the ridiculous ones who perpetuate the paranoia of a poor performing council, not really bothered what you think about that, it happens and it's real.
You really do have one huge ax to grind don't you, you don't even have the figures correct, but hey York residents never let you down.
I don't need to have the figures correct, I'm not spending the money.

Those spending the money need to ensure they have figures right and ensure residents are accurately informed.

Big axe to grind, yea but the size of the axe is a reflection of the contempt this stinking council has for residents.
If your posts are to have any credibility you need to have, at the very least least, some understanding of the costs. You either do not understand these or are wilfully misrepresenting them. It is very difficult to take your posts seriously.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.[/p][/quote]Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others. I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing". Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea. It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures. The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it. £12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident. Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from. Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.[/p][/quote]I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?) This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.[/p][/quote]Wow, so if I roll over and have my belly tickled and chase the stick thats thrown, you will take me more seriously. Please don't hold your breath, this council has treated the residents of York with absolute contempt on so many levels and so many occasions. Their track record says don't trust them, they will misinform regardless of the facts. You might be happy with £29 million debt on the strength of this article, I'm not, more facts, the real ones, this is big borrowing. As for the elves, actually they are the ridiculous ones who perpetuate the paranoia of a poor performing council, not really bothered what you think about that, it happens and it's real.[/p][/quote]You really do have one huge ax to grind don't you, you don't even have the figures correct, but hey York residents never let you down.[/p][/quote]I don't need to have the figures correct, I'm not spending the money. Those spending the money need to ensure they have figures right and ensure residents are accurately informed. Big axe to grind, yea but the size of the axe is a reflection of the contempt this stinking council has for residents.[/p][/quote]If your posts are to have any credibility you need to have, at the very least least, some understanding of the costs. You either do not understand these or are wilfully misrepresenting them. It is very difficult to take your posts seriously. Tug job
  • Score: 6

9:56am Wed 27 Aug 14

The Great Buda says...

Zetkin wrote:
On the face of it, this looks good, but my long-term concern about the idea of farming out the running of the stadium has been that money would flow out of the two professional clubs rather than into them.

Specifically, as a YCFC fan, I was hoping City might be able to get the contract to run the stadium; as it seems they haven't, I'm not sure how they (or the Knights) will be able to tap into the "revenue streams" such as the conference and banqueting facilities, etc.

City will benefit by not having to fork out a six-figure sum every year to stop Bootham Crescent from falling down, but the club really does need extra non-playing income if it's to keep moving forward, and I guess the same applies to the Knights.

I note that GLL bills itself as a "not-for-profit" "social enterprise"; does anyone with more time than I to google these things know if this means they actually put something back into the projects they run, or is it just doublespeak?
It means any profit they make is plowed back into the facilities it runs. Rather than into the pockets of shareholders.

So although there is a concern maoney may be taken away from the clubs (not just the Football and Rubgy club, there is more than just them involved with this), any profit may also see there rents etc drop.

They operate over 115 centres nationwide, so you'd have to think they know what they are doing.
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: On the face of it, this looks good, but my long-term concern about the idea of farming out the running of the stadium has been that money would flow out of the two professional clubs rather than into them. Specifically, as a YCFC fan, I was hoping City might be able to get the contract to run the stadium; as it seems they haven't, I'm not sure how they (or the Knights) will be able to tap into the "revenue streams" such as the conference and banqueting facilities, etc. City will benefit by not having to fork out a six-figure sum every year to stop Bootham Crescent from falling down, but the club really does need extra non-playing income if it's to keep moving forward, and I guess the same applies to the Knights. I note that GLL bills itself as a "not-for-profit" "social enterprise"; does anyone with more time than I to google these things know if this means they actually put something back into the projects they run, or is it just doublespeak?[/p][/quote]It means any profit they make is plowed back into the facilities it runs. Rather than into the pockets of shareholders. So although there is a concern maoney may be taken away from the clubs (not just the Football and Rubgy club, there is more than just them involved with this), any profit may also see there rents etc drop. They operate over 115 centres nationwide, so you'd have to think they know what they are doing. The Great Buda
  • Score: 1

10:21am Wed 27 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

Tug job wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
duffy wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious.

Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions.

£37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value.

If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?.

Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.
Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others.

I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing".

Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea.

It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures.

The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it.

£12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident.

Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from.

Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.
I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?)

This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.
Wow, so if I roll over and have my belly tickled and chase the stick thats thrown, you will take me more seriously.

Please don't hold your breath, this council has treated the residents of York with absolute contempt on so many levels and so many occasions.

Their track record says don't trust them, they will misinform regardless of the facts.

You might be happy with £29 million debt on the strength of this article, I'm not, more facts, the real ones, this is big borrowing.

As for the elves, actually they are the ridiculous ones who perpetuate the paranoia of a poor performing council, not really bothered what you think about that, it happens and it's real.
You really do have one huge ax to grind don't you, you don't even have the figures correct, but hey York residents never let you down.
I don't need to have the figures correct, I'm not spending the money.

Those spending the money need to ensure they have figures right and ensure residents are accurately informed.

Big axe to grind, yea but the size of the axe is a reflection of the contempt this stinking council has for residents.
If your posts are to have any credibility you need to have, at the very least least, some understanding of the costs. You either do not understand these or are wilfully misrepresenting them. It is very difficult to take your posts seriously.
wilfully misrepresenting, now theres a phrase that this council should use as a tag line. It matters very little if to me I'm taken seriously or not, it is the council that needs to project an image that can be taken seriously and it's not working is it...?.

All I want are truthful facts, who is buying the Central Library, which hotel company has made a bid or will. Looks a better option than St Leonards but residents might not think so.

Yearsley pool has no future after the new facilities are completed, what better way to dispose of it than hand it over to GLL to close down.

Independent Living Assessment Centre, just another high value central property to be disposed of.

Real costs:

Tax payers investment, including borrowing split out.
Private funding.
What facilities will be disposed of in the future, projected value.

If the council wants to be taken seriously they need to be upfront with the full plan full costs and full impact on current facilities.

Alternatively they can live in their world of make believe where they manipulate results and support through resident surveys by asking loaded questions and rejecting responces that don't agree with them. They can continue to rally support by getting lackeys to post letters to the press to balance opinion (I think that was the phrase).

I actually want better facilities but not at any price.

Whats Labours leaving gift to residents, a nice hotel in the centre of York and a library on the furthest fringes difficult to access for most residents.

Yearsley pool has no future with this proposal, be honest about it, it makes sense to have a planned closure.

Independent Living Assessment Centre as with the library, increased travel and difficulty to acceess for some of those considered most vulnerable.
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]But then there are those of us who grasp opportunity and those of us who pour scorn from the side lines. You get out of life what you put in, maybe dare to dream. Dare to think this might be good or York.[/p][/quote]Very passionate response, it is however the dreamers who are the worry, especially when they make their dream a reality and nightmare for others. I want to know more about how this is being financed, only the foolish would be blindly led to a £29 million debt on the cusp of a local election, "great timing". Opportunity lies and is supported with sound financial planning and full investigation of the facts, anyone failing to recognise this is doing just what you say, daring to think this might be a good idea. It never ceases to amaze me that people like you interpret those who question in the search for understanding as pouring scorn on the idea. Why not go the whole hog and call me a moaner for wanting to know how this is being structured financially, what is the payback. I think it a fact that sheep like followers are accepting of anything at any price, probably because it's got some nice pictures. The bottom line is the cost, the real cost and how are we able to pay for it. £12 million (now only £8 million from our money, wheres the rest..?) to £37 million is not to be taken lightly by any resident. Justify the spend and tell us how it's being repaid and by who, if it isn't self financing then where is the money coming from. Let the elves commence marking down the score, it only proves the fact that some people live in the land of make believe.[/p][/quote]I would take you more seriously if I didn't think you would come out with this sort of response whatever the detail. That you were not anti anything this Council did. Like any party doesn't loosen purse strings before an election, although in this case its more the final pieces of a long drawn out puzzle. Or that you were not obsessed with a silly forum scoring system (who cares, for heaven's sake!?) This project has been years in the making, over various Council leaderships, it was spawned under the Lib Dems. And good on them for that vision. The Tories didn't want it - but that is fine, its democracy. But lets not pour scorn and talk of 'elves' or calling me and others 'sheep' or dreamers- for that ridicules something which is far more important than personal agendas.[/p][/quote]Wow, so if I roll over and have my belly tickled and chase the stick thats thrown, you will take me more seriously. Please don't hold your breath, this council has treated the residents of York with absolute contempt on so many levels and so many occasions. Their track record says don't trust them, they will misinform regardless of the facts. You might be happy with £29 million debt on the strength of this article, I'm not, more facts, the real ones, this is big borrowing. As for the elves, actually they are the ridiculous ones who perpetuate the paranoia of a poor performing council, not really bothered what you think about that, it happens and it's real.[/p][/quote]You really do have one huge ax to grind don't you, you don't even have the figures correct, but hey York residents never let you down.[/p][/quote]I don't need to have the figures correct, I'm not spending the money. Those spending the money need to ensure they have figures right and ensure residents are accurately informed. Big axe to grind, yea but the size of the axe is a reflection of the contempt this stinking council has for residents.[/p][/quote]If your posts are to have any credibility you need to have, at the very least least, some understanding of the costs. You either do not understand these or are wilfully misrepresenting them. It is very difficult to take your posts seriously.[/p][/quote]wilfully misrepresenting, now theres a phrase that this council should use as a tag line. It matters very little if to me I'm taken seriously or not, it is the council that needs to project an image that can be taken seriously and it's not working is it...?. All I want are truthful facts, who is buying the Central Library, which hotel company has made a bid or will. Looks a better option than St Leonards but residents might not think so. Yearsley pool has no future after the new facilities are completed, what better way to dispose of it than hand it over to GLL to close down. Independent Living Assessment Centre, just another high value central property to be disposed of. Real costs: Tax payers investment, including borrowing split out. Private funding. What facilities will be disposed of in the future, projected value. If the council wants to be taken seriously they need to be upfront with the full plan full costs and full impact on current facilities. Alternatively they can live in their world of make believe where they manipulate results and support through resident surveys by asking loaded questions and rejecting responces that don't agree with them. They can continue to rally support by getting lackeys to post letters to the press to balance opinion (I think that was the phrase). I actually want better facilities but not at any price. Whats Labours leaving gift to residents, a nice hotel in the centre of York and a library on the furthest fringes difficult to access for most residents. Yearsley pool has no future with this proposal, be honest about it, it makes sense to have a planned closure. Independent Living Assessment Centre as with the library, increased travel and difficulty to acceess for some of those considered most vulnerable. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -8

10:21am Wed 27 Aug 14

Mr Trellis says...

if they are looking for a name how about WHITE ELEPHANT
if they are looking for a name how about WHITE ELEPHANT Mr Trellis
  • Score: -3

10:23am Wed 27 Aug 14

Oaklands Resident says...

