Community stadium deal ‘leaves Knights 70 per cent worse off’

NEW STADIUM: But Knights would be financially disadvantaged, says club chairman John Guildford

NEW STADIUM: But Knights would be financially disadvantaged, says club chairman John Guildford

First published in Sport York Press: Photograph of the Author by

TITLE-WINNING York City Knights' future well-being has been put in doubt because of the deal they get when moving into the shared new community stadium.

That is the opinion of chairman John Guildford, who claims the terms of the contract on the table from City of York Council mean the club would lose up to 70 per cent of income they generate through Bar 13 at their present Huntington Stadium home.

He says City of York Council are not fulfilling promises that the Knights "would not be financially disadvantaged".

Currently, the Knights - who will be presented with the Kingstone Press Championship One trophy when they host London Skolars in their last game of the regular season on Sunday - operate and run their own bar, boardroom and function room, with profits on non-matchdays as well as matchdays going into club coffers.

They have been given notice to quit their home this autumn to temporarily move in with York City at Bootham Crescent.

The new stadium, scheduled to be ready for summer 2016, will then be operated by City, with catering carried out by CGC. Guildford says the Knights are to receive a proportion of matchday bar takings and will get use of the function room only on a certain number of nights a year.

Said Guildford: "They (the council) sent formal contracts which basically show the club loses 69-70 per cent of (bar) income in years one to five.

"We've currently got a (bar/function) facility on 365 days of the year. They're saying at the new stadium we can have a percentage of what we take on about 15 match-days.

"This is not what we were promised. They continually say this is a good position for the club. Anyone can see it's not.

"We agreed in May 2012 how it would run and what we would get, and on the basis of that I lifted my objection (to the plans). The council gave us assurances on how it was going to go and we were all happy. We were told we need not worry.

"They said we would not be financially disadvantaged and it would enable the club to thrive.

"It's the complete opposite. Everything has been changed for the worse. We're 69-70 per cent worse off.

"They've taken the bar we run and given it to somebody else. They've taken off our income stream and not replaced it.

"At one stage there was talk of having a shared sports and social club that we would run ourselves with the football club and share the profits.

"The council need to be honest and transparent and tell everyone how it will work, including me.

"The idea was that we had a hub at the stadium that would help to subsidise running the stadium. It's supposed to be a sustainable development. I think the stadium itself will be sustainable but they're taking money out of it to cover the leisure portfolio - Yearsley Baths and Energise, which lose money."

Asked if he had signed the contract, he said: "Sign it and what happens to the club? They take off that income and give us nothing back. How would we survive?

"It's in the council's hands. They'll have to make a statement.

"Tim Atkins (stadium project manager) has gone on the radio saying it's a fantastic deal for York City Knights going forward. I can't understand how they get people to believe it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it's pretty clear I'm not."

A council spokesperson said: “The council is currently in commercially confidential discussions with all partners involved in the community stadium and leisure complex and these are progressing positively.

"We will not enter into a debate via the media regarding the detail of these.

"The council has put together a commercial offer for the York City Knights, as it has other partners involved in the scheme, which provides the club commercial opportunities to maximise should they wish to."

Comments (63)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:17pm Thu 4 Sep 14

yorkonafork says...

Frankly, no one cares about the opinion of this man any more. This article mentions a bar over and over again.
Am I not right in thinking York Knight will go from playing in a dust bowl with barely two stands.
They get a brand new stadium in the middle of a community complex, far more exposure and commercial opportunities from a host of things (not forgetting things like their own shirt sponsors, programme sponsors etc will be 100% their money still)
He clearly doesn't know what he's doing which must be a massive concern to YCK fans.

Also, if the bar is so good, hosts events 365 days a year and give them 100% profits...why was YCKs end of season award held at another venue!?

The man is a fool.
Frankly, no one cares about the opinion of this man any more. This article mentions a bar over and over again. Am I not right in thinking York Knight will go from playing in a dust bowl with barely two stands. They get a brand new stadium in the middle of a community complex, far more exposure and commercial opportunities from a host of things (not forgetting things like their own shirt sponsors, programme sponsors etc will be 100% their money still) He clearly doesn't know what he's doing which must be a massive concern to YCK fans. Also, if the bar is so good, hosts events 365 days a year and give them 100% profits...why was YCKs end of season award held at another venue!? The man is a fool. yorkonafork
  • Score: 40

2:23pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Justin7 says...

This man appears to be the next John Batchelor. I've heard from fans of the Knights that he's well known for outlandish statements and self indulgences to the point many are aware he thinks far more about his own personal wealth than the health of the club.

Noticeable how he's put out some nonsensical comments, and then refused to be drawn on them, refusing Radio York interviews and explanations.

It's a shame, as I would go to Knights games as well as City games, but I honestly find no appeal in a club run by this man.
This man appears to be the next John Batchelor. I've heard from fans of the Knights that he's well known for outlandish statements and self indulgences to the point many are aware he thinks far more about his own personal wealth than the health of the club. Noticeable how he's put out some nonsensical comments, and then refused to be drawn on them, refusing Radio York interviews and explanations. It's a shame, as I would go to Knights games as well as City games, but I honestly find no appeal in a club run by this man. Justin7
  • Score: 29

2:26pm Thu 4 Sep 14

MikeYork says...

Absolute nonsense from this man! I support both York City and the Knights and he should be thanking his lucky stars he can get to be associated with this brilliant stadium.

But no, he doesn't care about the Knights. He only cares about his "business dealings" he seems to be conducting at the horrid Huntington Stadium.

His club is getting to play at a great facility for an absolute pittance, but he doesn't care about that. He's thinking about his drunken evenings with his pals during the week.

I am now boycotting Knights games until he's gone.
Absolute nonsense from this man! I support both York City and the Knights and he should be thanking his lucky stars he can get to be associated with this brilliant stadium. But no, he doesn't care about the Knights. He only cares about his "business dealings" he seems to be conducting at the horrid Huntington Stadium. His club is getting to play at a great facility for an absolute pittance, but he doesn't care about that. He's thinking about his drunken evenings with his pals during the week. I am now boycotting Knights games until he's gone. MikeYork
  • Score: 21

2:28pm Thu 4 Sep 14

DannyInYork says...

As a Knights fan, I am sick of this fella. He's run the club into the ground for his own personal whatevers and all we get are rants on his twitter account.

We have a fan base down to 500 fans, and we can grow that by playing at York City FC for a season or so and then move in with them and their excellent plans at the new stadium.

But of course, he doesn't care about that.

Sick of him. I've now seen my last game at the Knights until there is a change of ownership.

I'm looking forward to supporting York City. At least they are well run and get actual crowds. Helps when the owners actually care about the club.
As a Knights fan, I am sick of this fella. He's run the club into the ground for his own personal whatevers and all we get are rants on his twitter account. We have a fan base down to 500 fans, and we can grow that by playing at York City FC for a season or so and then move in with them and their excellent plans at the new stadium. But of course, he doesn't care about that. Sick of him. I've now seen my last game at the Knights until there is a change of ownership. I'm looking forward to supporting York City. At least they are well run and get actual crowds. Helps when the owners actually care about the club. DannyInYork
  • Score: 33

2:35pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Fat Harry says...

Mr Guildford's allegations are a bit short on detail - if he's going to go public with a matter like this, surely he should reveal ALL the information; current turnover and expenses including stadium and office rents, projected turnover and expenses in the new stadium etc.
Mr Guildford's allegations are a bit short on detail - if he's going to go public with a matter like this, surely he should reveal ALL the information; current turnover and expenses including stadium and office rents, projected turnover and expenses in the new stadium etc. Fat Harry
  • Score: 24

2:39pm Thu 4 Sep 14

windowlicker says...

He'd do better shouting about the lack of a terrace....
He'd do better shouting about the lack of a terrace.... windowlicker
  • Score: 3

2:51pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Anna Mossity says...

Poor John really does have a problem distinguishing his own wealth to that of the Knights'.

He really means "he" will be financially disadvantaged. He's got what he feels is his own custhy little empire out there at Huntington at the moment and it's all going to come crashing down on him. Him, not the Knights and he doesn't like it.

Hence why he won't come forward with a public discussion about it.

All of a sudden he won't be the medium fish in a very small pond. He's going to get out of the new stadium and complex what he's put in. The square root of nowt.
Poor John really does have a problem distinguishing his own wealth to that of the Knights'. He really means "he" will be financially disadvantaged. He's got what he feels is his own custhy little empire out there at Huntington at the moment and it's all going to come crashing down on him. Him, not the Knights and he doesn't like it. Hence why he won't come forward with a public discussion about it. All of a sudden he won't be the medium fish in a very small pond. He's going to get out of the new stadium and complex what he's put in. The square root of nowt. Anna Mossity
  • Score: 24

3:01pm Thu 4 Sep 14

AllPurpose says...

Mr Guildford is trying to take the loyal Knights fans for mugs, hoping we don't know the difference between revenue and profit. But we do.
There may be a drop in revenue, but there'll be a bigger drop in expenses which means overall we'll be better off. Let's hope this makes John sell up, now there's no personal gain for him we might just get an owner that values the club first.
Mr Guildford is trying to take the loyal Knights fans for mugs, hoping we don't know the difference between revenue and profit. But we do. There may be a drop in revenue, but there'll be a bigger drop in expenses which means overall we'll be better off. Let's hope this makes John sell up, now there's no personal gain for him we might just get an owner that values the club first. AllPurpose
  • Score: 27

3:06pm Thu 4 Sep 14

CaroleBaines says...

Mr Guildford has done this once to often for me to believe him. No real substance there, just sound-bites which he seems to think Press readers will fall for.
I know there is plenty of anti-Council feeling on this forum, but that doesn't make this man right. I think he has under-estimated the York public - we are not fools.
Mr Guildford has done this once to often for me to believe him. No real substance there, just sound-bites which he seems to think Press readers will fall for. I know there is plenty of anti-Council feeling on this forum, but that doesn't make this man right. I think he has under-estimated the York public - we are not fools. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 26

3:11pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Proudyorkshireman says...

