Focus on the facts (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Focus on the facts
11:34am Saturday 28th January 2012 in Letters By Reader's letter
The letter from Kevin Hollinrake of Hunters in yesterday’s paper did make me chuckle.
He appears to go to great pains to begin by saying his letter is not about him being selfish and just worried about his own business.
Why would Hunters waste so much money on offices in prime locations if no one visited them?
Does Mr Hollinrake have any evidential figures to back up his claims regarding jobs?
When the Trafford Centre opened in Manchester were jobs lost elsewhere?
When the White Rose Centre opened in Leeds were jobs lost elsewhere?
No! This is just scaremongering from yet another city trader. Focus on the facts.
Phil Seymour, Pinewood Grove, York.
Comments(25)
nickeggleton
says...
4:48pm Sat 28 Jan 12
I'm not sure if you can use them as a comparison.
But I'll give you one case that might be.
When Meadowhall opened jobs were lost in Sheffield city centre as businesses closed.
It took decades to recover.
That's a fact Mr Seymour.
I read the letter and assumed Mr Holirake has seen the York Civic Trust research.
That's the evidence you are asking about.
You haven't used any facts, just raised a query. Implying something isn't the same as proving it.
All you've done is defame another honest concern.
speaks99
says...
7:19pm Sat 28 Jan 12
1) the sample size (100 or so) is far too small to make any meaningful conclusion.
2) A 15% (or so) response rate - clearly not many people thought the matter important enough to reply.
3) Heavily leading questions makes the whole thing obsolete anyway.
Try again.
speaks99
says...
7:30pm Sat 28 Jan 12
The Great Buda
says...
9:35pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Thanks for that. Really, thanks.
nickeggleton
says...
9:38pm Sat 28 Jan 12
I commented. End of.
That research is evidence. Whether you like it or not.
I think 100 small businesses is a good sample.
You say 'leading question'. I say unambiguous.
e.g.
What would the effect on your business be if you lose revenue of
A) 5%
B) 10%
C) 15%
100 businesses said if the GVA report estimate of 15-17% of revenue was lost that 500ish jobs would be lost.
Multiplying that by the number of businesses in the city centre = 3600.
Re OOT shopping:
If you (can) read the comment again, I say 'I'm not sure you can use them as a comparison'.
He obv can't supply any facts re Leeds or Manc, but it's well documented about Meadowhall.
Meadowhall is 3 times bigger than the proposed expansions of MX. 1.5m sq ft.
But then Sheffield is 3 times the size of York. 600,000.
Those are facts btw. I checked on Wikipedia.
So, what's your point again?
Sarah York
says...
9:41pm Sat 28 Jan 12
speaks99
says...
10:21pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Which town are you going to compare us to next. So far we've had Castleford and Sheffield. Neither is a fair nor valid comparison.
For every Meadowhall I could give you a dozen successful examples:
Trafford Centre
White Rose
Cheshire Oaks
Metro Centre
Re York Civic Trust research.
100 odd responses is embarrassing and far too small to make valid conclusions.You're friend Septimus talks about common sense. It doesn't take much to pick holes in this research.
Something for you to think about. The full sample was 700 odd questionnaires. Why did they send out a letter rather than speak to the businesses face to face. Is it:
A) because they knew that the only businesses who would return the questionnaire were the ones who would hurt the most?
or
B) Because they knew that if they had more than the odd hundred responses that the actual picture would be quite different?
It would have taken all of a couple of days on the phone, or a week or so if they'd gone to these businesses face to face. Either way the response rate would have been so much bigger.
You say the question isn't suggestive. I say that with that wording the only responses they would get would be from the supporting traders who fear the development.
You got one thing right - it is research, just not credible research...
Septimius Severus
says...
11:06pm Sat 28 Jan 12
That makes 480,000 plus the existing 120,000. Is that closer to 500,000 you need to shut you up?
And he didn't raise 'big' towns out of town retail the letter writer did.
He was providing an example toshow the writer where he was going wrong with his argument.
Let him who is without sin and all that.
Typical of you lot to jump down his throat with out understanding the point.
My understanding of why the research was done by post was to provide written evidence. Rather than hearsay.
I can imagine you lot saying, "they say they rang / knocked on the door of 700 businesses, but where's the proof."
And as for your idea of questioning..
How would you like the question phrased?
"How do you think 15% shaved off your revenue will affect the number of people you employ? Good or bad?"
I think they should call every one.
Maybe they thought this was urgent.
Maybe they don't have £100m profit lined up to make it worth it.
Are you gonna pay for it?
NB. The letter asks for evidence. It is evidence. Evidence that you can mock, but still incontovertible fact.
Unlike the letter writer's assignation.
Unlike your protestations.
The Great Buda
says...
11:11pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Septimius Severus
says...
11:32pm Sat 28 Jan 12
I've only called a 'spade a spade' when necessary based on intelligence and blinkered if not facist ideas.
A 'stooge' is a stooge.
A 'deluded fantasist' equally.
The 'selfish, ignorant and patronising' equally valid.
'Traders have been called 'feral', 'greedy', 'scaremongers'.
I've been called a bully. Yet am bullied at every turn.
Nick has been libelled. Properly defamed. So has Adam.
Their crime is not hiding behind anonymity like us cowards.
There's a big difference between calling someone something terrible and labelling their actions as terrible.
(Oh. And a drinker isn't necessarily a drunk.)
The Great Buda
says...
11:50pm Sat 28 Jan 12
To do otherwise is indeed an insult.
speaks99
says...
8:40am Sun 29 Jan 12
Perhaps we could look at it another way. Only 14% business bothered to reply suggesting that 86% don't think their business will be affected at all. Lets use that figure and multiply it out amongst the number of retail businesses in York. Not looking too scary now is it? But you'll complain that this figure too is biased and I would agree, yet the same principle applies.
