Council and York City in community stadium rent rise deadlock

York Press: Artist's impression of the planned community stadium Artist's impression of the planned community stadium

YORK’S community stadium project has been hit by a rent deadlock between council bosses and the city’s football club.

York City FC has said City of York Council has proposed raising the annual rent the Minstermen would pay at the new £19 million Monks Cross stadium, to be shared with York City Knights, which the club has not agreed to.

It comes as a council report warned of a risk over the scheme’s affordability if the two clubs refuse rent deals to provide a “realistic income”.

It said this could lead to firms bidding to design, build and operate the stadium – due for completion at the start of 2016 after a series of delays – pulling out or the council having to pay more towards its running costs.

In a business case for the project produced last year, seen by The Press, City’s proposed annual rent was £125,000. Commercial confidentiality rules mean the precise increase sought by the council, which is providing £4 million towards the scheme, has not been confirmed.

City are contributing £350,000 to the project, with developers The Oakgate Group providing £13.75 million after securing approval for a neighbouring shopping complex.

Stadium project manager Tim Atkins said rent levels for City and the Knights were “under final discussion” and their arrangements would “provide security for the clubs, the council and operators” while equally sharing any risks. He said the project had no funding gap and two bidders have been invited to produce final detailed plans for the stadium.

Sophie Hicks, City’s communications and community director, said: “As City of York Council states, rental agreement for the community stadium has yet to be reached with York City Football Club, and this important issue is still under discussion.

“The proposed rental figure for the football club has increased since the business plan was presented in May 2012. Clearly, as custodians of York City Football Club, the board cannot commit to any arrangement which does not benefit the club for the long-term.

“Discussions are ongoing and I am sure a compromise will be reached.”

The “corporate risk” council report said rent levels currently being discussed were affordable for the clubs and allowed stadium bidders to meet targets, but would not cover running costs. Mr Atkins said: “The bidders are comfortable with this, as it has always been the case.

“The stadium offers the bidders a number of commercial opportunities they can develop in order to make it commercially viable for them.”

The council said the risk identified in the report remained “live” until agreements with the clubs were finalised and became legally binding.

Conservative group leader Coun Ian Gillies said the comments in the report justified his "long-held criticism regarding the continued lack of a professional business plan" for the stadium project.

"The ability of the football and rugby clubs to fund a commercial rent should have been established at an early stage, and the fact affordability targets are only now being mentioned gives cause for concern that the council's Labour administration are now looking for a withdrawal strategy," he said.

Coun Sonja Crisp, cabinet member for leisure, culture and tourism, said: "The project is well on track and nothing Coun Gillies can say now or in the future to try and derail it will stop it progressing. 

"There is an element of risk in any major project, but I'm pleased to see officers continue to use their expertise to identify and manage effectively any possible risks to this development so that we can move it forward with confidence. We're at an exciting part of the procurement process for the community stadium and, with each step the project takes, it makes Conservative opposition all the more pointless".

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:26am Fri 8 Nov 13

Micklegate says...

What is the 'commerciral confidentiality' of not revealing the increase? If it was say £5,000 increase is anyone really going to say wait a minute I will go out and build YCFC a stadium and only give them a £4,000 increase?
What is the 'commerciral confidentiality' of not revealing the increase? If it was say £5,000 increase is anyone really going to say wait a minute I will go out and build YCFC a stadium and only give them a £4,000 increase? Micklegate

9:30am Fri 8 Nov 13

The Great Buda says...

Once again the Athletics Club and the Rugby club don't get their voice heard. Or for that matter the NHS who will have a drop-in centre based on the site.

Why are the Press not giving them a voice in this? Its not just the Football Club who will benefit from this. This development will help bring sport in York into the 21st century, get it built.
Once again the Athletics Club and the Rugby club don't get their voice heard. Or for that matter the NHS who will have a drop-in centre based on the site. Why are the Press not giving them a voice in this? Its not just the Football Club who will benefit from this. This development will help bring sport in York into the 21st century, get it built. The Great Buda

9:50am Fri 8 Nov 13

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

Once AGAIN the council thrown the spanner in. Instead of 'All about the Money', can you not actually just let things happen, let the stadium get built.

The Great Buda - 1) Rugby did get mentioned 2) No one cares about the drop in centre, its not the 1st thing that comes to mind when I'm looking for places to go to be very honest.
Once AGAIN the council thrown the spanner in. Instead of 'All about the Money', can you not actually just let things happen, let the stadium get built. The Great Buda - 1) Rugby did get mentioned 2) No one cares about the drop in centre, its not the 1st thing that comes to mind when I'm looking for places to go to be very honest. pbrowne2009@live.co.uk

10:39am Fri 8 Nov 13

jcyorkie10 says...

Just build it, look at Rotherham and Chesterfield and the facilities they now have, York city council managed to waste millions building the new council offices, thousands of away supporters travel to York and spend money in York every season so why nail the club to the floor, they show be encouraging the club to go forward not kick it back at every opportunity.
Just build it, look at Rotherham and Chesterfield and the facilities they now have, York city council managed to waste millions building the new council offices, thousands of away supporters travel to York and spend money in York every season so why nail the club to the floor, they show be encouraging the club to go forward not kick it back at every opportunity. jcyorkie10

10:45am Fri 8 Nov 13

OLD - HEAD says...