I'm a york city fc fan and am looking forward to welcoming the knights sharing BC with us and then sharing an incredible new stadium together, hopefully building a good relationship along the way. This man however, will not be welcome in my eyes. To see what he is doing to he knights must be gutting for their loyal fans, he only seems to care about himself and is definitely in the wrong job if that's the way he is.

It spoke volumes that he has remained silent about the whole situation until now, avoiding all consultation scenarios where he may be pulled up on his 'facts'. Grow up Mr Guildford and start showing fans of your club and your future co-tenants some respect
I'm a york city fc fan and am looking forward to welcoming the knights sharing BC with us and then sharing an incredible new stadium together, hopefully building a good relationship along the way. This man however, will not be welcome in my eyes. To see what he is doing to he knights must be gutting for their loyal fans, he only seems to care about himself and is definitely in the wrong job if that's the way he is. It spoke volumes that he has remained silent about the whole situation until now, avoiding all consultation scenarios where he may be pulled up on his 'facts'. Grow up Mr Guildford and start showing fans of your club and your future co-tenants some respect Proudyorkshireman
  • Score: 24

3:12pm Thu 4 Sep 14

The Great Buda says...

It should come as no suprise that Guildford chose to have his say in the Press. A media platform that allows him to have his version of the facts with out comeback.


It should come as no suprise that Guildford chose to run a mile when Radio York invited him to come on air repeatedly.

It should come as no suprise that Guildford has chosen to scare monger and attempt to drive a wedge between YCK and YCFC fans.

It will come as no suprise when he fails.
It should come as no suprise that Guildford chose to have his say in the Press. A media platform that allows him to have his version of the facts with out comeback. It should come as no suprise that Guildford chose to run a mile when Radio York invited him to come on air repeatedly. It should come as no suprise that Guildford has chosen to scare monger and attempt to drive a wedge between YCK and YCFC fans. It will come as no suprise when he fails. The Great Buda
  • Score: 28

3:36pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Fat Harry says...

If there is a problem, it wants sorting out now, whether it's the distribution of revenue, or the leaking of confidential information to the media.

As the Knights are to spend the next couple of seasons at Bootham Crescent, there'll have to be some sort of agreement between the two clubs as to how the tiny revenue streams there are to be apportioned. Hopefully if that can be done in an amicable fashion, a solid basis for a shared future at Monk's Cross can be created.

It'll take trust on both sides, and give-and-take on both sides.

Hopefully it will also mean neither party running to the press every time it doesn't get its own way.
If there is a problem, it wants sorting out now, whether it's the distribution of revenue, or the leaking of confidential information to the media. As the Knights are to spend the next couple of seasons at Bootham Crescent, there'll have to be some sort of agreement between the two clubs as to how the tiny revenue streams there are to be apportioned. Hopefully if that can be done in an amicable fashion, a solid basis for a shared future at Monk's Cross can be created. It'll take trust on both sides, and give-and-take on both sides. Hopefully it will also mean neither party running to the press every time it doesn't get its own way. Fat Harry
  • Score: 19

5:06pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Tug job says...

I wish the club had spent some of the bar takings on securing some our talented players for next season! John, give your head a shake, you've become a fantasist.
I wish the club had spent some of the bar takings on securing some our talented players for next season! John, give your head a shake, you've become a fantasist. Tug job
  • Score: 28

5:29pm Thu 4 Sep 14

dsom73 says...

The club will be fine. No losses at all. Just posturing.
The club will be fine. No losses at all. Just posturing. dsom73
  • Score: 13

5:55pm Thu 4 Sep 14

nearlyman says...

It will be most interesting to see what the Knoghts crowds are when they come back into town. If they go up, will it not be a cause for concern.......??....
..just out of interest.
It will be most interesting to see what the Knoghts crowds are when they come back into town. If they go up, will it not be a cause for concern.......??.... ..just out of interest. nearlyman
  • Score: 6

6:07pm Thu 4 Sep 14

andyjon12 says...

Leave John Guilford alone. From the information available through the local media, it would seem that the bloke is acting in a perfectly reasonable manner, and with his beloved club's best interests at heart.

ALL of the comments on here bar none are based on assumptions and one sided reporting, including the official outlets which appear to be drip feeding the York public with a rumour here and a rumour there.

If YCFC and the council can't get on with John Guilford, then they need to be asking why. Trying to constantly and openly ostracize the poor bloke is not the answer.

By the way I am a YCFC supporter, however, I also care about our rugby league neighbours being treated properly; and I can't help feeling very uncomfortable with the seemingly increasing demonisation of John Guilford.

Time for everyone to sit around a table I think and to stop this nonsense once and for all.
Leave John Guilford alone. From the information available through the local media, it would seem that the bloke is acting in a perfectly reasonable manner, and with his beloved club's best interests at heart. ALL of the comments on here bar none are based on assumptions and one sided reporting, including the official outlets which appear to be drip feeding the York public with a rumour here and a rumour there. If YCFC and the council can't get on with John Guilford, then they need to be asking why. Trying to constantly and openly ostracize the poor bloke is not the answer. By the way I am a YCFC supporter, however, I also care about our rugby league neighbours being treated properly; and I can't help feeling very uncomfortable with the seemingly increasing demonisation of John Guilford. Time for everyone to sit around a table I think and to stop this nonsense once and for all. andyjon12
  • Score: -17

6:11pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Justin7 says...

andyjon12 wrote:
Leave John Guilford alone. From the information available through the local media, it would seem that the bloke is acting in a perfectly reasonable manner, and with his beloved club's best interests at heart.

ALL of the comments on here bar none are based on assumptions and one sided reporting, including the official outlets which appear to be drip feeding the York public with a rumour here and a rumour there.

If YCFC and the council can't get on with John Guilford, then they need to be asking why. Trying to constantly and openly ostracize the poor bloke is not the answer.

By the way I am a YCFC supporter, however, I also care about our rugby league neighbours being treated properly; and I can't help feeling very uncomfortable with the seemingly increasing demonisation of John Guilford.

Time for everyone to sit around a table I think and to stop this nonsense once and for all.
Good evening Mr. Guildford.
[quote][p][bold]andyjon12[/bold] wrote: Leave John Guilford alone. From the information available through the local media, it would seem that the bloke is acting in a perfectly reasonable manner, and with his beloved club's best interests at heart. ALL of the comments on here bar none are based on assumptions and one sided reporting, including the official outlets which appear to be drip feeding the York public with a rumour here and a rumour there. If YCFC and the council can't get on with John Guilford, then they need to be asking why. Trying to constantly and openly ostracize the poor bloke is not the answer. By the way I am a YCFC supporter, however, I also care about our rugby league neighbours being treated properly; and I can't help feeling very uncomfortable with the seemingly increasing demonisation of John Guilford. Time for everyone to sit around a table I think and to stop this nonsense once and for all.[/p][/quote]Good evening Mr. Guildford. Justin7
  • Score: 24

6:38pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Anna Mossity says...

Guildford has had months, maybe years to sit down and talk with all parties. He'd rather tweet threats and half stories. Childish and not the actions of a serious businessman. He's been really shown up now. The McGills have many faults, the council even more, but compared to Guildford they're slick.
Guildford has had months, maybe years to sit down and talk with all parties. He'd rather tweet threats and half stories. Childish and not the actions of a serious businessman. He's been really shown up now. The McGills have many faults, the council even more, but compared to Guildford they're slick. Anna Mossity
  • Score: 20

6:54pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Knavesmire view says...

His problem is that he stands to be worse off, not the Knights.

He can bore off, as others have said he has had plenty of time to engage in this but took his bat and ball home instead, and now comes back to moan.

The stadium will help secure both Club's future, if that is to the detriment of Guildford's pocket then so be it, the two Clubs are what matter.
His problem is that he stands to be worse off, not the Knights. He can bore off, as others have said he has had plenty of time to engage in this but took his bat and ball home instead, and now comes back to moan. The stadium will help secure both Club's future, if that is to the detriment of Guildford's pocket then so be it, the two Clubs are what matter. Knavesmire view
  • Score: 22

7:30pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Monks Boss says...

Maybe Mr Guildford should sell the club to the McGills,so they could be in charge of both clubs and run them properly in the new stadium.
Maybe Mr Guildford should sell the club to the McGills,so they could be in charge of both clubs and run them properly in the new stadium. Monks Boss
  • Score: 15

7:43pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Justin7 says...

Monks Boss wrote:
Maybe Mr Guildford should sell the club to the McGills,so they could be in charge of both clubs and run them properly in the new stadium.
That's not a bad idea. Won't cost much to buy too,, seen as 70 percent of its revenue comes from a few people in a bar, according to Mr Guildford.
[quote][p][bold]Monks Boss[/bold] wrote: Maybe Mr Guildford should sell the club to the McGills,so they could be in charge of both clubs and run them properly in the new stadium.[/p][/quote]That's not a bad idea. Won't cost much to buy too,, seen as 70 percent of its revenue comes from a few people in a bar, according to Mr Guildford. Justin7
  • Score: 18

7:51pm Thu 4 Sep 14

yorkonafork says...

Anna Mossity wrote:
Guildford has had months, maybe years to sit down and talk with all parties. He'd rather tweet threats and half stories. Childish and not the actions of a serious businessman. He's been really shown up now. The McGills have many faults, the council even more, but compared to Guildford they're slick.
Spot on. It's not like this has just happened (and don't we know it!), it's been discussed for years.
Guildford always avoids the meetings, the rallying calls, any questions put by the media.

He's a rank amateur as far as most are concerned and deserved to be treated with contempt. York rugby will only be able to move on when his self-interested behind exits the door and we all know it.
[quote][p][bold]Anna Mossity[/bold] wrote: Guildford has had months, maybe years to sit down and talk with all parties. He'd rather tweet threats and half stories. Childish and not the actions of a serious businessman. He's been really shown up now. The McGills have many faults, the council even more, but compared to Guildford they're slick.[/p][/quote]Spot on. It's not like this has just happened (and don't we know it!), it's been discussed for years. Guildford always avoids the meetings, the rallying calls, any questions put by the media. He's a rank amateur as far as most are concerned and deserved to be treated with contempt. York rugby will only be able to move on when his self-interested behind exits the door and we all know it. yorkonafork
  • Score: 17

7:55pm Thu 4 Sep 14

CaroleBaines says...