Council taxpayers contribution now over £12 million (including value of site). Principal and interest repayments on borrowing will be over £600,000 a year.

Waterworld and Yearsley pool to be closed within 18 months.

No indication of where income to run the stadium will come from. Total silence on contribution expected from football and rugby clubs.

Planning permission not a forgone conclusion (more out of town retail included) so start date and hence July 2016 opening, highly problematic.

Full report expected to be published on Friday.

Reserve judgements until then.
Council taxpayers contribution now over £12 million (including value of site). Principal and interest repayments on borrowing will be over £600,000 a year. Waterworld and Yearsley pool to be closed within 18 months. No indication of where income to run the stadium will come from. Total silence on contribution expected from football and rugby clubs. Planning permission not a forgone conclusion (more out of town retail included) so start date and hence July 2016 opening, highly problematic. Full report expected to be published on Friday. Reserve judgements until then. Oaklands Resident
  • Score: 6

10:23am Wed 27 Aug 14

AllPurpose says...

It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress. AllPurpose
  • Score: 10

10:37am Wed 27 Aug 14

goatman says...

I have no axe to grind with either the football or the rugby clubs and their supporters but I will be bloody annoyed if they take away my major sport of swimming in a PROPER pool at Yearsley. A six lane 25 meter pool is no use to me, or the myriad of club and lessons which Yearsley caters for. All this guff from the councl about keeping fit - twaddle! It's about time a few folks remebered there's more to keeping fit than chasing a ball or riding a bloody pushbike. Not impressed!
I have no axe to grind with either the football or the rugby clubs and their supporters but I will be bloody annoyed if they take away my major sport of swimming in a PROPER pool at Yearsley. A six lane 25 meter pool is no use to me, or the myriad of club and lessons which Yearsley caters for. All this guff from the councl about keeping fit - twaddle! It's about time a few folks remebered there's more to keeping fit than chasing a ball or riding a bloody pushbike. Not impressed! goatman
  • Score: 6

10:38am Wed 27 Aug 14

The Great Buda says...

AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
[quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York. The Great Buda
  • Score: 7

10:46am Wed 27 Aug 14

yorkie71 says...

Does that mean the slides etc in the pool will not be replaced ? it only mentions leisure pool
Does that mean the slides etc in the pool will not be replaced ? it only mentions leisure pool yorkie71
  • Score: -16

10:51am Wed 27 Aug 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Transport to and from the city centre is vital. At the moment they've planned a super-loo at the bottom of the garden that's not connected to the mains water or the sewerage system.
Transport to and from the city centre is vital. At the moment they've planned a super-loo at the bottom of the garden that's not connected to the mains water or the sewerage system. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 5

10:55am Wed 27 Aug 14

Zetkin says...

Thanks Buda for attempting to clarify GLL's role; without real detail all I can say is that if there's no commercial benefit to the stadium's tenants, they'll both continue to struggle to compete against better-funded clubs in their respective leagues.

I guess we'll have to wait until Monday for some real detail on how the relationship is intended to work... and another five days' wait on top of the last ten years isn't going to kill us.
Thanks Buda for attempting to clarify GLL's role; without real detail all I can say is that if there's no commercial benefit to the stadium's tenants, they'll both continue to struggle to compete against better-funded clubs in their respective leagues. I guess we'll have to wait until Monday for some real detail on how the relationship is intended to work... and another five days' wait on top of the last ten years isn't going to kill us. Zetkin
  • Score: 5

11:01am Wed 27 Aug 14

Zetkin says...

I can't find any reference to Yearsley pool being closed - is it an actual proposal?
I can't find any reference to Yearsley pool being closed - is it an actual proposal? Zetkin
  • Score: 4

11:10am Wed 27 Aug 14

Fourhundredthousandandonepointnine says...

A 25m pool is ridiculous.
A 25m pool is ridiculous. Fourhundredthousandandonepointnine
  • Score: 2

11:13am Wed 27 Aug 14

Dave Ruddock says...

One of the released pictures shows the 3 people concerned, as cheeful as Ice Bucket Ice Bucket Victims. The Project I believe is Years over due , will defiantly Over run, Go way over Budget, No Transport Links. If they did look around, and they have had plenty of time to do so, But No sticking all in a tight corner of a shopping complex that is 3 or 4 miles outside of the City, WHAT A WONDERFUL IDEA..
One of the released pictures shows the 3 people concerned, as cheeful as Ice Bucket Ice Bucket Victims. The Project I believe is Years over due , will defiantly Over run, Go way over Budget, No Transport Links. If they did look around, and they have had plenty of time to do so, But No sticking all in a tight corner of a shopping complex that is 3 or 4 miles outside of the City, WHAT A WONDERFUL IDEA.. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -4

11:17am Wed 27 Aug 14

Justin7 says...

These comment sections are ruined by the following small group of fools:

1) Political trolls. What a sad, sad life they must lead. "I support X political party, so I'm going to spend all day posting negative comments about anyone in another party".

2) People who have moved/retired to our fine city and think that because they don't support York City given they are not from York, they can whine about potential impacts on their tea afternoons and gift shop browsing. "I moved to York from Birmingham a year ago. I want my council tax money, that I've been paying in for a year, being spent on new open top sightseeing buses, not on a great facility for the people of York who've lived here all their life! I demand it. Think of the tourists!!!" Shut. Up!

3) Peddling Paul. 'Nuff said.

Get. This. Built.
These comment sections are ruined by the following small group of fools: 1) Political trolls. What a sad, sad life they must lead. "I support X political party, so I'm going to spend all day posting negative comments about anyone in another party". 2) People who have moved/retired to our fine city and think that because they don't support York City given they are not from York, they can whine about potential impacts on their tea afternoons and gift shop browsing. "I moved to York from Birmingham a year ago. I want my council tax money, that I've been paying in for a year, being spent on new open top sightseeing buses, not on a great facility for the people of York who've lived here all their life! I demand it. Think of the tourists!!!" Shut. Up! 3) Peddling Paul. 'Nuff said. Get. This. Built. Justin7
  • Score: -53

11:19am Wed 27 Aug 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Fourhundredthousanda
ndonepointnine
wrote:
A 25m pool is ridiculous.
Did you know your screenname is an anagram of...
"Unfounded, unhesitant, ironhanded ****?"
[quote][p][bold]Fourhundredthousanda ndonepointnine[/bold] wrote: A 25m pool is ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Did you know your screenname is an anagram of... "Unfounded, unhesitant, ironhanded ****?" Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 2

11:22am Wed 27 Aug 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
Fourhundredthousanda

ndonepointnine
wrote:
A 25m pool is ridiculous.
Did you know your screenname is an anagram of...
"Unfounded, unhesitant, ironhanded ****?"
Missing last word is 'P-O-R-N-O' before you get hold of the wrong end of the stick.
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fourhundredthousanda ndonepointnine[/bold] wrote: A 25m pool is ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Did you know your screenname is an anagram of... "Unfounded, unhesitant, ironhanded ****?"[/p][/quote]Missing last word is 'P-O-R-N-O' before you get hold of the wrong end of the stick. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: -2

11:25am Wed 27 Aug 14

Justin7 says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
Fourhundredthousanda


ndonepointnine
wrote:
A 25m pool is ridiculous.
Did you know your screenname is an anagram of...
"Unfounded, unhesitant, ironhanded ****?"
Missing last word is 'P-O-R-N-O' before you get hold of the wrong end of the stick.
I'm shocked to see that word on here. No wonder it was censored.

Think of the children!! ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fourhundredthousanda ndonepointnine[/bold] wrote: A 25m pool is ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Did you know your screenname is an anagram of... "Unfounded, unhesitant, ironhanded ****?"[/p][/quote]Missing last word is 'P-O-R-N-O' before you get hold of the wrong end of the stick.[/p][/quote]I'm shocked to see that word on here. No wonder it was censored. Think of the children!! ;-) Justin7
  • Score: -20

11:41am Wed 27 Aug 14

Dave Ruddock says...

As for Swimming pools, how many have been built used then fallen by the wayside to be demolished, The Barbican is an example, St Georges, Rowntrees park, Edmund Wilson All Gone, Now a project to combine all this and NHS site ( one wonder's who will use an NHS site), St Johns not in consultation with the University.
As for Swimming pools, how many have been built used then fallen by the wayside to be demolished, The Barbican is an example, St Georges, Rowntrees park, Edmund Wilson All Gone, Now a project to combine all this and NHS site ( one wonder's who will use an NHS site), St Johns not in consultation with the University. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -3

11:56am Wed 27 Aug 14

holden79 says...

Oaklands Resident wrote:
Council taxpayers contribution now over £12 million (including value of site). Principal and interest repayments on borrowing will be over £600,000 a year.

Waterworld and Yearsley pool to be closed within 18 months.

No indication of where income to run the stadium will come from. Total silence on contribution expected from football and rugby clubs.

Planning permission not a forgone conclusion (more out of town retail included) so start date and hence July 2016 opening, highly problematic.

Full report expected to be published on Friday.

Reserve judgements until then.
You mean Energise and Yearlsey to be closed within 18 months?

I'm cautiously optimistic they'll stay open with this GLL running them.... Yearsley is a busy little pool. The staff there work really hard too, will they work for GLL now?
[quote][p][bold]Oaklands Resident[/bold] wrote: Council taxpayers contribution now over £12 million (including value of site). Principal and interest repayments on borrowing will be over £600,000 a year. Waterworld and Yearsley pool to be closed within 18 months. No indication of where income to run the stadium will come from. Total silence on contribution expected from football and rugby clubs. Planning permission not a forgone conclusion (more out of town retail included) so start date and hence July 2016 opening, highly problematic. Full report expected to be published on Friday. Reserve judgements until then.[/p][/quote]You mean Energise and Yearlsey to be closed within 18 months? I'm cautiously optimistic they'll stay open with this GLL running them.... Yearsley is a busy little pool. The staff there work really hard too, will they work for GLL now? holden79
  • Score: 8

12:00pm Wed 27 Aug 14

RingoStarr says...

bolero wrote:
Will there be a private box provided for PP so that he can sit and adjust the scores on the scoreboard?
BRILLIANT!
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Will there be a private box provided for PP so that he can sit and adjust the scores on the scoreboard?[/p][/quote]BRILLIANT! RingoStarr
  • Score: -12

12:04pm Wed 27 Aug 14

RingoStarr says...

The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right! RingoStarr
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Fat Harry says...

Excellent news, another little step forward on the journey towards a viable new home for our professional sports clubs.

I'm looking forward to seeing more detailed information as and when it becomes available.
Excellent news, another little step forward on the journey towards a viable new home for our professional sports clubs. I'm looking forward to seeing more detailed information as and when it becomes available. Fat Harry
  • Score: 4

12:38pm Wed 27 Aug 14

The Great Buda says...

Justin7 wrote:
These comment sections are ruined by the following small group of fools:

1) Political trolls. What a sad, sad life they must lead. "I support X political party, so I'm going to spend all day posting negative comments about anyone in another party".