Nothing seems to run smooth regarding the new Community Stadium, the Council never seem to be happy. Perhaps as a gesture we should all agree to drive over Lendal Bridge on our way to the match.
Nothing seems to run smooth regarding the new Community Stadium, the Council never seem to be happy. Perhaps as a gesture we should all agree to drive over Lendal Bridge on our way to the match. OLD - HEAD

11:08am Fri 8 Nov 13

osbaldwicklane says...

If the council had classed the away team and its supporters as tourist,s , it would have been built now .
If the council had classed the away team and its supporters as tourist,s , it would have been built now . osbaldwicklane

11:10am Fri 8 Nov 13

The Great Buda says...

osbaldwicklane wrote:
If the council had classed the away team and its supporters as tourist,s , it would have been built now .
Ain't that the truth.
[quote][p][bold]osbaldwicklane[/bold] wrote: If the council had classed the away team and its supporters as tourist,s , it would have been built now .[/p][/quote]Ain't that the truth. The Great Buda

11:44am Fri 8 Nov 13

Garrowby Turnoff says...

The Great Buda wrote:
osbaldwicklane wrote:
If the council had classed the away team and its supporters as tourist,s , it would have been built now .
Ain't that the truth.
Surely visiting fans to the new stadium won't bother coming into town. York's tourist numbers is unaffected by a few hundred travelling fans who'll head off down the A64 after the final whistle. This squabbling is par for the course when £20million is being spent. Just wish it would hurry up and I see it happen in my lifespan!
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]osbaldwicklane[/bold] wrote: If the council had classed the away team and its supporters as tourist,s , it would have been built now .[/p][/quote]Ain't that the truth.[/p][/quote]Surely visiting fans to the new stadium won't bother coming into town. York's tourist numbers is unaffected by a few hundred travelling fans who'll head off down the A64 after the final whistle. This squabbling is par for the course when £20million is being spent. Just wish it would hurry up and I see it happen in my lifespan! Garrowby Turnoff

12:39pm Fri 8 Nov 13

calmdownyork says...

The fundamental problem here is the procurement process. Expecting any private sector company to design, build and operate a stadium is unrealistic. Adding the requirement to operate several unrelated swimming pools and gyms is just bonkers. Stop saddling the project with the need for efficiencies in other areas of leisure services. It's unconnected!

It's not rocket science. Just use the cash in the bank to get the thing built then let the clubs run the stadium themselves. Given the freedom to capitalise on the new facilities, the clubs will easily afford any realistic rent.

The more this drags on, the more it costs the taxpayer. Get the spades out and start digging some foundations, not a bigger hole.
The fundamental problem here is the procurement process. Expecting any private sector company to design, build and operate a stadium is unrealistic. Adding the requirement to operate several unrelated swimming pools and gyms is just bonkers. Stop saddling the project with the need for efficiencies in other areas of leisure services. It's unconnected! It's not rocket science. Just use the cash in the bank to get the thing built then let the clubs run the stadium themselves. Given the freedom to capitalise on the new facilities, the clubs will easily afford any realistic rent. The more this drags on, the more it costs the taxpayer. Get the spades out and start digging some foundations, not a bigger hole. calmdownyork

12:47pm Fri 8 Nov 13

greenmonkey says...

Evidently the council is trying to avoid another Barbican fiasco by hiving off responsibility for the sports facilities and pools to a private operator. They wont want to take the risk unless they can see a fair return on their commitment, and fall back options if YFC cant pay their way.
Evidently the council is trying to avoid another Barbican fiasco by hiving off responsibility for the sports facilities and pools to a private operator. They wont want to take the risk unless they can see a fair return on their commitment, and fall back options if YFC cant pay their way. greenmonkey

12:47pm Fri 8 Nov 13

greenmonkey says...

Evidently the council is trying to avoid another Barbican fiasco by hiving off responsibility for the sports facilities and pools to a private operator. They wont want to take the risk unless they can see a fair return on their commitment, and fall back options if YFC cant pay their way.
Evidently the council is trying to avoid another Barbican fiasco by hiving off responsibility for the sports facilities and pools to a private operator. They wont want to take the risk unless they can see a fair return on their commitment, and fall back options if YFC cant pay their way. greenmonkey

12:52pm Fri 8 Nov 13

ColdAsChristmas says...

CoYC couldn't run a booze up in an Athletics stadium, ain't that the truth.
More wasted money and just like Wembley and Manchester City, we lose a track facility. Don't tell me about relocation, this stadium was long fought for with hard earned money so that this would be the Athletics facility for York. Only football and oddballs at CoYC have a problem with that.
CoYC couldn't run a booze up in an Athletics stadium, ain't that the truth. More wasted money and just like Wembley and Manchester City, we lose a track facility. Don't tell me about relocation, this stadium was long fought for with hard earned money so that this would be the Athletics facility for York. Only football and oddballs at CoYC have a problem with that. ColdAsChristmas

1:03pm Fri 8 Nov 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Coun Sonja Crisp. cabinet member for leisure, culture and tourism, said: "The project is well on track and nothing Coun Gillies can say now or in the future to try and derail it will stop it progressing.