Justin7 wrote:
Monks Boss wrote:
Maybe Mr Guildford should sell the club to the McGills,so they could be in charge of both clubs and run them properly in the new stadium.
That's not a bad idea. Won't cost much to buy too,, seen as 70 percent of its revenue comes from a few people in a bar, according to Mr Guildford.
Doesn't say that, the article says Knights will lose 70% of their bar income. We've no idea what that income is - it might be 70% of not very much at all. We also have no idea whether it will be offset by other cost reductions or income increases. We don't know anything really other than what Mr Guildford says, which the Press have duly printed and stuck on their front page.

Can the Press not ask some questions of the man, or at least dig some info from information available on line such as company accounts? Or even offer a view. This isn't a story, its a quotation or two, with no context.
[quote][p][bold]Justin7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monks Boss[/bold] wrote: Maybe Mr Guildford should sell the club to the McGills,so they could be in charge of both clubs and run them properly in the new stadium.[/p][/quote]That's not a bad idea. Won't cost much to buy too,, seen as 70 percent of its revenue comes from a few people in a bar, according to Mr Guildford.[/p][/quote]Doesn't say that, the article says Knights will lose 70% of their bar income. We've no idea what that income is - it might be 70% of not very much at all. We also have no idea whether it will be offset by other cost reductions or income increases. We don't know anything really other than what Mr Guildford says, which the Press have duly printed and stuck on their front page. Can the Press not ask some questions of the man, or at least dig some info from information available on line such as company accounts? Or even offer a view. This isn't a story, its a quotation or two, with no context. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 26

8:04pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Tug job says...

Monks Boss wrote:
Maybe Mr Guildford should sell the club to the McGills,so they could be in charge of both clubs and run them properly in the new stadium.
I think the difference is the McGills are actually professional business people. Does anyone know who the Knights landlord is? I would hate to think that the Knights are being charged to at at Huntington Stadium by their own Chairman. I see the Knights are late in filing their accounts with Companies House. Is it too much to expect the Press to do some proper investigative journalism and find out how many functions have been held in Bar 13, what the turnover has been at Bar 13 and what the profit on the turnover has been at Bar 13, all over the last year? Why didn't the Knights hold their awards evening at Bar 13 to keep the money in-house? Sometimes it is very hard to avoid the suspicion that the only interests Mr Guildford is interested in safeguarding are not the Knights but his own personal interests.
[quote][p][bold]Monks Boss[/bold] wrote: Maybe Mr Guildford should sell the club to the McGills,so they could be in charge of both clubs and run them properly in the new stadium.[/p][/quote]I think the difference is the McGills are actually professional business people. Does anyone know who the Knights landlord is? I would hate to think that the Knights are being charged to at at Huntington Stadium by their own Chairman. I see the Knights are late in filing their accounts with Companies House. Is it too much to expect the Press to do some proper investigative journalism and find out how many functions have been held in Bar 13, what the turnover has been at Bar 13 and what the profit on the turnover has been at Bar 13, all over the last year? Why didn't the Knights hold their awards evening at Bar 13 to keep the money in-house? Sometimes it is very hard to avoid the suspicion that the only interests Mr Guildford is interested in safeguarding are not the Knights but his own personal interests. Tug job
  • Score: 23

8:12pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Tug job says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Justin7 wrote:
Monks Boss wrote:
Maybe Mr Guildford should sell the club to the McGills,so they could be in charge of both clubs and run them properly in the new stadium.
That's not a bad idea. Won't cost much to buy too,, seen as 70 percent of its revenue comes from a few people in a bar, according to Mr Guildford.
Doesn't say that, the article says Knights will lose 70% of their bar income. We've no idea what that income is - it might be 70% of not very much at all. We also have no idea whether it will be offset by other cost reductions or income increases. We don't know anything really other than what Mr Guildford says, which the Press have duly printed and stuck on their front page.

Can the Press not ask some questions of the man, or at least dig some info from information available on line such as company accounts? Or even offer a view. This isn't a story, its a quotation or two, with no context.
You are quite right, Carole, one can only wonder why the press gave this article such a misleading and sensationalist headline.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Justin7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monks Boss[/bold] wrote: Maybe Mr Guildford should sell the club to the McGills,so they could be in charge of both clubs and run them properly in the new stadium.[/p][/quote]That's not a bad idea. Won't cost much to buy too,, seen as 70 percent of its revenue comes from a few people in a bar, according to Mr Guildford.[/p][/quote]Doesn't say that, the article says Knights will lose 70% of their bar income. We've no idea what that income is - it might be 70% of not very much at all. We also have no idea whether it will be offset by other cost reductions or income increases. We don't know anything really other than what Mr Guildford says, which the Press have duly printed and stuck on their front page. Can the Press not ask some questions of the man, or at least dig some info from information available on line such as company accounts? Or even offer a view. This isn't a story, its a quotation or two, with no context.[/p][/quote]You are quite right, Carole, one can only wonder why the press gave this article such a misleading and sensationalist headline. Tug job
  • Score: 16

10:57pm Thu 4 Sep 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Been telling you all along this so called deal isn't right. It is all about a home for YCFC at the expense of the Knights, our Athletics stadium and other leisure facilities. Maybe I should add the York Council Tax payers in this too.

Athletics and Knights worked well enough, the trouble was with lack of investment and maintenance at BC. A bit of property speculation and some poor governance and we find ourselves in the current situation.

Atkins was employed to find the site for a new stadium for York City, since City are not capable of finding one for themselves.
The whole saga is an utter disgrace.
Been telling you all along this so called deal isn't right. It is all about a home for YCFC at the expense of the Knights, our Athletics stadium and other leisure facilities. Maybe I should add the York Council Tax payers in this too. Athletics and Knights worked well enough, the trouble was with lack of investment and maintenance at BC. A bit of property speculation and some poor governance and we find ourselves in the current situation. Atkins was employed to find the site for a new stadium for York City, since City are not capable of finding one for themselves. The whole saga is an utter disgrace. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -31

11:31pm Thu 4 Sep 14

yorkonafork says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Been telling you all along this so called deal isn't right. It is all about a home for YCFC at the expense of the Knights, our Athletics stadium and other leisure facilities. Maybe I should add the York Council Tax payers in this too.

Athletics and Knights worked well enough, the trouble was with lack of investment and maintenance at BC. A bit of property speculation and some poor governance and we find ourselves in the current situation.

Atkins was employed to find the site for a new stadium for York City, since City are not capable of finding one for themselves.
The whole saga is an utter disgrace.
You're right. I can't believe £14 million is being spent on the stadium and just a measly £23 million along with it which benefits the entire City, from 3G pitches, swimming pools, gym, libraries, NHS hubs , restaurants and a host of places to stage events and local societies.

What a set of scumbags! We don't need this kind of carry on in York.
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Been telling you all along this so called deal isn't right. It is all about a home for YCFC at the expense of the Knights, our Athletics stadium and other leisure facilities. Maybe I should add the York Council Tax payers in this too. Athletics and Knights worked well enough, the trouble was with lack of investment and maintenance at BC. A bit of property speculation and some poor governance and we find ourselves in the current situation. Atkins was employed to find the site for a new stadium for York City, since City are not capable of finding one for themselves. The whole saga is an utter disgrace.[/p][/quote]You're right. I can't believe £14 million is being spent on the stadium and just a measly £23 million along with it which benefits the entire City, from 3G pitches, swimming pools, gym, libraries, NHS hubs , restaurants and a host of places to stage events and local societies. What a set of scumbags! We don't need this kind of carry on in York. yorkonafork
  • Score: 15

8:13am Fri 5 Sep 14

The Great Buda says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Been telling you all along this so called deal isn't right. It is all about a home for YCFC at the expense of the Knights, our Athletics stadium and other leisure facilities. Maybe I should add the York Council Tax payers in this too.

Athletics and Knights worked well enough, the trouble was with lack of investment and maintenance at BC. A bit of property speculation and some poor governance and we find ourselves in the current situation.

Atkins was employed to find the site for a new stadium for York City, since City are not capable of finding one for themselves.
The whole saga is an utter disgrace.
You realy need to wash your mouth out. Your lies make baby jesus cry.
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Been telling you all along this so called deal isn't right. It is all about a home for YCFC at the expense of the Knights, our Athletics stadium and other leisure facilities. Maybe I should add the York Council Tax payers in this too. Athletics and Knights worked well enough, the trouble was with lack of investment and maintenance at BC. A bit of property speculation and some poor governance and we find ourselves in the current situation. Atkins was employed to find the site for a new stadium for York City, since City are not capable of finding one for themselves. The whole saga is an utter disgrace.[/p][/quote]You realy need to wash your mouth out. Your lies make baby jesus cry. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

8:15am Fri 5 Sep 14

The Great Buda says...

yorkonafork wrote:
ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Been telling you all along this so called deal isn't right. It is all about a home for YCFC at the expense of the Knights, our Athletics stadium and other leisure facilities. Maybe I should add the York Council Tax payers in this too.

Athletics and Knights worked well enough, the trouble was with lack of investment and maintenance at BC. A bit of property speculation and some poor governance and we find ourselves in the current situation.

Atkins was employed to find the site for a new stadium for York City, since City are not capable of finding one for themselves.
The whole saga is an utter disgrace.
You're right. I can't believe £14 million is being spent on the stadium and just a measly £23 million along with it which benefits the entire City, from 3G pitches, swimming pools, gym, libraries, NHS hubs , restaurants and a host of places to stage events and local societies.

What a set of scumbags! We don't need this kind of carry on in York.
Sadly CAC is one of the vested interests mouth pieces who's only job is to try and hold York back.
[quote][p][bold]yorkonafork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Been telling you all along this so called deal isn't right. It is all about a home for YCFC at the expense of the Knights, our Athletics stadium and other leisure facilities. Maybe I should add the York Council Tax payers in this too. Athletics and Knights worked well enough, the trouble was with lack of investment and maintenance at BC. A bit of property speculation and some poor governance and we find ourselves in the current situation. Atkins was employed to find the site for a new stadium for York City, since City are not capable of finding one for themselves. The whole saga is an utter disgrace.[/p][/quote]You're right. I can't believe £14 million is being spent on the stadium and just a measly £23 million along with it which benefits the entire City, from 3G pitches, swimming pools, gym, libraries, NHS hubs , restaurants and a host of places to stage events and local societies. What a set of scumbags! We don't need this kind of carry on in York.[/p][/quote]Sadly CAC is one of the vested interests mouth pieces who's only job is to try and hold York back. The Great Buda
  • Score: -5

9:16am Fri 5 Sep 14

Zetkin says...