2) People who have moved/retired to our fine city and think that because they don't support York City given they are not from York, they can whine about potential impacts on their tea afternoons and gift shop browsing. "I moved to York from Birmingham a year ago. I want my council tax money, that I've been paying in for a year, being spent on new open top sightseeing buses, not on a great facility for the people of York who've lived here all their life! I demand it. Think of the tourists!!!" Shut. Up!

3) Peddling Paul. 'Nuff said.

Get. This. Built.
Very well put.
[quote][p][bold]Justin7[/bold] wrote: These comment sections are ruined by the following small group of fools: 1) Political trolls. What a sad, sad life they must lead. "I support X political party, so I'm going to spend all day posting negative comments about anyone in another party". 2) People who have moved/retired to our fine city and think that because they don't support York City given they are not from York, they can whine about potential impacts on their tea afternoons and gift shop browsing. "I moved to York from Birmingham a year ago. I want my council tax money, that I've been paying in for a year, being spent on new open top sightseeing buses, not on a great facility for the people of York who've lived here all their life! I demand it. Think of the tourists!!!" Shut. Up! 3) Peddling Paul. 'Nuff said. Get. This. Built.[/p][/quote]Very well put. The Great Buda
  • Score: 3

12:44pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Fat Harry says...

Some contributors to the discussion seem to have convinced themselves that Yearsley Swimming Pool and the Central Library are going to close. The inclusion of NHS facilities means York Hospital is going to close as well I suppose.

Get a grip, calm down, and get irate if and when/if definite plans to close the pool and the library are announced. If that happens I'll be on the barricades with you.

Not sure whether the apoplectic ravings are prompted by hatred of YCFC or CoYC, either way, please stop embarrassing yourselves
Some contributors to the discussion seem to have convinced themselves that Yearsley Swimming Pool and the Central Library are going to close. The inclusion of NHS facilities means York Hospital is going to close as well I suppose. Get a grip, calm down, and get irate if and when/if definite plans to close the pool and the library are announced. If that happens I'll be on the barricades with you. Not sure whether the apoplectic ravings are prompted by hatred of YCFC or CoYC, either way, please stop embarrassing yourselves Fat Harry
  • Score: -5

1:03pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
[quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best. Fanny Free House
  • Score: 5

1:05pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Richie H says...

Tug job wrote:
nottoooldtocare wrote:
It is indeed great news, but I do think it would have been better on the land behind York station. If they could have worked with De Vere similar to what has been done at Bolton Wanderers. Walking distance from the station would cut down on car and coach travel, and locals can all get a bus into the town and walk to the ground. Sadly I can't see me sitting on the A1237 for an hour each way, and I suspect many others will feel the same, I used to watch nearly all of York Wasp's home games as you could use one bus have a few "looseners" and get the bus home again. Travelling from the west of York to Huntington aint going to be easy!
regardless of the location I do wish York City and their fans all the success they deserve and I hope they continue to follow them to the new ground.
I often ysed to work at the Bolton Arena. The Bolton Arena isn't even in Bolton, it's in Horwich! Yes, it's within easy walking distance (for thise that can) of Horwich Parkway station but this is a 20 minute rail journey from Bolton, with a service that is frequently replaced by buses. It is no secret that land values in central York are far in excess if what they are for a brownfield site on the outskirts of a deprived town in Lancashire, which is why Bolton built their ground where they did (closer to the two centre was too expensive for them, in the same way that the tear drop site has been too expensive for the York development). You really cannot compare the two developments as they are very different, serving very different communities.
This is Huntington's Community Stadium, not York's. I agree that you can't really compare with Bolton but I also think a Community Stadium should be in the Community! It should be behind the station and in the centre like Rotherham's new one. The station is easy to get to from many places for home (Harrogate etc) and away supporters. People who live in York can walk there and people who don't can bus in - much greener. Obviously it's too late now but it annoys me that any decisions to do with the city centre are ALWAYS with tourists in mind. The local community comes second.
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nottoooldtocare[/bold] wrote: It is indeed great news, but I do think it would have been better on the land behind York station. If they could have worked with De Vere similar to what has been done at Bolton Wanderers. Walking distance from the station would cut down on car and coach travel, and locals can all get a bus into the town and walk to the ground. Sadly I can't see me sitting on the A1237 for an hour each way, and I suspect many others will feel the same, I used to watch nearly all of York Wasp's home games as you could use one bus have a few "looseners" and get the bus home again. Travelling from the west of York to Huntington aint going to be easy! regardless of the location I do wish York City and their fans all the success they deserve and I hope they continue to follow them to the new ground.[/p][/quote]I often ysed to work at the Bolton Arena. The Bolton Arena isn't even in Bolton, it's in Horwich! Yes, it's within easy walking distance (for thise that can) of Horwich Parkway station but this is a 20 minute rail journey from Bolton, with a service that is frequently replaced by buses. It is no secret that land values in central York are far in excess if what they are for a brownfield site on the outskirts of a deprived town in Lancashire, which is why Bolton built their ground where they did (closer to the two centre was too expensive for them, in the same way that the tear drop site has been too expensive for the York development). You really cannot compare the two developments as they are very different, serving very different communities.[/p][/quote]This is Huntington's Community Stadium, not York's. I agree that you can't really compare with Bolton but I also think a Community Stadium should be in the Community! It should be behind the station and in the centre like Rotherham's new one. The station is easy to get to from many places for home (Harrogate etc) and away supporters. People who live in York can walk there and people who don't can bus in - much greener. Obviously it's too late now but it annoys me that any decisions to do with the city centre are ALWAYS with tourists in mind. The local community comes second. Richie H
  • Score: 10

1:12pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

Fat Harry wrote:
Some contributors to the discussion seem to have convinced themselves that Yearsley Swimming Pool and the Central Library are going to close. The inclusion of NHS facilities means York Hospital is going to close as well I suppose.

Get a grip, calm down, and get irate if and when/if definite plans to close the pool and the library are announced. If that happens I'll be on the barricades with you.

Not sure whether the apoplectic ravings are prompted by hatred of YCFC or CoYC, either way, please stop embarrassing yourselves
Stop embarrassing yourself with pathetic statements like "The inclusion of NHS facilities means York Hospital is going to close as well I suppose". Unlike the other example it is not feasible the others are realistically achievable.

If that happens you will be on the barricades with us, well great to know your available when it's too late. Better to have all cards on the table before hand.
[quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: Some contributors to the discussion seem to have convinced themselves that Yearsley Swimming Pool and the Central Library are going to close. The inclusion of NHS facilities means York Hospital is going to close as well I suppose. Get a grip, calm down, and get irate if and when/if definite plans to close the pool and the library are announced. If that happens I'll be on the barricades with you. Not sure whether the apoplectic ravings are prompted by hatred of YCFC or CoYC, either way, please stop embarrassing yourselves[/p][/quote]Stop embarrassing yourself with pathetic statements like "The inclusion of NHS facilities means York Hospital is going to close as well I suppose". Unlike the other example it is not feasible the others are realistically achievable. If that happens you will be on the barricades with us, well great to know your available when it's too late. Better to have all cards on the table before hand. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -11

1:39pm Wed 27 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
Central library? Have CYC not done a deal with Explore for them to run it (as a social enterprise?) giving (if I remember correctly) five years guaranteed LA funding? And what about all the months of work being undertaken there? Why do all that and then shut it?
I agree the project suddenly seems to have ballooned, but I'd reserve judgement until we get more detail, which in fairness, has been promised in the coming days and weeks. This is just the opening announcement - there is hell of a lot more to come out yet, why not wait before condemning?
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.[/p][/quote]Central library? Have CYC not done a deal with Explore for them to run it (as a social enterprise?) giving (if I remember correctly) five years guaranteed LA funding? And what about all the months of work being undertaken there? Why do all that and then shut it? I agree the project suddenly seems to have ballooned, but I'd reserve judgement until we get more detail, which in fairness, has been promised in the coming days and weeks. This is just the opening announcement - there is hell of a lot more to come out yet, why not wait before condemning? CaroleBaines
  • Score: 3

1:42pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Oaklands Resident says...

holden79 wrote:
Oaklands Resident wrote:
Council taxpayers contribution now over £12 million (including value of site). Principal and interest repayments on borrowing will be over £600,000 a year.

Waterworld and Yearsley pool to be closed within 18 months.

No indication of where income to run the stadium will come from. Total silence on contribution expected from football and rugby clubs.

Planning permission not a forgone conclusion (more out of town retail included) so start date and hence July 2016 opening, highly problematic.

Full report expected to be published on Friday.

Reserve judgements until then.
You mean Energise and Yearlsey to be closed within 18 months?

I'm cautiously optimistic they'll stay open with this GLL running them.... Yearsley is a busy little pool. The staff there work really hard too, will they work for GLL now?
No, Waterworld closes in December (prior to demolition of the existing stadium complex).

Yearsley loses its £250,000 subsidy in July 2016 and will inevitably then close. Prior to that the staff there will work for GLL and will presumably be moved to work at the new Huntington pool.

Energise continues albeit under the management of Greenwich
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oaklands Resident[/bold] wrote: Council taxpayers contribution now over £12 million (including value of site). Principal and interest repayments on borrowing will be over £600,000 a year. Waterworld and Yearsley pool to be closed within 18 months. No indication of where income to run the stadium will come from. Total silence on contribution expected from football and rugby clubs. Planning permission not a forgone conclusion (more out of town retail included) so start date and hence July 2016 opening, highly problematic. Full report expected to be published on Friday. Reserve judgements until then.[/p][/quote]You mean Energise and Yearlsey to be closed within 18 months? I'm cautiously optimistic they'll stay open with this GLL running them.... Yearsley is a busy little pool. The staff there work really hard too, will they work for GLL now?[/p][/quote]No, Waterworld closes in December (prior to demolition of the existing stadium complex). Yearsley loses its £250,000 subsidy in July 2016 and will inevitably then close. Prior to that the staff there will work for GLL and will presumably be moved to work at the new Huntington pool. Energise continues albeit under the management of Greenwich Oaklands Resident
  • Score: 11

1:59pm Wed 27 Aug 14

AllPurpose says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here.

I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed.

I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.[/p][/quote]Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here. I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed. I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them. AllPurpose
  • Score: -2

2:57pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Monks Boss says...

The same fools bleating on about infrastructure and money issues are the same fools that apposed Vanguard in the first place.A big congratulations to common sense for making the stadium 8k seater.Well done COYC and thankyou to the McGill's.The city of York is the big winner here and the miserable wingers can shut it ! Ha ha
The same fools bleating on about infrastructure and money issues are the same fools that apposed Vanguard in the first place.A big congratulations to common sense for making the stadium 8k seater.Well done COYC and thankyou to the McGill's.The city of York is the big winner here and the miserable wingers can shut it ! Ha ha Monks Boss
  • Score: -2

3:36pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

AllPurpose wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here.

I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed.

I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.
Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed.

Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach.

You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.
[quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.[/p][/quote]Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here. I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed. I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.[/p][/quote]Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed. Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach. You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -22

4:19pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Tug job says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here.

I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed.

I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.
Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed.

Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach.

You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.
I've noticed you don't seem to know what you're talking, or rather writing, about. Why not wait until the report is published on 1st September before commenting further - "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.[/p][/quote]Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here. I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed. I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.[/p][/quote]Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed. Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach. You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.[/p][/quote]I've noticed you don't seem to know what you're talking, or rather writing, about. Why not wait until the report is published on 1st September before commenting further - "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt". Tug job
  • Score: 12

4:46pm Wed 27 Aug 14

bill bailey says...

Tug job wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here.

I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed.

I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.
Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed.

Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach.

You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.
I've noticed you don't seem to know what you're talking, or rather writing, about. Why not wait until the report is published on 1st September before commenting further - "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".
TUG, you and I might have had our differences on the club site but you are right some people on here are purporting to be the experts on all and sundry, I don't do politics at council level (Well come to think of it at no level) but when they become a council member they are inclined to walk around with their head in an area where most of their chat rubbish comes from, that said I am thrilled that the stadium AT LAST is almost there. The figures might be open to debate, when a project like this it always is. Hey this is a project that will embrace thousands of YORK + people we should rejoice and enjoy it. I'm happy I live a stone throw from the site.
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.[/p][/quote]Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here. I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed. I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.[/p][/quote]Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed. Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach. You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.[/p][/quote]I've noticed you don't seem to know what you're talking, or rather writing, about. Why not wait until the report is published on 1st September before commenting further - "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".[/p][/quote]TUG, you and I might have had our differences on the club site but you are right some people on here are purporting to be the experts on all and sundry, I don't do politics at council level (Well come to think of it at no level) but when they become a council member they are inclined to walk around with their head in an area where most of their chat rubbish comes from, that said I am thrilled that the stadium AT LAST is almost there. The figures might be open to debate, when a project like this it always is. Hey this is a project that will embrace thousands of YORK + people we should rejoice and enjoy it. I'm happy I live a stone throw from the site. bill bailey
  • Score: 6

4:51pm Wed 27 Aug 14

duffy says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here.

I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed.

I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.
Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed.

Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach.

You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.
The minute you stated you don't need to have the correct figures after the statements you made on the debt you lost all credibility frankly, as with a few other of the usual suspects on here you were going to complain regardless. This is a good deal for the city of York full stop, the amount the city is gaining compared to the outlay is there for all to see if people read through what's included. The trouble is some have their own agendas and don't want to look.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.[/p][/quote]Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here. I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed. I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.[/p][/quote]Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed. Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach. You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.[/p][/quote]The minute you stated you don't need to have the correct figures after the statements you made on the debt you lost all credibility frankly, as with a few other of the usual suspects on here you were going to complain regardless. This is a good deal for the city of York full stop, the amount the city is gaining compared to the outlay is there for all to see if people read through what's included. The trouble is some have their own agendas and don't want to look. duffy
  • Score: 9

4:57pm Wed 27 Aug 14

duffy says...

City of York Council has today (26 August) announced the appointment of a consortium led by Greenwich Leisure Ltd as the preferred bidder for the delivery of the York Community Stadium and Leisure Complex, which proposes to deliver an 8,000 all-seater stadium as part of what will be a leading leisure destination for the North of England.

Announcing the appointment of the preferred bidder and revealing details of the stadium scheme, Cllr James Alexander, leader of City of York Council, said:

“Today’s announcement marks the completion of an 18 month procurement process and represents a significant milestone for the delivery of the York Community Stadium and Leisure Complex. Over the last three years we have made great progress in securing planning and funding, with work to begin in spring 2015. It will provide an 8,000 all-seater brand new home for York City Knights RLFC and York City Football Club, a 2,000 capacity increase from the original 6,000 proposal, with high-quality hospitality and conferencing facilities. It will also offer a replacement swimming pool fit for the 21st century, fitness and active play facilities as well as a new community hub focussed on providing health and wellbeing services for York residents and visitors.

“This landmark destination will provide an exciting mix of community and commercial leisure uses for the city which exceeds our original expectations. The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend.”

The leisure complex, which will replace the existing Waterworld and Courtney’s Gym complex adjacent to the stadium, will provide a 25-metre, six-lane swimming pool complemented by a separate teaching pool and fun pool with exciting water features for children. The scheme will also provide a brand new sports hall facility for netball, badminton and basketball with spectator viewing for up to 250 people, a new 100-station gym with dance and spinning studios and an extreme adventure sports zone, all under the same roof. There will also be three, 3G five-a-side pitches at the site adding to the impressive leisure offer and helping to support community initiatives and encouraging sport participation for all ages.

Cllr Crisp, Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism gave details of the community focus of the scheme, saying: “The community hub at the complex is the first of its kind in the city and will provide bespoke facilities for longstanding partners to the project, including the York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, York St John University, Be Independent (CIC) and Explore York Libraries and Archives Ltd. They, alongside York City Knights RLFC and York City Football Club, have worked with us throughout this process to ensure we build the best leisure, sport and health offer for the city”.

The York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust will use space in the stadium for the provision of services such as training, development and administration, whilst the Explore Library will provide a new look facility within the open plan hub area. The York St John University Institute of Community Sport and Wellbeing will provide a programme of activity to promote sport, activity, health, education and wellbeing. An independent Living Assessment Centre will provide face to face advice to enable disabled or elderly people to carry on living independently in their home.

Chris Symons, Director of Development for GLL, said, “We are delighted to have been selected as the preferred bidder for the Community Stadium and Leisure Complex in York. The plans for the new stadium, leisure centre and community hub, are truly ground breaking and represent a unique scheme that is sure to become a flagship project regionally as well as nationally.

“As a charitable social enterprise and the UK’s largest leisure centre operator, GLL currently operates more than 140 public leisure centres across England and Wales. Our 20 years of experience, coupled with our status as a ‘not for profit’, means that we have both the operational skills and community focus to enable us to successfully operate these high quality facilities for the benefit of the entire community.

“Our focus at GLL is to help more people, get more active, more often, and the inclusion of partners such as York City FC, NHS Hospital Trust, Library services, and York St John, allows us to develop world class facilities that will thrive at the heart of the city. Not just for sport and activity, but for health and education too.”

The scheme also includes a £2m associated county standard athletics track being built at Heslington West campus at the University of York, to be completed this year, which will be home to the City of York Athletics Club. This will include a sand dressed artificial hockey and football pitch, grass infield to track suitable for both athletics field and football, a 500 capacity viewing stand, a club house and changing facilities for community use.

A paper will be taken to the council’s Cabinet on 9 September (published on 1 September) updating Members of the progress and seeking approval to proceed.

Construction is expected to start in spring 2015 and facilities will be operational by late summer 2016.

Further information on the scheme will be made available on the York Community Stadium website http://www.yorkcommu
nitystadium.co.uk/ on 1 September 2014.
City of York Council has today (26 August) announced the appointment of a consortium led by Greenwich Leisure Ltd as the preferred bidder for the delivery of the York Community Stadium and Leisure Complex, which proposes to deliver an 8,000 all-seater stadium as part of what will be a leading leisure destination for the North of England. Announcing the appointment of the preferred bidder and revealing details of the stadium scheme, Cllr James Alexander, leader of City of York Council, said: “Today’s announcement marks the completion of an 18 month procurement process and represents a significant milestone for the delivery of the York Community Stadium and Leisure Complex. Over the last three years we have made great progress in securing planning and funding, with work to begin in spring 2015. It will provide an 8,000 all-seater brand new home for York City Knights RLFC and York City Football Club, a 2,000 capacity increase from the original 6,000 proposal, with high-quality hospitality and conferencing facilities. It will also offer a replacement swimming pool fit for the 21st century, fitness and active play facilities as well as a new community hub focussed on providing health and wellbeing services for York residents and visitors. “This landmark destination will provide an exciting mix of community and commercial leisure uses for the city which exceeds our original expectations. The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend.” The leisure complex, which will replace the existing Waterworld and Courtney’s Gym complex adjacent to the stadium, will provide a 25-metre, six-lane swimming pool complemented by a separate teaching pool and fun pool with exciting water features for children. The scheme will also provide a brand new sports hall facility for netball, badminton and basketball with spectator viewing for up to 250 people, a new 100-station gym with dance and spinning studios and an extreme adventure sports zone, all under the same roof. There will also be three, 3G five-a-side pitches at the site adding to the impressive leisure offer and helping to support community initiatives and encouraging sport participation for all ages. Cllr Crisp, Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism gave details of the community focus of the scheme, saying: “The community hub at the complex is the first of its kind in the city and will provide bespoke facilities for longstanding partners to the project, including the York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, York St John University, Be Independent (CIC) and Explore York Libraries and Archives Ltd. They, alongside York City Knights RLFC and York City Football Club, have worked with us throughout this process to ensure we build the best leisure, sport and health offer for the city”. The York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust will use space in the stadium for the provision of services such as training, development and administration, whilst the Explore Library will provide a new look facility within the open plan hub area. The York St John University Institute of Community Sport and Wellbeing will provide a programme of activity to promote sport, activity, health, education and wellbeing. An independent Living Assessment Centre will provide face to face advice to enable disabled or elderly people to carry on living independently in their home. Chris Symons, Director of Development for GLL, said, “We are delighted to have been selected as the preferred bidder for the Community Stadium and Leisure Complex in York. The plans for the new stadium, leisure centre and community hub, are truly ground breaking and represent a unique scheme that is sure to become a flagship project regionally as well as nationally. “As a charitable social enterprise and the UK’s largest leisure centre operator, GLL currently operates more than 140 public leisure centres across England and Wales. Our 20 years of experience, coupled with our status as a ‘not for profit’, means that we have both the operational skills and community focus to enable us to successfully operate these high quality facilities for the benefit of the entire community. “Our focus at GLL is to help more people, get more active, more often, and the inclusion of partners such as York City FC, NHS Hospital Trust, Library services, and York St John, allows us to develop world class facilities that will thrive at the heart of the city. Not just for sport and activity, but for health and education too.” The scheme also includes a £2m associated county standard athletics track being built at Heslington West campus at the University of York, to be completed this year, which will be home to the City of York Athletics Club. This will include a sand dressed artificial hockey and football pitch, grass infield to track suitable for both athletics field and football, a 500 capacity viewing stand, a club house and changing facilities for community use. A paper will be taken to the council’s Cabinet on 9 September (published on 1 September) updating Members of the progress and seeking approval to proceed. Construction is expected to start in spring 2015 and facilities will be operational by late summer 2016. Further information on the scheme will be made available on the York Community Stadium website http://www.yorkcommu nitystadium.co.uk/ on 1 September 2014. duffy
  • Score: 2

5:28pm Wed 27 Aug 14

George Smiley says...