Or is that Coun Gypsy Rose Crisp, anything you say in the future.

You have not answered the point raised by Gillies, just the usual defensive rant that demonstrates weak understanding of the issue.

Can our football and rugby clubs fund a commercial rent?.

Move it forward with confidence, finish on time but can the rent be paid?.

Stop the naughty boy responses, listen to the question and give answers that are verifiable based on fact.
Coun Sonja Crisp. cabinet member for leisure, culture and tourism, said: "The project is well on track and nothing Coun Gillies can say now or in the future to try and derail it will stop it progressing. Or is that Coun Gypsy Rose Crisp, anything you say in the future. You have not answered the point raised by Gillies, just the usual defensive rant that demonstrates weak understanding of the issue. Can our football and rugby clubs fund a commercial rent?. Move it forward with confidence, finish on time but can the rent be paid?. Stop the naughty boy responses, listen to the question and give answers that are verifiable based on fact. YOUWILLDOASISAY

1:05pm Fri 8 Nov 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Coun Sonja Crisp. cabinet member for leisure, culture and tourism, said: "The project is well on track and nothing Coun Gillies can say now or in the future to try and derail it will stop it progressing.

Or is that Coun Gypsy Rose Crisp, anything you say in the future.

You have not answered the point raised by Gillies, just the usual defensive rant that demonstrates weak understanding of the issue.

Can our football and rugby clubs fund a commercial rent?.

Move it forward with confidence, finish on time but can the rent be paid?.

Stop the naughty boy responses, listen to the question and give answers that are verifiable and based on fact.
Coun Sonja Crisp. cabinet member for leisure, culture and tourism, said: "The project is well on track and nothing Coun Gillies can say now or in the future to try and derail it will stop it progressing. Or is that Coun Gypsy Rose Crisp, anything you say in the future. You have not answered the point raised by Gillies, just the usual defensive rant that demonstrates weak understanding of the issue. Can our football and rugby clubs fund a commercial rent?. Move it forward with confidence, finish on time but can the rent be paid?. Stop the naughty boy responses, listen to the question and give answers that are verifiable and based on fact. YOUWILLDOASISAY

1:10pm Fri 8 Nov 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Whoops, double posting, Sorry.
Whoops, double posting, Sorry. YOUWILLDOASISAY

1:13pm Fri 8 Nov 13

Dr Brian says...

Alexander and his mob proving yet again everything they touch turns to sawdust, Gillies scaremongering. Surely York must have the worst political party"leaders" in the country.

Can anybody remind me why the rugby team and their 3 or 400 supporters should have any say in this stadium? It is not as if they are investing anything into the funding of the facility. At least York City ARE putting funds into the building, so why should they have to pay more in rent? If there is a shortfall in funds perhaps the York City Knights scroungers should meet this with increased rent?.
Alexander and his mob proving yet again everything they touch turns to sawdust, Gillies scaremongering. Surely York must have the worst political party"leaders" in the country. Can anybody remind me why the rugby team and their 3 or 400 supporters should have any say in this stadium? It is not as if they are investing anything into the funding of the facility. At least York City ARE putting funds into the building, so why should they have to pay more in rent? If there is a shortfall in funds perhaps the York City Knights scroungers should meet this with increased rent?. Dr Brian

3:08pm Fri 8 Nov 13

piemagico says...

I'm a football fan but follow a different club (home & away).

I have to say that YCFC seem to be getting a pretty amazing deal out of this. £350k out of a £19m cost is really a token amount. There are not many football clubs that get this level of financial support from their council (and let's be clear that Oakgate's £14m was there for the council to direct towards whatever project they wanted).

I would have thought that anything up to £200k rent would be reasonable. I'm not expecting to win a popularity contest here.
I'm a football fan but follow a different club (home & away). I have to say that YCFC seem to be getting a pretty amazing deal out of this. £350k out of a £19m cost is really a token amount. There are not many football clubs that get this level of financial support from their council (and let's be clear that Oakgate's £14m was there for the council to direct towards whatever project they wanted). I would have thought that anything up to £200k rent would be reasonable. I'm not expecting to win a popularity contest here. piemagico

3:39pm Fri 8 Nov 13

yorkonafork says...

calmdownyork wrote:
The fundamental problem here is the procurement process. Expecting any private sector company to design, build and operate a stadium is unrealistic. Adding the requirement to operate several unrelated swimming pools and gyms is just bonkers. Stop saddling the project with the need for efficiencies in other areas of leisure services. It's unconnected!

It's not rocket science. Just use the cash in the bank to get the thing built then let the clubs run the stadium themselves. Given the freedom to capitalise on the new facilities, the clubs will easily afford any realistic rent.