Natural justice dictates that neither club should be worse off as a result of playing in the community stadium, but Mr Guildford does the Knights and their supporters no favours by going to the media with a dramatic headline and half a story.

Other posters are dead right to demand he publishes full figures to support his claims. If he doesn't, he can't be surprised if no-one takes him seriously.

If the club's finances really are in such a precarious state, maybe he should try and sell it to someone who has a bit more faith in its future.
Natural justice dictates that neither club should be worse off as a result of playing in the community stadium, but Mr Guildford does the Knights and their supporters no favours by going to the media with a dramatic headline and half a story. Other posters are dead right to demand he publishes full figures to support his claims. If he doesn't, he can't be surprised if no-one takes him seriously. If the club's finances really are in such a precarious state, maybe he should try and sell it to someone who has a bit more faith in its future. Zetkin
  • Score: 9

9:32am Fri 5 Sep 14

speaks99 says...

Completely agree that JG should substantiate his claim, and hats off to Tim Atkins for his measured response.
The headline of the article is amateurish and factually incorrect, and some proper journalism should have been employed to write the article, but sadly this is how the press are going these days. On the one hand JG says they will lose 69-70% of their bar income, but this does not equate tobeing 69-70% worse off. The fact the knights will be playing at the new stadium for a peppercorn rental, the improvement in gate receipts at Bootham Crescent and the new stadium, the corporate income generated by having decent corporate facilities, plus still having a conference suite which they have allocated days in which to hire out will mean that the Knights will be far far better off. They will still receive income from the bar at Knights matches when it will be at its busiest, and will probably generate more income on these days if the crowds do lift.
Crowds of 500 odd supporters cannot be sustainable - We get about half this at the local amateur village team where I live. This move has to go ahead for the benefit of the knights.
Completely agree that JG should substantiate his claim, and hats off to Tim Atkins for his measured response. The headline of the article is amateurish and factually incorrect, and some proper journalism should have been employed to write the article, but sadly this is how the press are going these days. On the one hand JG says they will lose 69-70% of their bar income, but this does not equate tobeing 69-70% worse off. The fact the knights will be playing at the new stadium for a peppercorn rental, the improvement in gate receipts at Bootham Crescent and the new stadium, the corporate income generated by having decent corporate facilities, plus still having a conference suite which they have allocated days in which to hire out will mean that the Knights will be far far better off. They will still receive income from the bar at Knights matches when it will be at its busiest, and will probably generate more income on these days if the crowds do lift. Crowds of 500 odd supporters cannot be sustainable - We get about half this at the local amateur village team where I live. This move has to go ahead for the benefit of the knights. speaks99
  • Score: 10

12:26pm Fri 5 Sep 14

meme says...

before JG is crucified perhaps people should realise that bar takings will be crucial to the financial ability of the club to survive.
there seems some v bitter comments on here against a man who I know wants the Knights to survive not because he is making some fortune from them to subsidise some madcap lifestyle
how does anyone thing the Council are getting a third party to run this stadium? Its because there is income/profit from the bars that were formerly the Knights income which they need to keep solvent
Perhaps JG should say just how important these figures are...actually he has and has effectively said without them they go bust. Is that what we want?
before JG is crucified perhaps people should realise that bar takings will be crucial to the financial ability of the club to survive. there seems some v bitter comments on here against a man who I know wants the Knights to survive not because he is making some fortune from them to subsidise some madcap lifestyle how does anyone thing the Council are getting a third party to run this stadium? Its because there is income/profit from the bars that were formerly the Knights income which they need to keep solvent Perhaps JG should say just how important these figures are...actually he has and has effectively said without them they go bust. Is that what we want? meme
  • Score: -2

12:32pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Dr Brian says...

I had heard that Mr Guildford is the Landlord of the Knights so they pay him rent to play at HS for bar functions etc. Of course if it is true perhaps that is why he is making claims about being worse of, but he is forgetting to say it is he who will be worse off and not the Knights. Perhaps the press should be asking the question, how much do the Knights pay to play at H Stadium, and who do they pay the money to?
I had heard that Mr Guildford is the Landlord of the Knights so they pay him rent to play at HS for bar functions etc. Of course if it is true perhaps that is why he is making claims about being worse of, but he is forgetting to say it is he who will be worse off and not the Knights. Perhaps the press should be asking the question, how much do the Knights pay to play at H Stadium, and who do they pay the money to? Dr Brian
  • Score: -9

12:54pm Fri 5 Sep 14

speaks99 says...

meme wrote:
before JG is crucified perhaps people should realise that bar takings will be crucial to the financial ability of the club to survive.
there seems some v bitter comments on here against a man who I know wants the Knights to survive not because he is making some fortune from them to subsidise some madcap lifestyle
how does anyone thing the Council are getting a third party to run this stadium? Its because there is income/profit from the bars that were formerly the Knights income which they need to keep solvent
Perhaps JG should say just how important these figures are...actually he has and has effectively said without them they go bust. Is that what we want?
You'd have to be pretty ****ing close to the edge if you're relying on bar takings to keep the club going!! If that's the situation then there's bigger worries about the financial viability of the club...
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: before JG is crucified perhaps people should realise that bar takings will be crucial to the financial ability of the club to survive. there seems some v bitter comments on here against a man who I know wants the Knights to survive not because he is making some fortune from them to subsidise some madcap lifestyle how does anyone thing the Council are getting a third party to run this stadium? Its because there is income/profit from the bars that were formerly the Knights income which they need to keep solvent Perhaps JG should say just how important these figures are...actually he has and has effectively said without them they go bust. Is that what we want?[/p][/quote]You'd have to be pretty ****ing close to the edge if you're relying on bar takings to keep the club going!! If that's the situation then there's bigger worries about the financial viability of the club... speaks99
  • Score: -6

1:05pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Lambi-63 says...

Justin7 wrote:
Monks Boss wrote:
Maybe Mr Guildford should sell the club to the McGills,so they could be in charge of both clubs and run them properly in the new stadium.
That's not a bad idea. Won't cost much to buy too,, seen as 70 percent of its revenue comes from a few people in a bar, according to Mr Guildford.
If you read the arcicle again you will realise that it's 69-70% of bar takings not total income.
[quote][p][bold]Justin7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monks Boss[/bold] wrote: Maybe Mr Guildford should sell the club to the McGills,so they could be in charge of both clubs and run them properly in the new stadium.[/p][/quote]That's not a bad idea. Won't cost much to buy too,, seen as 70 percent of its revenue comes from a few people in a bar, according to Mr Guildford.[/p][/quote]If you read the arcicle again you will realise that it's 69-70% of bar takings not total income. Lambi-63
  • Score: 13

2:08pm Fri 5 Sep 14

kanchelskis says...

The Knights pay nothing to Guildford to rent HS. Currently GLL are the leaseholder and therefore YCK pay GLL. Same for the bar.
The Knights pay nothing to Guildford to rent HS. Currently GLL are the leaseholder and therefore YCK pay GLL. Same for the bar. kanchelskis
  • Score: 10

3:32pm Fri 5 Sep 14

milkybarkid says...

York City Knights have put out a press release today

"Further to the article in york press yesterday the club would like to respond as follows :

York City Knights are willing to demonstrate that they will be financially worse off by the proposal received from City of York Council with regards to the operations of the new stadium, unfortunately CoYC have recorded that the information is privileged and commercially sensitive and will not agree for the information to be made public at this stage. The club therefore cannot respond any further.

We have requested once again a meeting with Cllr James Alexander and the project board and are awaiting a reply.

We have also requested again a meeting with York city Football Club and are also awaiting a reply from them.

We will keep the fans updated as and when we have anything more to"


It looks to me like questions need to be answered from COYC??

I also suggest that if you look at their hospitality on a matchday, they currently provide the food in house, which I suspect will be a lot cheaper than at the stadium. Lets say they currently cater for 150 people or more at the moment, then when they move to the new stadium i suspect an outside caterer will charge approx £20 per head to deliver this.... which will be a much bigger loss as they currently cater in house......
York City Knights have put out a press release today "Further to the article in york press yesterday the club would like to respond as follows : York City Knights are willing to demonstrate that they will be financially worse off by the proposal received from City of York Council with regards to the operations of the new stadium, unfortunately CoYC have recorded that the information is privileged and commercially sensitive and will not agree for the information to be made public at this stage. The club therefore cannot respond any further. We have requested once again a meeting with Cllr James Alexander and the project board and are awaiting a reply. We have also requested again a meeting with York city Football Club and are also awaiting a reply from them. We will keep the fans updated as and when we have anything more to" It looks to me like questions need to be answered from COYC?? I also suggest that if you look at their hospitality on a matchday, they currently provide the food in house, which I suspect will be a lot cheaper than at the stadium. Lets say they currently cater for 150 people or more at the moment, then when they move to the new stadium i suspect an outside caterer will charge approx £20 per head to deliver this.... which will be a much bigger loss as they currently cater in house...... milkybarkid
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Fri 5 Sep 14

The Great Buda says...

Catering in-house isn't free. Which it what you seem to be portraying it as. Catering for 150 people costs a lot in chefs, function management and staff.

Why do I suspect some of Guildfords mates have arrived on this thread?
Catering in-house isn't free. Which it what you seem to be portraying it as. Catering for 150 people costs a lot in chefs, function management and staff. Why do I suspect some of Guildfords mates have arrived on this thread? The Great Buda
  • Score: -7

3:47pm Fri 5 Sep 14

milkybarkid says...

I wasn't portraying it as free:

"which will be a much bigger loss as they currently cater in house....."