I have no doubt that this stadium and it's facilities will be good for York but as a football stadium for York City FC I must say that I fear it will be a soulless plastic bowl with no atmosphere and it may well end up being a nail in the coffin of our great football club. No, not even a tiny amount of terracing. The name, Community Stadium it may be but that is an atrocious name for a football stadium. Is the name actually decided? How about something synonymous with York's history eg, The Viking Arena or The Minster Stadium? Failing that then how about a Corporate deal say with Rowntrees? Finally the location, well obviously no thought was given to that considering that the huge majority of fans, home and away will approach from the city centre or the west of York via the A64. We have no inner city rail services or trams and I don't see the existing bus services being much use for transporting 5000 fans up to Monks Cross on a match day on top of Saturday shoppers. The ring road is a nightmare and the council are a bunch of incompetents. Good luck to all involved but I fear the worst.
I have no doubt that this stadium and it's facilities will be good for York but as a football stadium for York City FC I must say that I fear it will be a soulless plastic bowl with no atmosphere and it may well end up being a nail in the coffin of our great football club. No, not even a tiny amount of terracing. The name, Community Stadium it may be but that is an atrocious name for a football stadium. Is the name actually decided? How about something synonymous with York's history eg, The Viking Arena or The Minster Stadium? Failing that then how about a Corporate deal say with Rowntrees? Finally the location, well obviously no thought was given to that considering that the huge majority of fans, home and away will approach from the city centre or the west of York via the A64. We have no inner city rail services or trams and I don't see the existing bus services being much use for transporting 5000 fans up to Monks Cross on a match day on top of Saturday shoppers. The ring road is a nightmare and the council are a bunch of incompetents. Good luck to all involved but I fear the worst. George Smiley
  • Score: 4

5:32pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Justin7 says...

George Smiley wrote:
I have no doubt that this stadium and it's facilities will be good for York but as a football stadium for York City FC I must say that I fear it will be a soulless plastic bowl with no atmosphere and it may well end up being a nail in the coffin of our great football club. No, not even a tiny amount of terracing. The name, Community Stadium it may be but that is an atrocious name for a football stadium. Is the name actually decided? How about something synonymous with York's history eg, The Viking Arena or The Minster Stadium? Failing that then how about a Corporate deal say with Rowntrees? Finally the location, well obviously no thought was given to that considering that the huge majority of fans, home and away will approach from the city centre or the west of York via the A64. We have no inner city rail services or trams and I don't see the existing bus services being much use for transporting 5000 fans up to Monks Cross on a match day on top of Saturday shoppers. The ring road is a nightmare and the council are a bunch of incompetents. Good luck to all involved but I fear the worst.
Stop being such a big girl's blouse.

1) York City fans make a great atmosphere whereever they go.

2) It won't be called that. Naming rights will be sold.

3) Traffic won't be anywhere near bad as trying to find a parking space near Bootham Crescent.

Stop being such a wuss.
[quote][p][bold]George Smiley[/bold] wrote: I have no doubt that this stadium and it's facilities will be good for York but as a football stadium for York City FC I must say that I fear it will be a soulless plastic bowl with no atmosphere and it may well end up being a nail in the coffin of our great football club. No, not even a tiny amount of terracing. The name, Community Stadium it may be but that is an atrocious name for a football stadium. Is the name actually decided? How about something synonymous with York's history eg, The Viking Arena or The Minster Stadium? Failing that then how about a Corporate deal say with Rowntrees? Finally the location, well obviously no thought was given to that considering that the huge majority of fans, home and away will approach from the city centre or the west of York via the A64. We have no inner city rail services or trams and I don't see the existing bus services being much use for transporting 5000 fans up to Monks Cross on a match day on top of Saturday shoppers. The ring road is a nightmare and the council are a bunch of incompetents. Good luck to all involved but I fear the worst.[/p][/quote]Stop being such a big girl's blouse. 1) York City fans make a great atmosphere whereever they go. 2) It won't be called that. Naming rights will be sold. 3) Traffic won't be anywhere near bad as trying to find a parking space near Bootham Crescent. Stop being such a wuss. Justin7
  • Score: 2

5:34pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Justin7 says...

Deary me. There's people getting their homes destroyed in the middle east and some people here think they have it worse because it might be five minutes in a queue on the A-64 to get to the ground.

Man up.
Deary me. There's people getting their homes destroyed in the middle east and some people here think they have it worse because it might be five minutes in a queue on the A-64 to get to the ground. Man up. Justin7
  • Score: 1

5:52pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

duffy wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here.

I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed.

I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.
Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed.

Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach.

You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.
The minute you stated you don't need to have the correct figures after the statements you made on the debt you lost all credibility frankly, as with a few other of the usual suspects on here you were going to complain regardless. This is a good deal for the city of York full stop, the amount the city is gaining compared to the outlay is there for all to see if people read through what's included. The trouble is some have their own agendas and don't want to look.
Lost all credibility, wow i'm really upset.

The council and I share more common traits than I could ever imagine.

I don't need to be right about anything, I have no responsibility to anyone on this subject. How many people who read the comments are now thinking beyond what they see and are being told about this project and what it probably really means.

The council need to be right about everything, but seldom if ever have been, this will be no different.

Defend them all you want but consider this:

What kind of council is going to fund two libraries...?.

What kind of council is going to maintain an ageing expensive swimming pool within a mile of a new facility....?.

What kind of council is going to fund two independent living assessment centres...?.

No council and certainly not York, why...? COST.

Usual suspects, you really do reveal your cause.

As for this being good deal for the city of York full stop, give the residents all the facts and they will be the judge of that, but then politically sensitive secrets as usual.

Alternatively, let the council make a clear statement that they are happy to fund 2 libraries, Yearsley pool and 2 Independent Living Assessment centres but they won't, because thats not prudent, not that thats ever really mattered to this lot.
[quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.[/p][/quote]Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here. I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed. I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.[/p][/quote]Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed. Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach. You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.[/p][/quote]The minute you stated you don't need to have the correct figures after the statements you made on the debt you lost all credibility frankly, as with a few other of the usual suspects on here you were going to complain regardless. This is a good deal for the city of York full stop, the amount the city is gaining compared to the outlay is there for all to see if people read through what's included. The trouble is some have their own agendas and don't want to look.[/p][/quote]Lost all credibility, wow i'm really upset. The council and I share more common traits than I could ever imagine. I don't need to be right about anything, I have no responsibility to anyone on this subject. How many people who read the comments are now thinking beyond what they see and are being told about this project and what it probably really means. The council need to be right about everything, but seldom if ever have been, this will be no different. Defend them all you want but consider this: What kind of council is going to fund two libraries...?. What kind of council is going to maintain an ageing expensive swimming pool within a mile of a new facility....?. What kind of council is going to fund two independent living assessment centres...?. No council and certainly not York, why...? COST. Usual suspects, you really do reveal your cause. As for this being good deal for the city of York full stop, give the residents all the facts and they will be the judge of that, but then politically sensitive secrets as usual. Alternatively, let the council make a clear statement that they are happy to fund 2 libraries, Yearsley pool and 2 Independent Living Assessment centres but they won't, because thats not prudent, not that thats ever really mattered to this lot. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -24

6:05pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

Tug job wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here.

I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed.

I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.
Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed.

Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach.

You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.
I've noticed you don't seem to know what you're talking, or rather writing, about. Why not wait until the report is published on 1st September before commenting further - "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".
Iv'e noticed that you seem happy to just jolly along with everything.

Better a fool who challenges, than an idiot who follows.
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.[/p][/quote]Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here. I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed. I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.[/p][/quote]Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed. Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach. You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.[/p][/quote]I've noticed you don't seem to know what you're talking, or rather writing, about. Why not wait until the report is published on 1st September before commenting further - "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".[/p][/quote]Iv'e noticed that you seem happy to just jolly along with everything. Better a fool who challenges, than an idiot who follows. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -11

6:17pm Wed 27 Aug 14

windowlicker says...

windowlicker wrote:
These "income streams" that have often been talked about, where are they?
-7 and not one suggestion as to what the often quoted income streams that the club's going to benefit from are, strange but not as strange as a football ground without a terrace.
[quote][p][bold]windowlicker[/bold] wrote: These "income streams" that have often been talked about, where are they?[/p][/quote]-7 and not one suggestion as to what the often quoted income streams that the club's going to benefit from are, strange but not as strange as a football ground without a terrace. windowlicker
  • Score: -5

6:19pm Wed 27 Aug 14

AllPurpose says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
duffy wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here.

I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed.

I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.
Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed.

Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach.

You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.
The minute you stated you don't need to have the correct figures after the statements you made on the debt you lost all credibility frankly, as with a few other of the usual suspects on here you were going to complain regardless. This is a good deal for the city of York full stop, the amount the city is gaining compared to the outlay is there for all to see if people read through what's included. The trouble is some have their own agendas and don't want to look.
Lost all credibility, wow i'm really upset.

The council and I share more common traits than I could ever imagine.

I don't need to be right about anything, I have no responsibility to anyone on this subject. How many people who read the comments are now thinking beyond what they see and are being told about this project and what it probably really means.

The council need to be right about everything, but seldom if ever have been, this will be no different.

Defend them all you want but consider this:

What kind of council is going to fund two libraries...?.

What kind of council is going to maintain an ageing expensive swimming pool within a mile of a new facility....?.

What kind of council is going to fund two independent living assessment centres...?.

No council and certainly not York, why...? COST.

Usual suspects, you really do reveal your cause.

As for this being good deal for the city of York full stop, give the residents all the facts and they will be the judge of that, but then politically sensitive secrets as usual.

Alternatively, let the council make a clear statement that they are happy to fund 2 libraries, Yearsley pool and 2 Independent Living Assessment centres but they won't, because thats not prudent, not that thats ever really mattered to this lot.
You think there is one library in York, and this would make it two? You should have taken that advice about not proving yourself an idiot.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.[/p][/quote]Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here. I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed. I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.[/p][/quote]Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed. Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach. You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.[/p][/quote]The minute you stated you don't need to have the correct figures after the statements you made on the debt you lost all credibility frankly, as with a few other of the usual suspects on here you were going to complain regardless. This is a good deal for the city of York full stop, the amount the city is gaining compared to the outlay is there for all to see if people read through what's included. The trouble is some have their own agendas and don't want to look.[/p][/quote]Lost all credibility, wow i'm really upset. The council and I share more common traits than I could ever imagine. I don't need to be right about anything, I have no responsibility to anyone on this subject. How many people who read the comments are now thinking beyond what they see and are being told about this project and what it probably really means. The council need to be right about everything, but seldom if ever have been, this will be no different. Defend them all you want but consider this: What kind of council is going to fund two libraries...?. What kind of council is going to maintain an ageing expensive swimming pool within a mile of a new facility....?. What kind of council is going to fund two independent living assessment centres...?. No council and certainly not York, why...? COST. Usual suspects, you really do reveal your cause. As for this being good deal for the city of York full stop, give the residents all the facts and they will be the judge of that, but then politically sensitive secrets as usual. Alternatively, let the council make a clear statement that they are happy to fund 2 libraries, Yearsley pool and 2 Independent Living Assessment centres but they won't, because thats not prudent, not that thats ever really mattered to this lot.[/p][/quote]You think there is one library in York, and this would make it two? You should have taken that advice about not proving yourself an idiot. AllPurpose
  • Score: 7

6:25pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Monks Boss says...