The more this drags on, the more it costs the taxpayer. Get the spades out and start digging some foundations, not a bigger hole.
You're right in the fact that the procurement process and the need for one company to operate not just this but other venues as well is a carry on, but they're after a 'joint bid' for the design, build and operation process not necessarrily just one company doing it all. Joe Blog's Builders LTD aren't needing anything to do with the operation, they will build it and that's that, but there is some strange need for their bid to come in toe with 2 other factors in getting this stadium up and running. Why is anyone's guess.
[quote][p][bold]calmdownyork[/bold] wrote: The fundamental problem here is the procurement process. Expecting any private sector company to design, build and operate a stadium is unrealistic. Adding the requirement to operate several unrelated swimming pools and gyms is just bonkers. Stop saddling the project with the need for efficiencies in other areas of leisure services. It's unconnected! It's not rocket science. Just use the cash in the bank to get the thing built then let the clubs run the stadium themselves. Given the freedom to capitalise on the new facilities, the clubs will easily afford any realistic rent. The more this drags on, the more it costs the taxpayer. Get the spades out and start digging some foundations, not a bigger hole.[/p][/quote]You're right in the fact that the procurement process and the need for one company to operate not just this but other venues as well is a carry on, but they're after a 'joint bid' for the design, build and operation process not necessarrily just one company doing it all. Joe Blog's Builders LTD aren't needing anything to do with the operation, they will build it and that's that, but there is some strange need for their bid to come in toe with 2 other factors in getting this stadium up and running. Why is anyone's guess. yorkonafork

4:38pm Fri 8 Nov 13

ColdAsChristmas says...

Dr Brian, why shouldn't York City Knights have a say on the matter. Ryedale / Huntington Stadium was the home of the Knights and Athletics as a multi use Community stadium. It was never anything to do with York City FC and I fail to see where the community come into it.
Now the Council and Football seem to think as you Dr Brian that only football counts. This year we have several athletes who are reigning Olympic and world champions, we even have a reigning world Speedway champion. As for football, it's a long way back to 1966.
Why does over hyped football need a leg up.?
Dr Brian, why shouldn't York City Knights have a say on the matter. Ryedale / Huntington Stadium was the home of the Knights and Athletics as a multi use Community stadium. It was never anything to do with York City FC and I fail to see where the community come into it. Now the Council and Football seem to think as you Dr Brian that only football counts. This year we have several athletes who are reigning Olympic and world champions, we even have a reigning world Speedway champion. As for football, it's a long way back to 1966. Why does over hyped football need a leg up.? ColdAsChristmas

4:43pm Fri 8 Nov 13

TheTruthHurts says...

It is supposed to be getting closer but lets be honest we are no closer to having a community stadium than we were 6 months ago.
It is supposed to be getting closer but lets be honest we are no closer to having a community stadium than we were 6 months ago. TheTruthHurts

5:55pm Fri 8 Nov 13

topumpire1 says...

Once again the cYc is showing their true colours, they care little for the sports clubs & their fans or indeed the population of the city, all they want is the money, the income from tourists & the clubs, I thought that the deal for the Monks Cross development WAS dependent upon the community stadium & NOT the other way round! Or was that just a ploy to get more shops & more income for the cYc. Also, wasn't part of the deal that the FC (& RLFC) paid into the building pot (from the sale of Bootham Crescent) in return for a long lease at a peppercorn rent.
Once again the cYc is showing their true colours, they care little for the sports clubs & their fans or indeed the population of the city, all they want is the money, the income from tourists & the clubs, I thought that the deal for the Monks Cross development WAS dependent upon the community stadium & NOT the other way round! Or was that just a ploy to get more shops & more income for the cYc. Also, wasn't part of the deal that the FC (& RLFC) paid into the building pot (from the sale of Bootham Crescent) in return for a long lease at a peppercorn rent. topumpire1

5:58pm Fri 8 Nov 13

topumpire1 says...

Once again the cYc is showing their true colours, they care little for the sports clubs & their fans or indeed the population of the city, all they want is the money, the income from tourists & the clubs, I thought that the deal for the Monks Cross development WAS dependent upon the community stadium & NOT the other way round! Or was that just a ploy to get more shops & more income for the cYc. Also, wasn't part of the deal that the FC (& RLFC) paid into the building pot (from the sale of Bootham Crescent) in return for a long lease at a peppercorn rent.
Once again the cYc is showing their true colours, they care little for the sports clubs & their fans or indeed the population of the city, all they want is the money, the income from tourists & the clubs, I thought that the deal for the Monks Cross development WAS dependent upon the community stadium & NOT the other way round! Or was that just a ploy to get more shops & more income for the cYc. Also, wasn't part of the deal that the FC (& RLFC) paid into the building pot (from the sale of Bootham Crescent) in return for a long lease at a peppercorn rent. topumpire1

6:18pm Fri 8 Nov 13

Alf Garnett says...