My comment here suggest that paying £20 per person will be a bigger loss than to what they pay now?
I wasn't portraying it as free: "which will be a much bigger loss as they currently cater in house....." My comment here suggest that paying £20 per person will be a bigger loss than to what they pay now? milkybarkid
  • Score: -2

3:49pm Fri 5 Sep 14

AllPurpose says...

milkybarkid wrote:
I wasn't portraying it as free:

"which will be a much bigger loss as they currently cater in house....."

My comment here suggest that paying £20 per person will be a bigger loss than to what they pay now?
Except they aren't managing the facilities, which means their reduced income (if true) is offset by massively reduced costs.
[quote][p][bold]milkybarkid[/bold] wrote: I wasn't portraying it as free: "which will be a much bigger loss as they currently cater in house....." My comment here suggest that paying £20 per person will be a bigger loss than to what they pay now?[/p][/quote]Except they aren't managing the facilities, which means their reduced income (if true) is offset by massively reduced costs. AllPurpose
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Tug job says...

meme wrote:
before JG is crucified perhaps people should realise that bar takings will be crucial to the financial ability of the club to survive.
there seems some v bitter comments on here against a man who I know wants the Knights to survive not because he is making some fortune from them to subsidise some madcap lifestyle
how does anyone thing the Council are getting a third party to run this stadium? Its because there is income/profit from the bars that were formerly the Knights income which they need to keep solvent
Perhaps JG should say just how important these figures are...actually he has and has effectively said without them they go bust. Is that what we want?
But management of the stadium includes a whole lot more than bars, catering and hospitality, doesn't it? And If the services currently provided at Bar 13 were that good, why didn't the Knights hold their annual awards evening there? Why aren't the Knights holding their Hall of Fame dinner there. Did the Knights have an opportunity to submit a bid to run the stadium, or to provide services to it? And, if so, did the Knights respond?
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: before JG is crucified perhaps people should realise that bar takings will be crucial to the financial ability of the club to survive. there seems some v bitter comments on here against a man who I know wants the Knights to survive not because he is making some fortune from them to subsidise some madcap lifestyle how does anyone thing the Council are getting a third party to run this stadium? Its because there is income/profit from the bars that were formerly the Knights income which they need to keep solvent Perhaps JG should say just how important these figures are...actually he has and has effectively said without them they go bust. Is that what we want?[/p][/quote]But management of the stadium includes a whole lot more than bars, catering and hospitality, doesn't it? And If the services currently provided at Bar 13 were that good, why didn't the Knights hold their annual awards evening there? Why aren't the Knights holding their Hall of Fame dinner there. Did the Knights have an opportunity to submit a bid to run the stadium, or to provide services to it? And, if so, did the Knights respond? Tug job
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Fri 5 Sep 14

yorkonafork says...

The council offered the running of the Stadium to the Knights or any other options they felt but they didn't respond.

Guildford refused to go to a host of meetings.

He refuses to be question via the media, more recently by Radio York.

Now in a statement he says that the council aren't showing their figures (apparently they aren't mind, they were probably on the table at a meeting at some point) while he refuses to show the Knights figures in public (and the business themselves haven't given end of year figure in to companies house yet.

To top it off he genuinely thinks the difference between a Rugby club being sustainable and going bust is a bar, and not a good one at that.
Again, this bar was not used for their own end of season doo.

This is all a bit painful to be honest and I'm embarrassed for him. He's holding everyone at the York Knights back which is a shame for the loyal supporters, potential fans and the City as a whole on the sporting spectrum.
The council offered the running of the Stadium to the Knights or any other options they felt but they didn't respond. Guildford refused to go to a host of meetings. He refuses to be question via the media, more recently by Radio York. Now in a statement he says that the council aren't showing their figures (apparently they aren't mind, they were probably on the table at a meeting at some point) while he refuses to show the Knights figures in public (and the business themselves haven't given end of year figure in to companies house yet. To top it off he genuinely thinks the difference between a Rugby club being sustainable and going bust is a bar, and not a good one at that. Again, this bar was not used for their own end of season doo. This is all a bit painful to be honest and I'm embarrassed for him. He's holding everyone at the York Knights back which is a shame for the loyal supporters, potential fans and the City as a whole on the sporting spectrum. yorkonafork
  • Score: 7

4:55pm Fri 5 Sep 14

speaks99 says...

milkybarkid wrote:
York City Knights have put out a press release today

"Further to the article in york press yesterday the club would like to respond as follows :

York City Knights are willing to demonstrate that they will be financially worse off by the proposal received from City of York Council with regards to the operations of the new stadium, unfortunately CoYC have recorded that the information is privileged and commercially sensitive and will not agree for the information to be made public at this stage. The club therefore cannot respond any further.

We have requested once again a meeting with Cllr James Alexander and the project board and are awaiting a reply.

We have also requested again a meeting with York city Football Club and are also awaiting a reply from them.

We will keep the fans updated as and when we have anything more to"


It looks to me like questions need to be answered from COYC??

I also suggest that if you look at their hospitality on a matchday, they currently provide the food in house, which I suspect will be a lot cheaper than at the stadium. Lets say they currently cater for 150 people or more at the moment, then when they move to the new stadium i suspect an outside caterer will charge approx £20 per head to deliver this.... which will be a much bigger loss as they currently cater in house......
Yorks current home portion of the crowd must be around 450. A third of spectators aren't going to be taking up hospitality facilities... I'd be surprised if you get a tenth of that. Whatever the hospitality uptake of the knights matches is, it isn't going to amount to a great deal. Lets suppose 50 people on average take up a hospitality place (probably overestimating!) per game, and the difference between buying in the catering and doing it yourself is £5 per head (which doesnt sound unreasonasble) - thats £250 per game... hardly a crippling loss. However, add in better facilities, and better match day experience, bigger crowd, better atmosphere, more professional and I bet you could get that fiver back on the price of the ticket. Plus if the move entices more fans to come and watch then you're getting more people through the turnstyles, selling a greater quantity of hospitality packages and so on.
[quote][p][bold]milkybarkid[/bold] wrote: York City Knights have put out a press release today "Further to the article in york press yesterday the club would like to respond as follows : York City Knights are willing to demonstrate that they will be financially worse off by the proposal received from City of York Council with regards to the operations of the new stadium, unfortunately CoYC have recorded that the information is privileged and commercially sensitive and will not agree for the information to be made public at this stage. The club therefore cannot respond any further. We have requested once again a meeting with Cllr James Alexander and the project board and are awaiting a reply. We have also requested again a meeting with York city Football Club and are also awaiting a reply from them. We will keep the fans updated as and when we have anything more to" It looks to me like questions need to be answered from COYC?? I also suggest that if you look at their hospitality on a matchday, they currently provide the food in house, which I suspect will be a lot cheaper than at the stadium. Lets say they currently cater for 150 people or more at the moment, then when they move to the new stadium i suspect an outside caterer will charge approx £20 per head to deliver this.... which will be a much bigger loss as they currently cater in house......[/p][/quote]Yorks current home portion of the crowd must be around 450. A third of spectators aren't going to be taking up hospitality facilities... I'd be surprised if you get a tenth of that. Whatever the hospitality uptake of the knights matches is, it isn't going to amount to a great deal. Lets suppose 50 people on average take up a hospitality place (probably overestimating!) per game, and the difference between buying in the catering and doing it yourself is £5 per head (which doesnt sound unreasonasble) - thats £250 per game... hardly a crippling loss. However, add in better facilities, and better match day experience, bigger crowd, better atmosphere, more professional and I bet you could get that fiver back on the price of the ticket. Plus if the move entices more fans to come and watch then you're getting more people through the turnstyles, selling a greater quantity of hospitality packages and so on. speaks99
  • Score: 4

5:48pm Fri 5 Sep 14

dsom73 says...

speaks99 wrote:
milkybarkid wrote:
York City Knights have put out a press release today

"Further to the article in york press yesterday the club would like to respond as follows :

York City Knights are willing to demonstrate that they will be financially worse off by the proposal received from City of York Council with regards to the operations of the new stadium, unfortunately CoYC have recorded that the information is privileged and commercially sensitive and will not agree for the information to be made public at this stage. The club therefore cannot respond any further.

We have requested once again a meeting with Cllr James Alexander and the project board and are awaiting a reply.

We have also requested again a meeting with York city Football Club and are also awaiting a reply from them.

We will keep the fans updated as and when we have anything more to"


It looks to me like questions need to be answered from COYC??

I also suggest that if you look at their hospitality on a matchday, they currently provide the food in house, which I suspect will be a lot cheaper than at the stadium. Lets say they currently cater for 150 people or more at the moment, then when they move to the new stadium i suspect an outside caterer will charge approx £20 per head to deliver this.... which will be a much bigger loss as they currently cater in house......
Yorks current home portion of the crowd must be around 450. A third of spectators aren't going to be taking up hospitality facilities... I'd be surprised if you get a tenth of that. Whatever the hospitality uptake of the knights matches is, it isn't going to amount to a great deal. Lets suppose 50 people on average take up a hospitality place (probably overestimating!) per game, and the difference between buying in the catering and doing it yourself is £5 per head (which doesnt sound unreasonasble) - thats £250 per game... hardly a crippling loss. However, add in better facilities, and better match day experience, bigger crowd, better atmosphere, more professional and I bet you could get that fiver back on the price of the ticket. Plus if the move entices more fans to come and watch then you're getting more people through the turnstyles, selling a greater quantity of hospitality packages and so on.
8 Hospitality rooms
10 people per room
£50 a head
--------------------
------
£4000
-costs
--------------------
------
Alot more than £250

regardless, this isn't about what the Knights will lose, this is about what Guildford and family will lose. We all know that.
The Knights as a club will flourish financially
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]milkybarkid[/bold] wrote: York City Knights have put out a press release today "Further to the article in york press yesterday the club would like to respond as follows : York City Knights are willing to demonstrate that they will be financially worse off by the proposal received from City of York Council with regards to the operations of the new stadium, unfortunately CoYC have recorded that the information is privileged and commercially sensitive and will not agree for the information to be made public at this stage. The club therefore cannot respond any further. We have requested once again a meeting with Cllr James Alexander and the project board and are awaiting a reply. We have also requested again a meeting with York city Football Club and are also awaiting a reply from them. We will keep the fans updated as and when we have anything more to" It looks to me like questions need to be answered from COYC?? I also suggest that if you look at their hospitality on a matchday, they currently provide the food in house, which I suspect will be a lot cheaper than at the stadium. Lets say they currently cater for 150 people or more at the moment, then when they move to the new stadium i suspect an outside caterer will charge approx £20 per head to deliver this.... which will be a much bigger loss as they currently cater in house......[/p][/quote]Yorks current home portion of the crowd must be around 450. A third of spectators aren't going to be taking up hospitality facilities... I'd be surprised if you get a tenth of that. Whatever the hospitality uptake of the knights matches is, it isn't going to amount to a great deal. Lets suppose 50 people on average take up a hospitality place (probably overestimating!) per game, and the difference between buying in the catering and doing it yourself is £5 per head (which doesnt sound unreasonasble) - thats £250 per game... hardly a crippling loss. However, add in better facilities, and better match day experience, bigger crowd, better atmosphere, more professional and I bet you could get that fiver back on the price of the ticket. Plus if the move entices more fans to come and watch then you're getting more people through the turnstyles, selling a greater quantity of hospitality packages and so on.[/p][/quote]8 Hospitality rooms 10 people per room £50 a head -------------------- ------ £4000 -costs -------------------- ------ Alot more than £250 regardless, this isn't about what the Knights will lose, this is about what Guildford and family will lose. We all know that. The Knights as a club will flourish financially dsom73
  • Score: -8

6:14pm Fri 5 Sep 14

non pedalling pete says...