If nobody wants to come to the new stadium when its built ive heard there's a perfumery on lendal that's always struggling for trade.
If nobody wants to come to the new stadium when its built ive heard there's a perfumery on lendal that's always struggling for trade. Monks Boss
  • Score: 2

6:36pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

AllPurpose wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
duffy wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here.

I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed.

I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.
Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed.

Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach.

You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.
The minute you stated you don't need to have the correct figures after the statements you made on the debt you lost all credibility frankly, as with a few other of the usual suspects on here you were going to complain regardless. This is a good deal for the city of York full stop, the amount the city is gaining compared to the outlay is there for all to see if people read through what's included. The trouble is some have their own agendas and don't want to look.
Lost all credibility, wow i'm really upset.

The council and I share more common traits than I could ever imagine.

I don't need to be right about anything, I have no responsibility to anyone on this subject. How many people who read the comments are now thinking beyond what they see and are being told about this project and what it probably really means.

The council need to be right about everything, but seldom if ever have been, this will be no different.

Defend them all you want but consider this:

What kind of council is going to fund two libraries...?.

What kind of council is going to maintain an ageing expensive swimming pool within a mile of a new facility....?.

What kind of council is going to fund two independent living assessment centres...?.

No council and certainly not York, why...? COST.

Usual suspects, you really do reveal your cause.

As for this being good deal for the city of York full stop, give the residents all the facts and they will be the judge of that, but then politically sensitive secrets as usual.

Alternatively, let the council make a clear statement that they are happy to fund 2 libraries, Yearsley pool and 2 Independent Living Assessment centres but they won't, because thats not prudent, not that thats ever really mattered to this lot.
You think there is one library in York, and this would make it two? You should have taken that advice about not proving yourself an idiot.
Substantial libraries, not mini ones.

Keep it up, your task will be long and arduous.
[quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.[/p][/quote]Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here. I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed. I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.[/p][/quote]Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed. Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach. You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.[/p][/quote]The minute you stated you don't need to have the correct figures after the statements you made on the debt you lost all credibility frankly, as with a few other of the usual suspects on here you were going to complain regardless. This is a good deal for the city of York full stop, the amount the city is gaining compared to the outlay is there for all to see if people read through what's included. The trouble is some have their own agendas and don't want to look.[/p][/quote]Lost all credibility, wow i'm really upset. The council and I share more common traits than I could ever imagine. I don't need to be right about anything, I have no responsibility to anyone on this subject. How many people who read the comments are now thinking beyond what they see and are being told about this project and what it probably really means. The council need to be right about everything, but seldom if ever have been, this will be no different. Defend them all you want but consider this: What kind of council is going to fund two libraries...?. What kind of council is going to maintain an ageing expensive swimming pool within a mile of a new facility....?. What kind of council is going to fund two independent living assessment centres...?. No council and certainly not York, why...? COST. Usual suspects, you really do reveal your cause. As for this being good deal for the city of York full stop, give the residents all the facts and they will be the judge of that, but then politically sensitive secrets as usual. Alternatively, let the council make a clear statement that they are happy to fund 2 libraries, Yearsley pool and 2 Independent Living Assessment centres but they won't, because thats not prudent, not that thats ever really mattered to this lot.[/p][/quote]You think there is one library in York, and this would make it two? You should have taken that advice about not proving yourself an idiot.[/p][/quote]Substantial libraries, not mini ones. Keep it up, your task will be long and arduous. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -48

7:08pm Wed 27 Aug 14

AllPurpose says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
duffy wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here.

I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed.

I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.
Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed.

Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach.

You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.
The minute you stated you don't need to have the correct figures after the statements you made on the debt you lost all credibility frankly, as with a few other of the usual suspects on here you were going to complain regardless. This is a good deal for the city of York full stop, the amount the city is gaining compared to the outlay is there for all to see if people read through what's included. The trouble is some have their own agendas and don't want to look.
Lost all credibility, wow i'm really upset.

The council and I share more common traits than I could ever imagine.

I don't need to be right about anything, I have no responsibility to anyone on this subject. How many people who read the comments are now thinking beyond what they see and are being told about this project and what it probably really means.

The council need to be right about everything, but seldom if ever have been, this will be no different.

Defend them all you want but consider this:

What kind of council is going to fund two libraries...?.

What kind of council is going to maintain an ageing expensive swimming pool within a mile of a new facility....?.

What kind of council is going to fund two independent living assessment centres...?.

No council and certainly not York, why...? COST.

Usual suspects, you really do reveal your cause.

As for this being good deal for the city of York full stop, give the residents all the facts and they will be the judge of that, but then politically sensitive secrets as usual.

Alternatively, let the council make a clear statement that they are happy to fund 2 libraries, Yearsley pool and 2 Independent Living Assessment centres but they won't, because thats not prudent, not that thats ever really mattered to this lot.
You think there is one library in York, and this would make it two? You should have taken that advice about not proving yourself an idiot.
Substantial libraries, not mini ones.

Keep it up, your task will be long and arduous.
What do you think my task is?
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.[/p][/quote]Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here. I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed. I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.[/p][/quote]Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed. Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach. You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.[/p][/quote]The minute you stated you don't need to have the correct figures after the statements you made on the debt you lost all credibility frankly, as with a few other of the usual suspects on here you were going to complain regardless. This is a good deal for the city of York full stop, the amount the city is gaining compared to the outlay is there for all to see if people read through what's included. The trouble is some have their own agendas and don't want to look.[/p][/quote]Lost all credibility, wow i'm really upset. The council and I share more common traits than I could ever imagine. I don't need to be right about anything, I have no responsibility to anyone on this subject. How many people who read the comments are now thinking beyond what they see and are being told about this project and what it probably really means. The council need to be right about everything, but seldom if ever have been, this will be no different. Defend them all you want but consider this: What kind of council is going to fund two libraries...?. What kind of council is going to maintain an ageing expensive swimming pool within a mile of a new facility....?. What kind of council is going to fund two independent living assessment centres...?. No council and certainly not York, why...? COST. Usual suspects, you really do reveal your cause. As for this being good deal for the city of York full stop, give the residents all the facts and they will be the judge of that, but then politically sensitive secrets as usual. Alternatively, let the council make a clear statement that they are happy to fund 2 libraries, Yearsley pool and 2 Independent Living Assessment centres but they won't, because thats not prudent, not that thats ever really mattered to this lot.[/p][/quote]You think there is one library in York, and this would make it two? You should have taken that advice about not proving yourself an idiot.[/p][/quote]Substantial libraries, not mini ones. Keep it up, your task will be long and arduous.[/p][/quote]What do you think my task is? AllPurpose
  • Score: 5

7:19pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Smashing fellow says...

big boy york wrote:
just when premiership are going to announce a return of some standing areas, we go n build all seater, you watch sky on a sunday aft n theres not many sitting down so why not leave staning only behind the goals, a £37m stadium john lewis putting £18m council £8m so wheres the other £11m coming from
How many people go to the David Longhurst stand and decline the chance to sit in the Pop stand for a measly £1 extra? Very few, that's how many. PEOPLE WANT TO STAND
PEOPLE WANT TO STAND
PEOPLE WANT TO STAND
People are ignored.
[quote][p][bold]big boy york[/bold] wrote: just when premiership are going to announce a return of some standing areas, we go n build all seater, you watch sky on a sunday aft n theres not many sitting down so why not leave staning only behind the goals, a £37m stadium john lewis putting £18m council £8m so wheres the other £11m coming from[/p][/quote]How many people go to the David Longhurst stand and decline the chance to sit in the Pop stand for a measly £1 extra? Very few, that's how many. PEOPLE WANT TO STAND PEOPLE WANT TO STAND PEOPLE WANT TO STAND People are ignored. Smashing fellow
  • Score: -2

7:41pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

While here in York we are having our Athletics stadium destroyed at great expense.

Wise up!
While here in York we are having our Athletics stadium destroyed at great expense. Wise up! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -66

8:58pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Budgie says...

No standing room, lessened atmosphere, living in Acomb probably take me an hour or more to get home. Cost enormous. supported city for years, As Bootham Crescent closes its doors so will mine.
No standing room, lessened atmosphere, living in Acomb probably take me an hour or more to get home. Cost enormous. supported city for years, As Bootham Crescent closes its doors so will mine. Budgie
  • Score: -3

9:58pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Tug job says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
Tug job wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AllPurpose wrote:
It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included.

We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.
Its the sad fact about York.

There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be.

This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.
'porject' is about right!
Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said.

What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away.

I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding.

How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?.

While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need.

Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.
Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here.

I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed.

I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.
Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed.

Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach.

You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.
I've noticed you don't seem to know what you're talking, or rather writing, about. Why not wait until the report is published on 1st September before commenting further - "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".
Iv'e noticed that you seem happy to just jolly along with everything.

Better a fool who challenges, than an idiot who follows.
Perhaps, but writing a lot of nonsense and lies on a web site is hardly "challenging", is it?
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AllPurpose[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the ones demanding honesty and clarity on the figures are also the ones deliberately creating as much confusion as possible. The story makes it clear the £37m is the total for the whole project, yet 'Fanny Free House' adds £4m to that for costs it clearly states are included. We also get this nonsense about £29m of debt, even though the total council contribution is clearly stated as £8m. The rest comes from the s106 and various partnerships. It's a great deal for York and the taxpayer. Such a shame we have so many who cannot accept any progress.[/p][/quote]Its the sad fact about York. There are plenty of people with vested iinterests who do not wish to see York develop into the leading City it could be. This porject is a very good thing for York, and more importantly the people of York.[/p][/quote]'porject' is about right![/p][/quote]Good stuff, I'm causing deliberate confusion, fantastic. It really doesn't matter what little old me adds in terms of confusion does it, after all I'm not spending tax payers money. What really matters is what is being said by the council and more so what is not being said. What fear seems to grow from a few comments that raise questions that require full open honest answers. What is the deal, who is paying for what and absolutely where is the money beyond the clearly stated borrowings. Why are we borrowing money, how much will it cost to service the additional debt, how will tax payers see a return on the investment, or is it a great £millions give away. I'm not against progress but I am against control freaks and those who just role over and play tickle tummy, have the emails been sent instructing Labour councillors how they will vote on the additional funding. How much has been factored in for the sell-off of the central library, "Oh it's not going to happen", "Oh yes it will". Same for Yearsley swimming pool and the Independent Living Assessment Centre. All of which make perfectly good sence given what is being proposed. Question really is shouldn't this be an upfront statement of intent as part of the project so residents can judge what the real costs are....?. While the party of "what we don't tell them won't hurt us" operate in secrecy under instructions from autocrats we are getting what we are told rather than what we want or need. Massively expanded stadium project just dropped on the public but apparently been in the planning for 18 months, secrecy at it's best.[/p][/quote]Do you believe a local authority should ever invest capital in infrastructure for the city? Because there won't always be a return, doesn't make it wrong, especially if it opens up 400% more in investments, as is the case here. I also notice that you are demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar you has proposed. That's an odd approach. The report on Monday will hopefully detail the other investment sources, but if you are hoping it will address the products of your imagination then I suspect you'll be disappointed. I notice you've quietly dropped some of your ludicrous claims without admitting your mistake. I suppose that's better than just repeating them.[/p][/quote]Demanding answers on various sell-offs that nobody bar me has proposed. Sell-offs that make perfectly good commercial sense based on the projects new facilities, but would be politically too sensitive to share at this time. Denying it that's the odd approach. You notice I've quietly dropped some of my ludicrous claims without admitting my mistake. Whooooo, watch out Council, I seem to have acquired the skills you so value much.[/p][/quote]I've noticed you don't seem to know what you're talking, or rather writing, about. Why not wait until the report is published on 1st September before commenting further - "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".[/p][/quote]Iv'e noticed that you seem happy to just jolly along with everything. Better a fool who challenges, than an idiot who follows.[/p][/quote]Perhaps, but writing a lot of nonsense and lies on a web site is hardly "challenging", is it? Tug job
  • Score: 44

12:16am Thu 28 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend."