I fail to see why professional football should be subsidised at all. The premiership rakes in millions from rich overseas owners, many of whom made their money in odd ways, from SKY, BT and others and spends it on its vastly overpaid players. Very little percolates down. A massive reform is needed for the good of the whole game. Thirty years ago I lived a few doors away from a second division footballer in a small semi detached house. I don't suppose that many Championship players live in modest semis today. As for York City, admirable they may be but how many actually beat a path to their door for home games ? More people support York Minster in a month than York City - York Minster receives absolutely no subsidy from anywhere for day to day running, salaries and energy use. Lottery funding has to be matched pound for pound, so little compensation there.
I fail to see why professional football should be subsidised at all. The premiership rakes in millions from rich overseas owners, many of whom made their money in odd ways, from SKY, BT and others and spends it on its vastly overpaid players. Very little percolates down. A massive reform is needed for the good of the whole game. Thirty years ago I lived a few doors away from a second division footballer in a small semi detached house. I don't suppose that many Championship players live in modest semis today. As for York City, admirable they may be but how many actually beat a path to their door for home games ? More people support York Minster in a month than York City - York Minster receives absolutely no subsidy from anywhere for day to day running, salaries and energy use. Lottery funding has to be matched pound for pound, so little compensation there. Alf Garnett

6:44pm Fri 8 Nov 13

CaroleBaines says...

Nothing new here. Stead doing the usual making a story out of not a great deal and Gillies doing, I guess, what one would expect from an opposition leader - making hay.

Will blow over and compromise reached. Stead needs to find a job he is good at.
Nothing new here. Stead doing the usual making a story out of not a great deal and Gillies doing, I guess, what one would expect from an opposition leader - making hay. Will blow over and compromise reached. Stead needs to find a job he is good at. CaroleBaines

7:12pm Fri 8 Nov 13

23rdApril1966 says...

I read on the Internet that Chesterfield's new ground was built at a cost of circa £13m and has a capacity of 10,400. Similarly Rotherham's new ground - the ironically named New York Stadium - was built at a cost of circa £20m and has a capacity of 12,000.
Having visited both then I have no doubt that any City follower would be blown away by such an outcome for YCFC. So why a spend of £19m for a 6,000 capacity?
I have posed this question before and so apologies for the repetition but just exactly does Ian McAndrew do in all of this? For all I know he may work every waking hour on the project, but on the 3 or 4 occasions per season that he pens the Director's article in the match day programme he says absolutely nothing. And I mean nothing. So can anybody shed any light for me?
Having been a supporter since 66 I sincerely hope that I am wrong but the best I can see us getting is a soulless Glanford Park / Deva Stadium, all bleak breeze block. I still have a real concern that this move will ever come off. Both Chesterfield and Rotherham's moves were made in a fraction of the time that this has been being discussed, God even the newts seem against the move.
I really hope I'm wrong.
I read on the Internet that Chesterfield's new ground was built at a cost of circa £13m and has a capacity of 10,400. Similarly Rotherham's new ground - the ironically named New York Stadium - was built at a cost of circa £20m and has a capacity of 12,000. Having visited both then I have no doubt that any City follower would be blown away by such an outcome for YCFC. So why a spend of £19m for a 6,000 capacity? I have posed this question before and so apologies for the repetition but just exactly does Ian McAndrew do in all of this? For all I know he may work every waking hour on the project, but on the 3 or 4 occasions per season that he pens the Director's article in the match day programme he says absolutely nothing. And I mean nothing. So can anybody shed any light for me? Having been a supporter since 66 I sincerely hope that I am wrong but the best I can see us getting is a soulless Glanford Park / Deva Stadium, all bleak breeze block. I still have a real concern that this move will ever come off. Both Chesterfield and Rotherham's moves were made in a fraction of the time that this has been being discussed, God even the newts seem against the move. I really hope I'm wrong. 23rdApril1966

7:21pm Fri 8 Nov 13

uhtred says...

The major risk is the cost of building the stadium, cots for major projects always seem to be underestimated. As I understand it this risk is with the council, who will try to claw back any increase in cost through rent.
It should have been a condition of planning consent that the developers of the retail development built the stadium with agreed funding arrangements from the other funders. The developers must be laughing all the way to the bank taking a massive profit on the development ,but leaving the cost risk on the stadium to the council!!!!!!!!
The major risk is the cost of building the stadium, cots for major projects always seem to be underestimated. As I understand it this risk is with the council, who will try to claw back any increase in cost through rent. It should have been a condition of planning consent that the developers of the retail development built the stadium with agreed funding arrangements from the other funders. The developers must be laughing all the way to the bank taking a massive profit on the development ,but leaving the cost risk on the stadium to the council!!!!!!!! uhtred

10:30pm Fri 8 Nov 13

bill bailey says...