Anyone who wants to know what J.G is really like do a little research on the former Promenade W.M.C.
Anyone who wants to know what J.G is really like do a little research on the former Promenade W.M.C. non pedalling pete
  • Score: -7

7:58pm Fri 5 Sep 14

speaks99 says...

You've not really read what I've said, dsom73. We were talking the difference between catering yourself vs buying in the service... I estimated that the difference would be around £250 per match, not what the income would be.
You've not really read what I've said, dsom73. We were talking the difference between catering yourself vs buying in the service... I estimated that the difference would be around £250 per match, not what the income would be. speaks99
  • Score: 4

9:05pm Fri 5 Sep 14

kanchelskis says...

I don't believe that Guildford is doing any of this for his own personal gain, however it is ironic when the other owners are getting back every penny that they have ever put in from the sale of BC!
I don't believe that Guildford is doing any of this for his own personal gain, however it is ironic when the other owners are getting back every penny that they have ever put in from the sale of BC! kanchelskis
  • Score: 2

9:18pm Fri 5 Sep 14

yorkonafork says...

What's ironic about it?
Also what has that got to do with claims that York Knights will struggle?

Even if the McGills made a profit, at least they've had the balls and business know-how on how to run a club, how to rally for a new stadium, turn up to meetings and end up getting the contract for the club to run the stadium.
All Guildford has done is run a rugby club into the ground, cream profits off them with no benefits to the club, **** and moan and is now hiding behind a computer screen essentially. Anyone who wants the new stadium must be **** themselves at how easy it is to overcome his nonsense and how to make him look foolish.
What's ironic about it? Also what has that got to do with claims that York Knights will struggle? Even if the McGills made a profit, at least they've had the balls and business know-how on how to run a club, how to rally for a new stadium, turn up to meetings and end up getting the contract for the club to run the stadium. All Guildford has done is run a rugby club into the ground, cream profits off them with no benefits to the club, **** and moan and is now hiding behind a computer screen essentially. Anyone who wants the new stadium must be **** themselves at how easy it is to overcome his nonsense and how to make him look foolish. yorkonafork
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Fri 5 Sep 14

yorkonafork says...

*surely the word 'p)ss' isn't swearing, press?*
*surely the word 'p)ss' isn't swearing, press?* yorkonafork
  • Score: -5

11:24pm Fri 5 Sep 14

mang nix says...

yorkonafork wrote:
What's ironic about it?
Also what has that got to do with claims that York Knights will struggle?

Even if the McGills made a profit, at least they've had the balls and business know-how on how to run a club, how to rally for a new stadium, turn up to meetings and end up getting the contract for the club to run the stadium.
All Guildford has done is run a rugby club into the ground, cream profits off them with no benefits to the club, **** and moan and is now hiding behind a computer screen essentially. Anyone who wants the new stadium must be **** themselves at how easy it is to overcome his nonsense and how to make him look foolish.
how much do the mcgills pay you to write this drivel. business know how? city are in debt and still will be when the go to huntington and when the gloss wears off and the club dos'nt get results and supporters stop turning up which believe me will happen, i've seen it, the mcgills will take their share and run off back to malton. as for guildford running the club in to the ground they've just won the league !!.......... and there are no profits to cream off . he runs the club on a very tight rein, he has to or there would'nt be a rugby league club.
[quote][p][bold]yorkonafork[/bold] wrote: What's ironic about it? Also what has that got to do with claims that York Knights will struggle? Even if the McGills made a profit, at least they've had the balls and business know-how on how to run a club, how to rally for a new stadium, turn up to meetings and end up getting the contract for the club to run the stadium. All Guildford has done is run a rugby club into the ground, cream profits off them with no benefits to the club, **** and moan and is now hiding behind a computer screen essentially. Anyone who wants the new stadium must be **** themselves at how easy it is to overcome his nonsense and how to make him look foolish.[/p][/quote]how much do the mcgills pay you to write this drivel. business know how? city are in debt and still will be when the go to huntington and when the gloss wears off and the club dos'nt get results and supporters stop turning up which believe me will happen, i've seen it, the mcgills will take their share and run off back to malton. as for guildford running the club in to the ground they've just won the league !!.......... and there are no profits to cream off . he runs the club on a very tight rein, he has to or there would'nt be a rugby league club. mang nix
  • Score: 3

11:25pm Fri 5 Sep 14

mang nix says...

yorkonafork wrote:
Frankly, no one cares about the opinion of this man any more. This article mentions a bar over and over again.
Am I not right in thinking York Knight will go from playing in a dust bowl with barely two stands.
They get a brand new stadium in the middle of a community complex, far more exposure and commercial opportunities from a host of things (not forgetting things like their own shirt sponsors, programme sponsors etc will be 100% their money still)
He clearly doesn't know what he's doing which must be a massive concern to YCK fans.

Also, if the bar is so good, hosts events 365 days a year and give them 100% profits...why was YCKs end of season award held at another venue!?

The man is a fool.
because bar 13 is'nt big enough
[quote][p][bold]yorkonafork[/bold] wrote: Frankly, no one cares about the opinion of this man any more. This article mentions a bar over and over again. Am I not right in thinking York Knight will go from playing in a dust bowl with barely two stands. They get a brand new stadium in the middle of a community complex, far more exposure and commercial opportunities from a host of things (not forgetting things like their own shirt sponsors, programme sponsors etc will be 100% their money still) He clearly doesn't know what he's doing which must be a massive concern to YCK fans. Also, if the bar is so good, hosts events 365 days a year and give them 100% profits...why was YCKs end of season award held at another venue!? The man is a fool.[/p][/quote]because bar 13 is'nt big enough mang nix
  • Score: 12

11:32pm Fri 5 Sep 14

mang nix says...

Justin7 wrote:
andyjon12 wrote:
Leave John Guilford alone. From the information available through the local media, it would seem that the bloke is acting in a perfectly reasonable manner, and with his beloved club's best interests at heart.

ALL of the comments on here bar none are based on assumptions and one sided reporting, including the official outlets which appear to be drip feeding the York public with a rumour here and a rumour there.

If YCFC and the council can't get on with John Guilford, then they need to be asking why. Trying to constantly and openly ostracize the poor bloke is not the answer.

By the way I am a YCFC supporter, however, I also care about our rugby league neighbours being treated properly; and I can't help feeling very uncomfortable with the seemingly increasing demonisation of John Guilford.

Time for everyone to sit around a table I think and to stop this nonsense once and for all.
Good evening Mr. Guildford.
good evening mr mcgill.
[quote][p][bold]Justin7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andyjon12[/bold] wrote: Leave John Guilford alone. From the information available through the local media, it would seem that the bloke is acting in a perfectly reasonable manner, and with his beloved club's best interests at heart. ALL of the comments on here bar none are based on assumptions and one sided reporting, including the official outlets which appear to be drip feeding the York public with a rumour here and a rumour there. If YCFC and the council can't get on with John Guilford, then they need to be asking why. Trying to constantly and openly ostracize the poor bloke is not the answer. By the way I am a YCFC supporter, however, I also care about our rugby league neighbours being treated properly; and I can't help feeling very uncomfortable with the seemingly increasing demonisation of John Guilford. Time for everyone to sit around a table I think and to stop this nonsense once and for all.[/p][/quote]Good evening Mr. Guildford.[/p][/quote]good evening mr mcgill. mang nix
  • Score: 7

11:52pm Fri 5 Sep 14

mang nix says...

Dr Brian wrote:
I had heard that Mr Guildford is the Landlord of the Knights so they pay him rent to play at HS for bar functions etc. Of course if it is true perhaps that is why he is making claims about being worse of, but he is forgetting to say it is he who will be worse off and not the Knights. Perhaps the press should be asking the question, how much do the Knights pay to play at H Stadium, and who do they pay the money to?
the knights lease the ground from gll not john guildford.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: I had heard that Mr Guildford is the Landlord of the Knights so they pay him rent to play at HS for bar functions etc. Of course if it is true perhaps that is why he is making claims about being worse of, but he is forgetting to say it is he who will be worse off and not the Knights. Perhaps the press should be asking the question, how much do the Knights pay to play at H Stadium, and who do they pay the money to?[/p][/quote]the knights lease the ground from gll not john guildford. mang nix
  • Score: 9

12:04am Sat 6 Sep 14

mang nix says...