The question posed only invites negative responses, so in that respect the question is highly leading.
Secondly, not all businesses will be affected by the proposed development, so by multiplying the result by the number of businesses in the centre of York (as per NE post above), again, is strongly misleading.
Urgency isn't an excuse. Its better to get meaningful information a week later than to get highly skewed data immediately. I could have some respect for their data if they had gone about this properly, but they haven't so I don't.
Nick Eggleton first says that you can't compare against Manchester and Leeds. Then says you can compare against Sheffield. What makes Sheffield different that draws a comparison, other than it fits your little example? If you are going to make arguments please make good ones, this debate is getting too easy.
speaks99
says...
8:52am Sun 29 Jan 12
Both expansions are independent of one another. We were talking of the Oakgate proposal. Why bring the second expansion into the debate, other than to try and scaremonger further. But I take your point - he did say expansions (pl). Well done. Both points are equally valid. Only mine has a bearing on the debate.
Septimius Severus
says...
10:17am Sun 29 Jan 12
I took that as meaning 'if you bandy OOT malls without backing up your 'facts' you won't like the 'fact' that Meadowhall disproves your assertions.'
I suspect that was the point. To discredit the points made by Seymour.
But I'm guessing.
Re 'Stooges'. No-one is denying it!
speaks99
says...
10:27am Sun 29 Jan 12
Just because I choose to not get involved in the petty name calling doesn't make it true.
speaks99
says...
10:33am Sun 29 Jan 12
I took that as meaning 'if you bandy OOT malls without backing up your 'facts' you won't like the 'fact' that Meadowhall disproves your assertions."
Nick said you can't compare some examples of OOT retail with York, then... Goes and compares an example of OOT retail with York. Either you can or you can't, and like I said in a later post, there are far more examples of success stories than of the one failure you've mentioned. You can look that up.
If you have to draw a comparison the closest I can think of would probably be Chester who have Cheshire Oaks on their doorstep. They haven't been decimated like you predict for York.
nickeggleton
says...
5:22pm Sun 29 Jan 12
ronicle.co.uk/cheste
r-news/local-chester
-news/2011/12/15/que
en-of-shops-mary-por
tas-backs-bid-to-att
ract-shoppers-to-che
ster-59067-29955671/
Great example. Thanks.
speaks99
says...
5:33pm Sun 29 Jan 12
nickeggleton wrote:Read the last two paragraphs of that report. 8% vacancy rates, national average 14%. So yes, looks a pretty good example to me.
http://www.chesterch
ronicle.co.uk/cheste
r-news/local-chester
-news/2011/12/15/que
en-of-shops-mary-por
tas-backs-bid-to-att
ract-shoppers-to-che
ster-59067-29955671/
Great example. Thanks.
speaks99
says...
6:35pm Sun 29 Jan 12
The Great Buda
says...
6:58pm Sun 29 Jan 12
speaks99 wrote:Its very good of Nick to provide some good evidence to why this development should go ahead. Its good to see he has finally come round to the positive way of thinking. Long may it continue.
nickeggleton wrote:Read the last two paragraphs of that report. 8% vacancy rates, national average 14%. So yes, looks a pretty good example to me.
http://www.chesterch
ronicle.co.uk/cheste
r-news/local-chester
-news/2011/12/15/que
en-of-shops-mary-por
tas-backs-bid-to-att
ract-shoppers-to-che
ster-59067-29955671/
Great example. Thanks.
Septimius Severus
says...
7:06pm Sun 29 Jan 12
Other than Cheshire Oaks which is equivalent to DO (same company), what other OOT retail is there at Chester.
They have Broughton Retail Park(298,00sqft) which is equivalent to Clifton Moor.
They don't have MX 1 (120,000 sq ft) and they don't have an MX2 of another 220,000 sq ft.
Lets compare apples with apples shall we.
speaks99
says...
7:46pm Sun 29 Jan 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Nope - I go to show the report proves that OOT retail isn't all bad - if it was empty shop rates would have been much higher than 8%.
So you quote Chester and Nick shows you a press report that all is not hunky dory and then you dis it. Typical.
Other than Cheshire Oaks which is equivalent to DO (same company), what other OOT retail is there at Chester.
They have Broughton Retail Park(298,00sqft) which is equivalent to Clifton Moor.
They don't have MX 1 (120,000 sq ft) and they don't have an MX2 of another 220,000 sq ft.
Lets compare apples with apples shall we.
It's impossible to compare like for like as there is no such thing as identikit towns. I provided the example of Chester as I felt there situation is very similar to ours. Chester also has a lower population than York, so again, you can't compare one with the other perfectly. My original point was that of one town where they manage to work side by side. Point proved I would say.
speaks99
says...
9:33pm Sun 29 Jan 12
ronicle.co.uk/cheste
r-news/local-chester
-news/2010/02/02/wor
k-to-begin-on-cheshi
re-oaks-flagship-mar
ks-and-spencer-store
-59067-25745038/
Sounds familiar?
Read the last paragraph.
Septimius Severus
says...
11:43pm Sun 29 Jan 12
That's the point.
You say potato I say tomato.
York is different and therefore can not be compared.
A point Mr Seymour misses.
nickeggleton
says...
10:44pm Mon 30 Jan 12
Thomas Fruit wrote:Fruittom, you really are offensive.
I wish this city had more Phil Seymours, a great guy who has given loads of his time to benefit the city, and less vacuous self-serving Leeds-loving pseudo-entrepreneurs like Eggleton.
This is another example of your malicious, abusive and damaging posts.
Coward.
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with