23rdApril1966 wrote:
I read on the Internet that Chesterfield's new ground was built at a cost of circa £13m and has a capacity of 10,400. Similarly Rotherham's new ground - the ironically named New York Stadium - was built at a cost of circa £20m and has a capacity of 12,000.
Having visited both then I have no doubt that any City follower would be blown away by such an outcome for YCFC. So why a spend of £19m for a 6,000 capacity?
I have posed this question before and so apologies for the repetition but just exactly does Ian McAndrew do in all of this? For all I know he may work every waking hour on the project, but on the 3 or 4 occasions per season that he pens the Director's article in the match day programme he says absolutely nothing. And I mean nothing. So can anybody shed any light for me?
Having been a supporter since 66 I sincerely hope that I am wrong but the best I can see us getting is a soulless Glanford Park / Deva Stadium, all bleak breeze block. I still have a real concern that this move will ever come off. Both Chesterfield and Rotherham's moves were made in a fraction of the time that this has been being discussed, God even the newts seem against the move.
I really hope I'm wrong.
ITS THE COUNCILS WAY OF abdicating their responsibility . They don't want it to be built, IF IT EVER GETS BUILT it should be a state of the ark ARTIFICAL PITCH, FIFA, UAFA. have now given the go ahead for countries to change these surfaces ( TWO CLUBS IN THE SCOTTISH LEAGUE) are already playing on them. There is a strong lobby in the FA that think within the next 5yrs there could be half the clubs in England playing on them. The present cost to install is approx. 800000k The advantages are many including one grounds man to service the pitch, FOOD FOR THOUGHT,
[quote][p][bold]23rdApril1966[/bold] wrote: I read on the Internet that Chesterfield's new ground was built at a cost of circa £13m and has a capacity of 10,400. Similarly Rotherham's new ground - the ironically named New York Stadium - was built at a cost of circa £20m and has a capacity of 12,000. Having visited both then I have no doubt that any City follower would be blown away by such an outcome for YCFC. So why a spend of £19m for a 6,000 capacity? I have posed this question before and so apologies for the repetition but just exactly does Ian McAndrew do in all of this? For all I know he may work every waking hour on the project, but on the 3 or 4 occasions per season that he pens the Director's article in the match day programme he says absolutely nothing. And I mean nothing. So can anybody shed any light for me? Having been a supporter since 66 I sincerely hope that I am wrong but the best I can see us getting is a soulless Glanford Park / Deva Stadium, all bleak breeze block. I still have a real concern that this move will ever come off. Both Chesterfield and Rotherham's moves were made in a fraction of the time that this has been being discussed, God even the newts seem against the move. I really hope I'm wrong.[/p][/quote]ITS THE COUNCILS WAY OF abdicating their responsibility . They don't want it to be built, IF IT EVER GETS BUILT it should be a state of the ark ARTIFICAL PITCH, FIFA, UAFA. have now given the go ahead for countries to change these surfaces ( TWO CLUBS IN THE SCOTTISH LEAGUE) are already playing on them. There is a strong lobby in the FA that think within the next 5yrs there could be half the clubs in England playing on them. The present cost to install is approx. 800000k The advantages are many including one grounds man to service the pitch, FOOD FOR THOUGHT, bill bailey

10:53pm Fri 8 Nov 13

23rdApril1966 says...

bill bailey wrote:
23rdApril1966 wrote:
I read on the Internet that Chesterfield's new ground was built at a cost of circa £13m and has a capacity of 10,400. Similarly Rotherham's new ground - the ironically named New York Stadium - was built at a cost of circa £20m and has a capacity of 12,000.
Having visited both then I have no doubt that any City follower would be blown away by such an outcome for YCFC. So why a spend of £19m for a 6,000 capacity?
I have posed this question before and so apologies for the repetition but just exactly does Ian McAndrew do in all of this? For all I know he may work every waking hour on the project, but on the 3 or 4 occasions per season that he pens the Director's article in the match day programme he says absolutely nothing. And I mean nothing. So can anybody shed any light for me?
Having been a supporter since 66 I sincerely hope that I am wrong but the best I can see us getting is a soulless Glanford Park / Deva Stadium, all bleak breeze block. I still have a real concern that this move will ever come off. Both Chesterfield and Rotherham's moves were made in a fraction of the time that this has been being discussed, God even the newts seem against the move.
I really hope I'm wrong.
ITS THE COUNCILS WAY OF abdicating their responsibility . They don't want it to be built, IF IT EVER GETS BUILT it should be a state of the ark ARTIFICAL PITCH, FIFA, UAFA. have now given the go ahead for countries to change these surfaces ( TWO CLUBS IN THE SCOTTISH LEAGUE) are already playing on them. There is a strong lobby in the FA that think within the next 5yrs there could be half the clubs in England playing on them. The present cost to install is approx. 800000k The advantages are many including one grounds man to service the pitch, FOOD FOR THOUGHT,
Sorry Bill moving from BC is tough enough to bear, playing on anything other than grass wouldn't float my boat. Grass for me please.
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]23rdApril1966[/bold] wrote: I read on the Internet that Chesterfield's new ground was built at a cost of circa £13m and has a capacity of 10,400. Similarly Rotherham's new ground - the ironically named New York Stadium - was built at a cost of circa £20m and has a capacity of 12,000. Having visited both then I have no doubt that any City follower would be blown away by such an outcome for YCFC. So why a spend of £19m for a 6,000 capacity? I have posed this question before and so apologies for the repetition but just exactly does Ian McAndrew do in all of this? For all I know he may work every waking hour on the project, but on the 3 or 4 occasions per season that he pens the Director's article in the match day programme he says absolutely nothing. And I mean nothing. So can anybody shed any light for me? Having been a supporter since 66 I sincerely hope that I am wrong but the best I can see us getting is a soulless Glanford Park / Deva Stadium, all bleak breeze block. I still have a real concern that this move will ever come off. Both Chesterfield and Rotherham's moves were made in a fraction of the time that this has been being discussed, God even the newts seem against the move. I really hope I'm wrong.[/p][/quote]ITS THE COUNCILS WAY OF abdicating their responsibility . They don't want it to be built, IF IT EVER GETS BUILT it should be a state of the ark ARTIFICAL PITCH, FIFA, UAFA. have now given the go ahead for countries to change these surfaces ( TWO CLUBS IN THE SCOTTISH LEAGUE) are already playing on them. There is a strong lobby in the FA that think within the next 5yrs there could be half the clubs in England playing on them. The present cost to install is approx. 800000k The advantages are many including one grounds man to service the pitch, FOOD FOR THOUGHT,[/p][/quote]Sorry Bill moving from BC is tough enough to bear, playing on anything other than grass wouldn't float my boat. Grass for me please. 23rdApril1966