Tug job wrote:
meme wrote:
before JG is crucified perhaps people should realise that bar takings will be crucial to the financial ability of the club to survive.
there seems some v bitter comments on here against a man who I know wants the Knights to survive not because he is making some fortune from them to subsidise some madcap lifestyle
how does anyone thing the Council are getting a third party to run this stadium? Its because there is income/profit from the bars that were formerly the Knights income which they need to keep solvent
Perhaps JG should say just how important these figures are...actually he has and has effectively said without them they go bust. Is that what we want?
But management of the stadium includes a whole lot more than bars, catering and hospitality, doesn't it? And If the services currently provided at Bar 13 were that good, why didn't the Knights hold their annual awards evening there? Why aren't the Knights holding their Hall of Fame dinner there. Did the Knights have an opportunity to submit a bid to run the stadium, or to provide services to it? And, if so, did the Knights respond?
they didd'nt hold the awards evening in bar 13 because its not big enough. and the hall of fame dinner is the 21st of march next year so they won't be at huntington stadium then will they. aaaaaarrrrrgggghhhh.
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: before JG is crucified perhaps people should realise that bar takings will be crucial to the financial ability of the club to survive. there seems some v bitter comments on here against a man who I know wants the Knights to survive not because he is making some fortune from them to subsidise some madcap lifestyle how does anyone thing the Council are getting a third party to run this stadium? Its because there is income/profit from the bars that were formerly the Knights income which they need to keep solvent Perhaps JG should say just how important these figures are...actually he has and has effectively said without them they go bust. Is that what we want?[/p][/quote]But management of the stadium includes a whole lot more than bars, catering and hospitality, doesn't it? And If the services currently provided at Bar 13 were that good, why didn't the Knights hold their annual awards evening there? Why aren't the Knights holding their Hall of Fame dinner there. Did the Knights have an opportunity to submit a bid to run the stadium, or to provide services to it? And, if so, did the Knights respond?[/p][/quote]they didd'nt hold the awards evening in bar 13 because its not big enough. and the hall of fame dinner is the 21st of march next year so they won't be at huntington stadium then will they. aaaaaarrrrrgggghhhh. mang nix
  • Score: 13

6:59am Sat 6 Sep 14

speaks99 says...

mang nix wrote:
yorkonafork wrote:
What's ironic about it?
Also what has that got to do with claims that York Knights will struggle?

Even if the McGills made a profit, at least they've had the balls and business know-how on how to run a club, how to rally for a new stadium, turn up to meetings and end up getting the contract for the club to run the stadium.
All Guildford has done is run a rugby club into the ground, cream profits off them with no benefits to the club, **** and moan and is now hiding behind a computer screen essentially. Anyone who wants the new stadium must be **** themselves at how easy it is to overcome his nonsense and how to make him look foolish.
how much do the mcgills pay you to write this drivel. business know how? city are in debt and still will be when the go to huntington and when the gloss wears off and the club dos'nt get results and supporters stop turning up which believe me will happen, i've seen it, the mcgills will take their share and run off back to malton. as for guildford running the club in to the ground they've just won the league !!.......... and there are no profits to cream off . he runs the club on a very tight rein, he has to or there would'nt be a rugby league club.
When did you invest in a crystal ball.
York Knights are doing so well they regularly get crowds of 500+!!! This is the reason Guildford needs to stop ****. He could have been involved in this project from the get go, but he missed countless meetings where he could have had his input (which is documented) and then starts bleating to the press? He needs to get a life.
The McGills, for all their faults, have done this club pretty proud. Yes we've had to invest against expected receipts from the future ground sale, but without it we would still be languishing in the conference and certainly have a less sustainable future than we have now.
[quote][p][bold]mang nix[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkonafork[/bold] wrote: What's ironic about it? Also what has that got to do with claims that York Knights will struggle? Even if the McGills made a profit, at least they've had the balls and business know-how on how to run a club, how to rally for a new stadium, turn up to meetings and end up getting the contract for the club to run the stadium. All Guildford has done is run a rugby club into the ground, cream profits off them with no benefits to the club, **** and moan and is now hiding behind a computer screen essentially. Anyone who wants the new stadium must be **** themselves at how easy it is to overcome his nonsense and how to make him look foolish.[/p][/quote]how much do the mcgills pay you to write this drivel. business know how? city are in debt and still will be when the go to huntington and when the gloss wears off and the club dos'nt get results and supporters stop turning up which believe me will happen, i've seen it, the mcgills will take their share and run off back to malton. as for guildford running the club in to the ground they've just won the league !!.......... and there are no profits to cream off . he runs the club on a very tight rein, he has to or there would'nt be a rugby league club.[/p][/quote]When did you invest in a crystal ball. York Knights are doing so well they regularly get crowds of 500+!!! This is the reason Guildford needs to stop ****. He could have been involved in this project from the get go, but he missed countless meetings where he could have had his input (which is documented) and then starts bleating to the press? He needs to get a life. The McGills, for all their faults, have done this club pretty proud. Yes we've had to invest against expected receipts from the future ground sale, but without it we would still be languishing in the conference and certainly have a less sustainable future than we have now. speaks99
  • Score: -9

7:39am Sat 6 Sep 14

kanchelskis says...

speaks99 wrote:
mang nix wrote:
yorkonafork wrote:
What's ironic about it?
Also what has that got to do with claims that York Knights will struggle?

Even if the McGills made a profit, at least they've had the balls and business know-how on how to run a club, how to rally for a new stadium, turn up to meetings and end up getting the contract for the club to run the stadium.
All Guildford has done is run a rugby club into the ground, cream profits off them with no benefits to the club, **** and moan and is now hiding behind a computer screen essentially. Anyone who wants the new stadium must be **** themselves at how easy it is to overcome his nonsense and how to make him look foolish.
how much do the mcgills pay you to write this drivel. business know how? city are in debt and still will be when the go to huntington and when the gloss wears off and the club dos'nt get results and supporters stop turning up which believe me will happen, i've seen it, the mcgills will take their share and run off back to malton. as for guildford running the club in to the ground they've just won the league !!.......... and there are no profits to cream off . he runs the club on a very tight rein, he has to or there would'nt be a rugby league club.
When did you invest in a crystal ball.
York Knights are doing so well they regularly get crowds of 500+!!! This is the reason Guildford needs to stop ****. He could have been involved in this project from the get go, but he missed countless meetings where he could have had his input (which is documented) and then starts bleating to the press? He needs to get a life.
The McGills, for all their faults, have done this club pretty proud. Yes we've had to invest against expected receipts from the future ground sale, but without it we would still be languishing in the conference and certainly have a less sustainable future than we have now.
Talking about crowds all the time is nothing to do with this argument. Comparing the national sport to rugby league is like comparing chalk and cheese. Rugby leagues crowds on the whole are not good (with the exception of 5/6 Superleague clubs). The knights have actually got better crowds this season than most of the clubs in the league above and that is without any away support. Whilst these crowds are still poor they are not guaranted to increase with the new stadium so the club need to look after current income streams that are actual and not possible.

It is a shame that all of this has to be debated in the press. I agree that it could have being done better, there's no doubt about that, but the council have said that no club will be worse off from the start and now it appears that this is not the case.

I also agree that the Mcgills will sell up shortly after going into the new stadium. Be seen as the saviours and walk away with a very tidy profit.
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mang nix[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkonafork[/bold] wrote: What's ironic about it? Also what has that got to do with claims that York Knights will struggle? Even if the McGills made a profit, at least they've had the balls and business know-how on how to run a club, how to rally for a new stadium, turn up to meetings and end up getting the contract for the club to run the stadium. All Guildford has done is run a rugby club into the ground, cream profits off them with no benefits to the club, **** and moan and is now hiding behind a computer screen essentially. Anyone who wants the new stadium must be **** themselves at how easy it is to overcome his nonsense and how to make him look foolish.[/p][/quote]how much do the mcgills pay you to write this drivel. business know how? city are in debt and still will be when the go to huntington and when the gloss wears off and the club dos'nt get results and supporters stop turning up which believe me will happen, i've seen it, the mcgills will take their share and run off back to malton. as for guildford running the club in to the ground they've just won the league !!.......... and there are no profits to cream off . he runs the club on a very tight rein, he has to or there would'nt be a rugby league club.[/p][/quote]When did you invest in a crystal ball. York Knights are doing so well they regularly get crowds of 500+!!! This is the reason Guildford needs to stop ****. He could have been involved in this project from the get go, but he missed countless meetings where he could have had his input (which is documented) and then starts bleating to the press? He needs to get a life. The McGills, for all their faults, have done this club pretty proud. Yes we've had to invest against expected receipts from the future ground sale, but without it we would still be languishing in the conference and certainly have a less sustainable future than we have now.[/p][/quote]Talking about crowds all the time is nothing to do with this argument. Comparing the national sport to rugby league is like comparing chalk and cheese. Rugby leagues crowds on the whole are not good (with the exception of 5/6 Superleague clubs). The knights have actually got better crowds this season than most of the clubs in the league above and that is without any away support. Whilst these crowds are still poor they are not guaranted to increase with the new stadium so the club need to look after current income streams that are actual and not possible. It is a shame that all of this has to be debated in the press. I agree that it could have being done better, there's no doubt about that, but the council have said that no club will be worse off from the start and now it appears that this is not the case. I also agree that the Mcgills will sell up shortly after going into the new stadium. Be seen as the saviours and walk away with a very tidy profit. kanchelskis
  • Score: 3

7:56am Sat 6 Sep 14

Lambi-63 says...

Tug job wrote:
meme wrote:
before JG is crucified perhaps people should realise that bar takings will be crucial to the financial ability of the club to survive.
there seems some v bitter comments on here against a man who I know wants the Knights to survive not because he is making some fortune from them to subsidise some madcap lifestyle
how does anyone thing the Council are getting a third party to run this stadium? Its because there is income/profit from the bars that were formerly the Knights income which they need to keep solvent
Perhaps JG should say just how important these figures are...actually he has and has effectively said without them they go bust. Is that what we want?
But management of the stadium includes a whole lot more than bars, catering and hospitality, doesn't it? And If the services currently provided at Bar 13 were that good, why didn't the Knights hold their annual awards evening there? Why aren't the Knights holding their Hall of Fame dinner there. Did the Knights have an opportunity to submit a bid to run the stadium, or to provide services to it? And, if so, did the Knights respond?
Because Bar 13 is not big enough, that's why.
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: before JG is crucified perhaps people should realise that bar takings will be crucial to the financial ability of the club to survive. there seems some v bitter comments on here against a man who I know wants the Knights to survive not because he is making some fortune from them to subsidise some madcap lifestyle how does anyone thing the Council are getting a third party to run this stadium? Its because there is income/profit from the bars that were formerly the Knights income which they need to keep solvent Perhaps JG should say just how important these figures are...actually he has and has effectively said without them they go bust. Is that what we want?[/p][/quote]But management of the stadium includes a whole lot more than bars, catering and hospitality, doesn't it? And If the services currently provided at Bar 13 were that good, why didn't the Knights hold their annual awards evening there? Why aren't the Knights holding their Hall of Fame dinner there. Did the Knights have an opportunity to submit a bid to run the stadium, or to provide services to it? And, if so, did the Knights respond?[/p][/quote]Because Bar 13 is not big enough, that's why. Lambi-63
  • Score: 12

8:48am Sat 6 Sep 14

speaks99 says...

kanchelskis wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
mang nix wrote:
yorkonafork wrote:
What's ironic about it?
Also what has that got to do with claims that York Knights will struggle?