£14m is S106 money from Oakgate and was not 'leveraged' by council spend. I suspect that other 'commercial investment' has nothing to do with council spend either. A more accurate description of the council spend is a subsidy to the football and rugby clubs.

What Alexander doesn't tell us is what return we will get for the investment of OUR money? My guess is that after running costs and debt interest servicing are deducted from the income, we will get nowt - there will be no surplus, and it will be a drain on resources for decades.

Another white elephant, another Alexander vanity project which will go t*ts up!
[quote] Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend." [/quote] £14m is S106 money from Oakgate and was not 'leveraged' by council spend. I suspect that other 'commercial investment' has nothing to do with council spend either. A more accurate description of the council spend is a subsidy to the football and rugby clubs. What Alexander doesn't tell us is what return we will get for the investment of OUR money? My guess is that after running costs and debt interest servicing are deducted from the income, we will get nowt - there will be no surplus, and it will be a drain on resources for decades. Another white elephant, another Alexander vanity project which will go t*ts up! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -26

10:02am Thu 28 Aug 14

Tug job says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend."


£14m is S106 money from Oakgate and was not 'leveraged' by council spend. I suspect that other 'commercial investment' has nothing to do with council spend either. A more accurate description of the council spend is a subsidy to the football and rugby clubs.

What Alexander doesn't tell us is what return we will get for the investment of OUR money? My guess is that after running costs and debt interest servicing are deducted from the income, we will get nowt - there will be no surplus, and it will be a drain on resources for decades.

Another white elephant, another Alexander vanity project which will go t*ts up!
You "suspect", you "guess" - move on, folks, nothing to see, here.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote] Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend." [/quote] £14m is S106 money from Oakgate and was not 'leveraged' by council spend. I suspect that other 'commercial investment' has nothing to do with council spend either. A more accurate description of the council spend is a subsidy to the football and rugby clubs. What Alexander doesn't tell us is what return we will get for the investment of OUR money? My guess is that after running costs and debt interest servicing are deducted from the income, we will get nowt - there will be no surplus, and it will be a drain on resources for decades. Another white elephant, another Alexander vanity project which will go t*ts up![/p][/quote]You "suspect", you "guess" - move on, folks, nothing to see, here. Tug job
  • Score: 16

11:17am Thu 28 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

Tug job wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend."
£14m is S106 money from Oakgate and was not 'leveraged' by council spend. I suspect that other 'commercial investment' has nothing to do with council spend either. A more accurate description of the council spend is a subsidy to the football and rugby clubs. What Alexander doesn't tell us is what return we will get for the investment of OUR money? My guess is that after running costs and debt interest servicing are deducted from the income, we will get nowt - there will be no surplus, and it will be a drain on resources for decades. Another white elephant, another Alexander vanity project which will go t*ts up!
You "suspect", you "guess" - move on, folks, nothing to see, here.
Go on clever clogs, provide some counter-argument to my view.

You can't can you, because the figures don't stack up. There will be no return. The only winners here are the two clubs, their fans, GLL, and the ideological dumb nuts behind it.

It's an £8m plus interest loss, and a giveaway of £14m of S106 monies squandered on a near worthless asset. A waste of money on the many for the benefit of the few!
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote] Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend." [/quote] £14m is S106 money from Oakgate and was not 'leveraged' by council spend. I suspect that other 'commercial investment' has nothing to do with council spend either. A more accurate description of the council spend is a subsidy to the football and rugby clubs. What Alexander doesn't tell us is what return we will get for the investment of OUR money? My guess is that after running costs and debt interest servicing are deducted from the income, we will get nowt - there will be no surplus, and it will be a drain on resources for decades. Another white elephant, another Alexander vanity project which will go t*ts up![/p][/quote]You "suspect", you "guess" - move on, folks, nothing to see, here.[/p][/quote]Go on clever clogs, provide some counter-argument to my view. You can't can you, because the figures don't stack up. There will be no return. The only winners here are the two clubs, their fans, GLL, and the ideological dumb nuts behind it. It's an £8m plus interest loss, and a giveaway of £14m of S106 monies squandered on a near worthless asset. A waste of money on the many for the benefit of the few! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -13

11:20am Thu 28 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

Sorry, I meant:

'A waste of money 'OF' (not 'on) the many for the benefit of the few!
Sorry, I meant: 'A waste of money 'OF' (not 'on) the many for the benefit of the few! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -18

12:00pm Thu 28 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Tug job wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend."
£14m is S106 money from Oakgate and was not 'leveraged' by council spend. I suspect that other 'commercial investment' has nothing to do with council spend either. A more accurate description of the council spend is a subsidy to the football and rugby clubs. What Alexander doesn't tell us is what return we will get for the investment of OUR money? My guess is that after running costs and debt interest servicing are deducted from the income, we will get nowt - there will be no surplus, and it will be a drain on resources for decades. Another white elephant, another Alexander vanity project which will go t*ts up!
You "suspect", you "guess" - move on, folks, nothing to see, here.
Go on clever clogs, provide some counter-argument to my view.

You can't can you, because the figures don't stack up. There will be no return. The only winners here are the two clubs, their fans, GLL, and the ideological dumb nuts behind it.

It's an £8m plus interest loss, and a giveaway of £14m of S106 monies squandered on a near worthless asset. A waste of money on the many for the benefit of the few!
We have not seen the figures yet, we do not even know how much rent the two clubs will be paying and what the share of income streams are. The only way you can say the figures do not add up, is if you have seen something the rest of us have not.

If that is not the case, I suggest you spare your bluster and vitriol until it can be supported by facts, not guesses.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote] Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend." [/quote] £14m is S106 money from Oakgate and was not 'leveraged' by council spend. I suspect that other 'commercial investment' has nothing to do with council spend either. A more accurate description of the council spend is a subsidy to the football and rugby clubs. What Alexander doesn't tell us is what return we will get for the investment of OUR money? My guess is that after running costs and debt interest servicing are deducted from the income, we will get nowt - there will be no surplus, and it will be a drain on resources for decades. Another white elephant, another Alexander vanity project which will go t*ts up![/p][/quote]You "suspect", you "guess" - move on, folks, nothing to see, here.[/p][/quote]Go on clever clogs, provide some counter-argument to my view. You can't can you, because the figures don't stack up. There will be no return. The only winners here are the two clubs, their fans, GLL, and the ideological dumb nuts behind it. It's an £8m plus interest loss, and a giveaway of £14m of S106 monies squandered on a near worthless asset. A waste of money on the many for the benefit of the few![/p][/quote]We have not seen the figures yet, we do not even know how much rent the two clubs will be paying and what the share of income streams are. The only way you can say the figures do not add up, is if you have seen something the rest of us have not. If that is not the case, I suggest you spare your bluster and vitriol until it can be supported by facts, not guesses. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 16

12:37pm Thu 28 Aug 14

duffy says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Tug job wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend."
£14m is S106 money from Oakgate and was not 'leveraged' by council spend. I suspect that other 'commercial investment' has nothing to do with council spend either. A more accurate description of the council spend is a subsidy to the football and rugby clubs. What Alexander doesn't tell us is what return we will get for the investment of OUR money? My guess is that after running costs and debt interest servicing are deducted from the income, we will get nowt - there will be no surplus, and it will be a drain on resources for decades. Another white elephant, another Alexander vanity project which will go t*ts up!
You "suspect", you "guess" - move on, folks, nothing to see, here.
Go on clever clogs, provide some counter-argument to my view.

You can't can you, because the figures don't stack up. There will be no return. The only winners here are the two clubs, their fans, GLL, and the ideological dumb nuts behind it.

It's an £8m plus interest loss, and a giveaway of £14m of S106 monies squandered on a near worthless asset. A waste of money on the many for the benefit of the few!
What a rediculous statement, take another look at what's been built here and the percentage that the taxpayers are funding. But no the same old agendas with a knock at the football and rugby club, York really has some sad individuals.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote] Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend." [/quote] £14m is S106 money from Oakgate and was not 'leveraged' by council spend. I suspect that other 'commercial investment' has nothing to do with council spend either. A more accurate description of the council spend is a subsidy to the football and rugby clubs. What Alexander doesn't tell us is what return we will get for the investment of OUR money? My guess is that after running costs and debt interest servicing are deducted from the income, we will get nowt - there will be no surplus, and it will be a drain on resources for decades. Another white elephant, another Alexander vanity project which will go t*ts up![/p][/quote]You "suspect", you "guess" - move on, folks, nothing to see, here.[/p][/quote]Go on clever clogs, provide some counter-argument to my view. You can't can you, because the figures don't stack up. There will be no return. The only winners here are the two clubs, their fans, GLL, and the ideological dumb nuts behind it. It's an £8m plus interest loss, and a giveaway of £14m of S106 monies squandered on a near worthless asset. A waste of money on the many for the benefit of the few![/p][/quote]What a rediculous statement, take another look at what's been built here and the percentage that the taxpayers are funding. But no the same old agendas with a knock at the football and rugby club, York really has some sad individuals. duffy
  • Score: 13

3:49pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Just never forget, a fortune spent to destroy York's Athletics stadium.

Atkins was supposed to be looking for a new site for a Community stadium.
He ended up destroying a hard fought for Athletics stadium to replace it with another football pitch. I don't know what was wrong with the brown field site behind the railway station? Perhaps not enough congestion in that option, if it ever was an option?
Just never forget, a fortune spent to destroy York's Athletics stadium. Atkins was supposed to be looking for a new site for a Community stadium. He ended up destroying a hard fought for Athletics stadium to replace it with another football pitch. I don't know what was wrong with the brown field site behind the railway station? Perhaps not enough congestion in that option, if it ever was an option? ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -15

5:29pm Sat 30 Aug 14

bill bailey says...