1:08am Sat 9 Nov 13

ColdAsChristmas says...

When CoYC announced their new stadium Tzar, I believed it was to find a site for a new home for the short of finance York City.
All that has happened is the ruination of a stadium opened around 1989/ 1990 that is fit for purpose for what it was designed for. It also proved to be a sanctuary for York Rugby League.
Football comes along and takes control. Why can't the FA help out York City, they rake in £millions and put little back. /We saw what they did to Wembley. We ended up having to pay for a new Olympic stadium.
This project is a total disgrace and has not made sense from the start. The football club needed a new stadium, let them deal with it. Good grief, us council tax payers can't get our full green bins emptied, will have to deal with icy road, humps, 20mph on a good day and drive miles extra to cross the river. Wake up you people!!!!!!!!!
When CoYC announced their new stadium Tzar, I believed it was to find a site for a new home for the short of finance York City. All that has happened is the ruination of a stadium opened around 1989/ 1990 that is fit for purpose for what it was designed for. It also proved to be a sanctuary for York Rugby League. Football comes along and takes control. Why can't the FA help out York City, they rake in £millions and put little back. /We saw what they did to Wembley. We ended up having to pay for a new Olympic stadium. This project is a total disgrace and has not made sense from the start. The football club needed a new stadium, let them deal with it. Good grief, us council tax payers can't get our full green bins emptied, will have to deal with icy road, humps, 20mph on a good day and drive miles extra to cross the river. Wake up you people!!!!!!!!! ColdAsChristmas

8:53am Sat 9 Nov 13

bill bailey says...

23rdApril1966 wrote:
bill bailey wrote:
23rdApril1966 wrote:
I read on the Internet that Chesterfield's new ground was built at a cost of circa £13m and has a capacity of 10,400. Similarly Rotherham's new ground - the ironically named New York Stadium - was built at a cost of circa £20m and has a capacity of 12,000.
Having visited both then I have no doubt that any City follower would be blown away by such an outcome for YCFC. So why a spend of £19m for a 6,000 capacity?
I have posed this question before and so apologies for the repetition but just exactly does Ian McAndrew do in all of this? For all I know he may work every waking hour on the project, but on the 3 or 4 occasions per season that he pens the Director's article in the match day programme he says absolutely nothing. And I mean nothing. So can anybody shed any light for me?
Having been a supporter since 66 I sincerely hope that I am wrong but the best I can see us getting is a soulless Glanford Park / Deva Stadium, all bleak breeze block. I still have a real concern that this move will ever come off. Both Chesterfield and Rotherham's moves were made in a fraction of the time that this has been being discussed, God even the newts seem against the move.
I really hope I'm wrong.
ITS THE COUNCILS WAY OF abdicating their responsibility . They don't want it to be built, IF IT EVER GETS BUILT it should be a state of the ark ARTIFICAL PITCH, FIFA, UAFA. have now given the go ahead for countries to change these surfaces ( TWO CLUBS IN THE SCOTTISH LEAGUE) are already playing on them. There is a strong lobby in the FA that think within the next 5yrs there could be half the clubs in England playing on them. The present cost to install is approx. 800000k The advantages are many including one grounds man to service the pitch, FOOD FOR THOUGHT,
Sorry Bill moving from BC is tough enough to bear, playing on anything other than grass wouldn't float my boat. Grass for me please.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE, Most top clubs train on these surfaces Man U being one,,There are many in Europe also. they get less training injuries , LEEDS University have such a surface I have been over there to see CFD play ,
[quote][p][bold]23rdApril1966[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]23rdApril1966[/bold] wrote: I read on the Internet that Chesterfield's new ground was built at a cost of circa £13m and has a capacity of 10,400. Similarly Rotherham's new ground - the ironically named New York Stadium - was built at a cost of circa £20m and has a capacity of 12,000. Having visited both then I have no doubt that any City follower would be blown away by such an outcome for YCFC. So why a spend of £19m for a 6,000 capacity? I have posed this question before and so apologies for the repetition but just exactly does Ian McAndrew do in all of this? For all I know he may work every waking hour on the project, but on the 3 or 4 occasions per season that he pens the Director's article in the match day programme he says absolutely nothing. And I mean nothing. So can anybody shed any light for me? Having been a supporter since 66 I sincerely hope that I am wrong but the best I can see us getting is a soulless Glanford Park / Deva Stadium, all bleak breeze block. I still have a real concern that this move will ever come off. Both Chesterfield and Rotherham's moves were made in a fraction of the time that this has been being discussed, God even the newts seem against the move. I really hope I'm wrong.[/p][/quote]ITS THE COUNCILS WAY OF abdicating their responsibility . They don't want it to be built, IF IT EVER GETS BUILT it should be a state of the ark ARTIFICAL PITCH, FIFA, UAFA. have now given the go ahead for countries to change these surfaces ( TWO CLUBS IN THE SCOTTISH LEAGUE) are already playing on them. There is a strong lobby in the FA that think within the next 5yrs there could be half the clubs in England playing on them. The present cost to install is approx. 800000k The advantages are many including one grounds man to service the pitch, FOOD FOR THOUGHT,[/p][/quote]Sorry Bill moving from BC is tough enough to bear, playing on anything other than grass wouldn't float my boat. Grass for me please.[/p][/quote]YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE, Most top clubs train on these surfaces Man U being one,,There are many in Europe also. they get less training injuries , LEEDS University have such a surface I have been over there to see CFD play , bill bailey