Even if the McGills made a profit, at least they've had the balls and business know-how on how to run a club, how to rally for a new stadium, turn up to meetings and end up getting the contract for the club to run the stadium.
All Guildford has done is run a rugby club into the ground, cream profits off them with no benefits to the club, **** and moan and is now hiding behind a computer screen essentially. Anyone who wants the new stadium must be **** themselves at how easy it is to overcome his nonsense and how to make him look foolish.
how much do the mcgills pay you to write this drivel. business know how? city are in debt and still will be when the go to huntington and when the gloss wears off and the club dos'nt get results and supporters stop turning up which believe me will happen, i've seen it, the mcgills will take their share and run off back to malton. as for guildford running the club in to the ground they've just won the league !!.......... and there are no profits to cream off . he runs the club on a very tight rein, he has to or there would'nt be a rugby league club.
When did you invest in a crystal ball.
York Knights are doing so well they regularly get crowds of 500+!!! This is the reason Guildford needs to stop ****. He could have been involved in this project from the get go, but he missed countless meetings where he could have had his input (which is documented) and then starts bleating to the press? He needs to get a life.
The McGills, for all their faults, have done this club pretty proud. Yes we've had to invest against expected receipts from the future ground sale, but without it we would still be languishing in the conference and certainly have a less sustainable future than we have now.
Talking about crowds all the time is nothing to do with this argument. Comparing the national sport to rugby league is like comparing chalk and cheese. Rugby leagues crowds on the whole are not good (with the exception of 5/6 Superleague clubs). The knights have actually got better crowds this season than most of the clubs in the league above and that is without any away support. Whilst these crowds are still poor they are not guaranted to increase with the new stadium so the club need to look after current income streams that are actual and not possible.

It is a shame that all of this has to be debated in the press. I agree that it could have being done better, there's no doubt about that, but the council have said that no club will be worse off from the start and now it appears that this is not the case.

I also agree that the Mcgills will sell up shortly after going into the new stadium. Be seen as the saviours and walk away with a very tidy profit.
We don't actually know whether it is the case or not, but from the very start John Guildford has been refused to be part of the whole process. He's never really been on board with trying to work with both council and YCFC to get the best for the knights, and at times he has been downright destructive to the process. I get the feeling he wants everyone to jump to his tune, which isn't happening, and now he's throwing his dummy out of the pram. He's a bully who isn't getting his own way.
I think also that knights fans are starting to wise up to this too.
This is an excellent opportunity for the Knights IMO, to build their fan base, increase exposures and to take the club forward. The time to discuss all these commercials was at the meetings which he was invited to. There is a professionalism that is lacking from the man.

As to whether the McGills will sell up or not, I'm undecided. If there is a commercially sustainable future for YCFC I don't think they will. I'm pretty sure we won't see the debts racking up like we currently do, however.
[quote][p][bold]kanchelskis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mang nix[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkonafork[/bold] wrote: What's ironic about it? Also what has that got to do with claims that York Knights will struggle? Even if the McGills made a profit, at least they've had the balls and business know-how on how to run a club, how to rally for a new stadium, turn up to meetings and end up getting the contract for the club to run the stadium. All Guildford has done is run a rugby club into the ground, cream profits off them with no benefits to the club, **** and moan and is now hiding behind a computer screen essentially. Anyone who wants the new stadium must be **** themselves at how easy it is to overcome his nonsense and how to make him look foolish.[/p][/quote]how much do the mcgills pay you to write this drivel. business know how? city are in debt and still will be when the go to huntington and when the gloss wears off and the club dos'nt get results and supporters stop turning up which believe me will happen, i've seen it, the mcgills will take their share and run off back to malton. as for guildford running the club in to the ground they've just won the league !!.......... and there are no profits to cream off . he runs the club on a very tight rein, he has to or there would'nt be a rugby league club.[/p][/quote]When did you invest in a crystal ball. York Knights are doing so well they regularly get crowds of 500+!!! This is the reason Guildford needs to stop ****. He could have been involved in this project from the get go, but he missed countless meetings where he could have had his input (which is documented) and then starts bleating to the press? He needs to get a life. The McGills, for all their faults, have done this club pretty proud. Yes we've had to invest against expected receipts from the future ground sale, but without it we would still be languishing in the conference and certainly have a less sustainable future than we have now.[/p][/quote]Talking about crowds all the time is nothing to do with this argument. Comparing the national sport to rugby league is like comparing chalk and cheese. Rugby leagues crowds on the whole are not good (with the exception of 5/6 Superleague clubs). The knights have actually got better crowds this season than most of the clubs in the league above and that is without any away support. Whilst these crowds are still poor they are not guaranted to increase with the new stadium so the club need to look after current income streams that are actual and not possible. It is a shame that all of this has to be debated in the press. I agree that it could have being done better, there's no doubt about that, but the council have said that no club will be worse off from the start and now it appears that this is not the case. I also agree that the Mcgills will sell up shortly after going into the new stadium. Be seen as the saviours and walk away with a very tidy profit.[/p][/quote]We don't actually know whether it is the case or not, but from the very start John Guildford has been refused to be part of the whole process. He's never really been on board with trying to work with both council and YCFC to get the best for the knights, and at times he has been downright destructive to the process. I get the feeling he wants everyone to jump to his tune, which isn't happening, and now he's throwing his dummy out of the pram. He's a bully who isn't getting his own way. I think also that knights fans are starting to wise up to this too. This is an excellent opportunity for the Knights IMO, to build their fan base, increase exposures and to take the club forward. The time to discuss all these commercials was at the meetings which he was invited to. There is a professionalism that is lacking from the man. As to whether the McGills will sell up or not, I'm undecided. If there is a commercially sustainable future for YCFC I don't think they will. I'm pretty sure we won't see the debts racking up like we currently do, however. speaks99
  • Score: -7

12:15pm Sat 6 Sep 14

Justin7 says...

You're too late, Mang Nix. The conversation has been had, you lost. Everyone's moved on.
You're too late, Mang Nix. The conversation has been had, you lost. Everyone's moved on. Justin7
  • Score: -4

7:14pm Sat 6 Sep 14

non pedalling pete says...

non pedalling pete wrote:
Anyone who wants to know what J.G is really like do a little research on the former Promenade W.M.C.
I take it nobody is interested as to why the Promenade working mens club is no more and J.G's part in its demise.
[quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: Anyone who wants to know what J.G is really like do a little research on the former Promenade W.M.C.[/p][/quote]I take it nobody is interested as to why the Promenade working mens club is no more and J.G's part in its demise. non pedalling pete
  • Score: -10

7:52pm Sat 6 Sep 14

Tug job says...

non pedalling pete wrote:
non pedalling pete wrote:
Anyone who wants to know what J.G is really like do a little research on the former Promenade W.M.C.
I take it nobody is interested as to why the Promenade working mens club is no more and J.G's part in its demise.
Is it because, after shafting them, JG couldn't get the planning permission for the scale of development he wanted, so he just let the site become derelict? I thought his pal Laverack's partnership had taken it off his hands? For those commenting Bar 13 isn't big enough (despite the fact it advertises it can accommodate "capacity-busting partes"!) all the more important to throw your support behind a development that includes an extended function suite. The Council will be paying for the Knights to play at BC, so no reason for the club not to be signing up its talent for next season as a reward for their performances this season.
[quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: Anyone who wants to know what J.G is really like do a little research on the former Promenade W.M.C.[/p][/quote]I take it nobody is interested as to why the Promenade working mens club is no more and J.G's part in its demise.[/p][/quote]Is it because, after shafting them, JG couldn't get the planning permission for the scale of development he wanted, so he just let the site become derelict? I thought his pal Laverack's partnership had taken it off his hands? For those commenting Bar 13 isn't big enough (despite the fact it advertises it can accommodate "capacity-busting partes"!) all the more important to throw your support behind a development that includes an extended function suite. The Council will be paying for the Knights to play at BC, so no reason for the club not to be signing up its talent for next season as a reward for their performances this season. Tug job
  • Score: -11

12:46pm Sun 7 Sep 14

mang nix says...

Justin7 wrote:
You're too late, Mang Nix. The conversation has been had, you lost. Everyone's moved on.
everyone ??? there is only a dozen on here. sorry i did'nt know you were in control of the conversations on here, is this how ycfc will run the stadium i wonder. oh eck i've lost again, sob.
[quote][p][bold]Justin7[/bold] wrote: You're too late, Mang Nix. The conversation has been had, you lost. Everyone's moved on.[/p][/quote]everyone ??? there is only a dozen on here. sorry i did'nt know you were in control of the conversations on here, is this how ycfc will run the stadium i wonder. oh eck i've lost again, sob. mang nix
  • Score: 9

8:41am Tue 9 Sep 14

york central says...

I see the houses on St.Benedicts Road are now completed and sold.
What ever did happen to the Promenade Club ?
I was under the impression that a small club was going to be built under a redevelopment plan.
Maybe John could en-lighten people what happened with that.
I see the houses on St.Benedicts Road are now completed and sold. What ever did happen to the Promenade Club ? I was under the impression that a small club was going to be built under a redevelopment plan. Maybe John could en-lighten people what happened with that. york central
  • Score: -9
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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