SIT DOWN WITH NICE GLASS OF WINE and enjoy what we will all be contributing towards, Some might, some may not, use the facilities its up us we have a choice , if it wasn't there we wouldn't, I came with my wife to live here 11 yrs ago its a vibrant, beautiful city that satisfies every ones needs this addition can only enhance it further, Don't knock it, even if you don't use some members of your family will, now you have the wine in your hand drink a toast to it's success,
SIT DOWN WITH NICE GLASS OF WINE and enjoy what we will all be contributing towards, Some might, some may not, use the facilities its up us we have a choice , if it wasn't there we wouldn't, I came with my wife to live here 11 yrs ago its a vibrant, beautiful city that satisfies every ones needs this addition can only enhance it further, Don't knock it, even if you don't use some members of your family will, now you have the wine in your hand drink a toast to it's success, bill bailey
  • Score: 4

10:42pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Tug job wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend."
£14m is S106 money from Oakgate and was not 'leveraged' by council spend. I suspect that other 'commercial investment' has nothing to do with council spend either. A more accurate description of the council spend is a subsidy to the football and rugby clubs. What Alexander doesn't tell us is what return we will get for the investment of OUR money? My guess is that after running costs and debt interest servicing are deducted from the income, we will get nowt - there will be no surplus, and it will be a drain on resources for decades. Another white elephant, another Alexander vanity project which will go t*ts up!
You "suspect", you "guess" - move on, folks, nothing to see, here.
Go on clever clogs, provide some counter-argument to my view. You can't can you, because the figures don't stack up. There will be no return. The only winners here are the two clubs, their fans, GLL, and the ideological dumb nuts behind it. It's an £8m plus interest loss, and a giveaway of £14m of S106 monies squandered on a near worthless asset. A waste of money on the many for the benefit of the few!
We have not seen the figures yet, we do not even know how much rent the two clubs will be paying and what the share of income streams are. The only way you can say the figures do not add up, is if you have seen something the rest of us have not. If that is not the case, I suggest you spare your bluster and vitriol until it can be supported by facts, not guesses.
Well, supporting my concerns with facts, I refer to the Press article dated 19th November 2012, which said this....

A £450,000 rise in the cost of delivering York’s community stadium scheme has been questioned by councillors who want it placed under fresh scrutiny.

City of York Council’s cabinet has approved a revised business case for the £19.2 million Monks Cross project, including a 6,000-seater stadium for York City FC and York City Knights alongside community facilities.

But although the scheme’s overall cost has remained the same, the project costs – relating to the search for an operator to run the stadium and York’s other public leisure facilities – have increased from £750,000 to £1.2 million between March and November. Meanwhile, the cost of the stadium itself has fallen by £350,000, to £10.65 million.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote] Council leader James Alexander added: "The commercial element provides the vast majority of the funding for the extensive community facilities. We are creating a leading family leisure destination in the North of England and are doing so with minimal impact to the public purse by leveraging £5 of commercial investment for every £1 of council spend." [/quote] £14m is S106 money from Oakgate and was not 'leveraged' by council spend. I suspect that other 'commercial investment' has nothing to do with council spend either. A more accurate description of the council spend is a subsidy to the football and rugby clubs. What Alexander doesn't tell us is what return we will get for the investment of OUR money? My guess is that after running costs and debt interest servicing are deducted from the income, we will get nowt - there will be no surplus, and it will be a drain on resources for decades. Another white elephant, another Alexander vanity project which will go t*ts up![/p][/quote]You "suspect", you "guess" - move on, folks, nothing to see, here.[/p][/quote]Go on clever clogs, provide some counter-argument to my view. You can't can you, because the figures don't stack up. There will be no return. The only winners here are the two clubs, their fans, GLL, and the ideological dumb nuts behind it. It's an £8m plus interest loss, and a giveaway of £14m of S106 monies squandered on a near worthless asset. A waste of money on the many for the benefit of the few![/p][/quote]We have not seen the figures yet, we do not even know how much rent the two clubs will be paying and what the share of income streams are. The only way you can say the figures do not add up, is if you have seen something the rest of us have not. If that is not the case, I suggest you spare your bluster and vitriol until it can be supported by facts, not guesses.[/p][/quote]Well, supporting my concerns with facts, I refer to the Press article dated 19th November 2012, which said this.... [quote] A £450,000 rise in the cost of delivering York’s community stadium scheme has been questioned by councillors who want it placed under fresh scrutiny. City of York Council’s cabinet has approved a revised business case for the £19.2 million Monks Cross project, including a 6,000-seater stadium for York City FC and York City Knights alongside community facilities. But although the scheme’s overall cost has remained the same, the project costs – relating to the search for an operator to run the stadium and York’s other public leisure facilities – have increased from £750,000 to £1.2 million between March and November. Meanwhile, the cost of the stadium itself has fallen by £350,000, to £10.65 million. [/quote] Badgers Drift
  • Score: 2

1:46pm Wed 10 Sep 14

queenselphie says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
Tug job wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?
I think you have misread, or have misunderstood, the article. The full cost of developing ALL OF THE FACILITIES to be included on this site - St John's, NHS, library, gym, the other leisure facilities, etc - is expected to be £37m. This is not just the expected cost of the stadium for YCK and YCFC. Where have you got your "borrowing £29m" from? I understood that around £19m was coming from the Vangarde site, £8m from the Council and the rest was in contributions from the other partners who will use the community hub, as well as from the two clubs. I cannot recall having read anywhere else that the Council will be borrowing anywhere near the sum you claim.
Neither misread or misunderstood, the total cost of the project with all facilities, estimated £37 million. Add to this the additional costs of £2 million already committed to the replacement athletics track and £2 million to the stadium, real cost £41 million. Council contribution on behalf of the tax payer = £16 million, leaving a funding requirement of £25 million. Who is paying the £25 million and what guarantees have been put in place to ensure tax payers are not underwriting the additional funding and any shortfalls/overspend . Superficially it all looks very nice and cosy, but what are the real plans. Library, we have a central library housed in a substantial valuable building accessible to all residents. If I'm not mistaken we have just contracted out our library services based on cost. Are there plans to close the central library and sell-off the building....?, tell us the truth. NHS on site, all well and good but they are already struggling with budget overspends, so why add costs for staff, equipment and rents when they already struggling to fund treatments and services. Yearsley swimming pool, the writing is on the wall for this one, another sell-off, mark my words. What is being proposed is not what is being reported, conveniently we are not being told what we will loose as a consequence of this plan. We need full facts and answers for costs and impact. The 18 month search for a joint design, build and operation contract has been chosen to protect the council tax payer from risk and to ensure all the companies involved communicate properly, Cllr Alexander added. Look forward to hearing some communication done properly, open, honest and factual.
I don't understand why people are speculating about the central library closing and the building being sold off. The library on museum street is currently being refurbished, after securing a grant for £1.57 million from the Heritage National Lottery to install a new custom-built archive facility on the first floor and to improve existing facilities. I think the Heritage lottery would have something to say if the building was then sold off! There are currently no plans afoot to sell the existing building, nor is it likely that there will be in the forseeable future, given the level of investment that has been put into the site in recent years. The potential library mentioned in the main article above would be a new library branch, to add to the other 16 libraries and reading cafe's around the city (17 if you count the mobile library). The library service in York is always trying to buck the national trend of closing libraries, and wants to do the opposite and open more, hence the opening of Rowntrees Park Reading Cafe and Sycamore House Reading Cafe in the last couple of years. There really is no cause for alarm, and in fact, there is cause for celebration. Opening another branch in a new location means the library service can reach more people, perhaps even people who might not have thought of using a library before but happen to see it when they visit the communitiy stadium for a different reason.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. They are curious but cautious. Treat this news with caution, there are questions to be answered, specifically financial questions. £37 million spend from the original £12 million which seems to have diminished in value. If we are borrowing (looks like it) then how can we afford it.....?. Lots of good things, but who's really paying....?[/p][/quote]I think you have misread, or have misunderstood, the article. The full cost of developing ALL OF THE FACILITIES to be included on this site - St John's, NHS, library, gym, the other leisure facilities, etc - is expected to be £37m. This is not just the expected cost of the stadium for YCK and YCFC. Where have you got your "borrowing £29m" from? I understood that around £19m was coming from the Vangarde site, £8m from the Council and the rest was in contributions from the other partners who will use the community hub, as well as from the two clubs. I cannot recall having read anywhere else that the Council will be borrowing anywhere near the sum you claim.[/p][/quote]Neither misread or misunderstood, the total cost of the project with all facilities, estimated £37 million. Add to this the additional costs of £2 million already committed to the replacement athletics track and £2 million to the stadium, real cost £41 million. Council contribution on behalf of the tax payer = £16 million, leaving a funding requirement of £25 million. Who is paying the £25 million and what guarantees have been put in place to ensure tax payers are not underwriting the additional funding and any shortfalls/overspend . Superficially it all looks very nice and cosy, but what are the real plans. Library, we have a central library housed in a substantial valuable building accessible to all residents. If I'm not mistaken we have just contracted out our library services based on cost. Are there plans to close the central library and sell-off the building....?, tell us the truth. NHS on site, all well and good but they are already struggling with budget overspends, so why add costs for staff, equipment and rents when they already struggling to fund treatments and services. Yearsley swimming pool, the writing is on the wall for this one, another sell-off, mark my words. What is being proposed is not what is being reported, conveniently we are not being told what we will loose as a consequence of this plan. We need full facts and answers for costs and impact. The 18 month search for a joint design, build and operation contract has been chosen to protect the council tax payer from risk and to ensure all the companies involved communicate properly, Cllr Alexander added. Look forward to hearing some communication done properly, open, honest and factual.[/p][/quote]I don't understand why people are speculating about the central library closing and the building being sold off. The library on museum street is currently being refurbished, after securing a grant for £1.57 million from the Heritage National Lottery to install a new custom-built archive facility on the first floor and to improve existing facilities. I think the Heritage lottery would have something to say if the building was then sold off! There are currently no plans afoot to sell the existing building, nor is it likely that there will be in the forseeable future, given the level of investment that has been put into the site in recent years. The potential library mentioned in the main article above would be a new library branch, to add to the other 16 libraries and reading cafe's around the city (17 if you count the mobile library). The library service in York is always trying to buck the national trend of closing libraries, and wants to do the opposite and open more, hence the opening of Rowntrees Park Reading Cafe and Sycamore House Reading Cafe in the last couple of years. There really is no cause for alarm, and in fact, there is cause for celebration. Opening another branch in a new location means the library service can reach more people, perhaps even people who might not have thought of using a library before but happen to see it when they visit the communitiy stadium for a different reason. queenselphie
  • 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