11:11am Sat 9 Nov 13

roobarb85 says...

Refs Bill Bailey "state of the ark" comment : is flooding another problem with the stadium then?

More generally, totally agree with comments re Chesterfield + Rotherham - if they can build bigger better stadia quicker, what's up with us?
Refs Bill Bailey "state of the ark" comment : is flooding another problem with the stadium then? More generally, totally agree with comments re Chesterfield + Rotherham - if they can build bigger better stadia quicker, what's up with us? roobarb85

12:50pm Mon 11 Nov 13

meme says...

This is not a surprise
The team leading this project are a joke. Rents etc should have been sorted years ago.
It not a surprise that the community stadium will cost York ratepayers more it was always going to. Little comfort for those of us who have no interest in footie!
The whole process from the grant of planning on the back of a huge incentive to CoYC to the people involved in the decisions etc and the on-going farce over who runs it etc needs to be independently examined
This is not a surprise The team leading this project are a joke. Rents etc should have been sorted years ago. It not a surprise that the community stadium will cost York ratepayers more it was always going to. Little comfort for those of us who have no interest in footie! The whole process from the grant of planning on the back of a huge incentive to CoYC to the people involved in the decisions etc and the on-going farce over who runs it etc needs to be independently examined meme

4:41pm Mon 11 Nov 13

Filofact! says...

When I was asked to fill in a form in support of the new stadium my comment was:-"in my lifetime please!!" .looks like I was being prophetic without realising it.Get on with it PLEASE!!!
When I was asked to fill in a form in support of the new stadium my comment was:-"in my lifetime please!!" .looks like I was being prophetic without realising it.Get on with it PLEASE!!! Filofact!

6:35pm Tue 12 Nov 13

CaroleBaines says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
When CoYC announced their new stadium Tzar, I believed it was to find a site for a new home for the short of finance York City.
All that has happened is the ruination of a stadium opened around 1989/ 1990 that is fit for purpose for what it was designed for. It also proved to be a sanctuary for York Rugby League.
Football comes along and takes control. Why can't the FA help out York City, they rake in £millions and put little back. /We saw what they did to Wembley. We ended up having to pay for a new Olympic stadium.
This project is a total disgrace and has not made sense from the start. The football club needed a new stadium, let them deal with it. Good grief, us council tax payers can't get our full green bins emptied, will have to deal with icy road, humps, 20mph on a good day and drive miles extra to cross the river. Wake up you people!!!!!!!!!
Huntington Stadium is not fit for purpose.
As for the old public money being spent on private companies cliché - take a look round you. The government paid Serco, ATOS, G4S and Capita over four BILLION pounds last year. And ATOS and G4S have yet to pay any tax on their profits!
Stadium is small fry compared to those going up all round the country with council help - YCFC will be paying rent - so its hardly a bail out. They will also be paying tax!
So, please, a little though before posting goes a long, long way.
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: When CoYC announced their new stadium Tzar, I believed it was to find a site for a new home for the short of finance York City. All that has happened is the ruination of a stadium opened around 1989/ 1990 that is fit for purpose for what it was designed for. It also proved to be a sanctuary for York Rugby League. Football comes along and takes control. Why can't the FA help out York City, they rake in £millions and put little back. /We saw what they did to Wembley. We ended up having to pay for a new Olympic stadium. This project is a total disgrace and has not made sense from the start. The football club needed a new stadium, let them deal with it. Good grief, us council tax payers can't get our full green bins emptied, will have to deal with icy road, humps, 20mph on a good day and drive miles extra to cross the river. Wake up you people!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Huntington Stadium is not fit for purpose. As for the old public money being spent on private companies cliché - take a look round you. The government paid Serco, ATOS, G4S and Capita over four BILLION pounds last year. And ATOS and G4S have yet to pay any tax on their profits! Stadium is small fry compared to those going up all round the country with council help - YCFC will be paying rent - so its hardly a bail out. They will also be paying tax! So, please, a little though before posting goes a long, long way. CaroleBaines

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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