Community stadium expansion clause ‘not required’

An artist’s impression of the proposed community stadium

An artist’s impression of the proposed community stadium

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , mark.stead@thepress.co.uk

FIRMS bidding to build York’s community stadium will not have to agree to expand it in the future if city leaders approve changes to the venue’s design.

City of York Council’s original criteria for the new £19 million Monks Cross venue, which would house York City FC and York City Knights, was that it should initially have 6,000 seats but also have the potential for its capacity to be increased to 12,000.

However, an update which will be discussed by the authority’s Labour cabinet to day said this capacity requirement was not possible “without significant compromise to the appearance and design of the stadium”.

It said insisting the stadium was expanded to 12,000 seats would carry “considerable cost for something which may not be required”.

The Press reported last week that officials have recommended including the option of terracing in the new design criteria for the stadium, as this would increase its initial capacity.

If funding from the Football Stadia Improvement Fund (FSIF) is secured before the final stadium plans are submitted, the terms of the deal will mean the ground must be all-seater, although there is a possibility this money may not now be provided.

Two bidders are in the running to design, build and operate the stadium – which has been dogged by delays – and manage the council’s other leisure facilities on a 13-year contract with a potential five-year extension, and are preparing their final proposals.

Work is now due to start in February 2015, with the stadium being ready about a year later.

The report by stadium project manager Tim Atkins and Charlie Croft, assistant director of communities and neighbourhoods, said an expansion requirement would mean a much larger main stand being needed, which would affect the stadium’s overall design.

It said an expansion to 12,000 seats was no longer necessary to meet the requirements of football and rugby league governing bodies and there was “ongoing pressure” from City and fans to include some terracing.

“It is evident that some of the original criteria set out for the stadium are not achievable,” said the report, adding that if both ends of the ground had a 1,000-seat capacity, terracing them instead could raise this to 1,700.

It said an initial 6,000 capacity had always been seen as the maximum possible with the funding available.

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:43am Tue 7 Jan 14

nearlyman says...

This is all very worrying, the companies building and operating the stadium will no doubt wish to max everything they can get out of it. Prepare yourselves for the £4 cup of tea and the £7 pie. (And does that artists impression look somewhat different to what we will actually get ??
This is all very worrying, the companies building and operating the stadium will no doubt wish to max everything they can get out of it. Prepare yourselves for the £4 cup of tea and the £7 pie. (And does that artists impression look somewhat different to what we will actually get ?? nearlyman
  • Score: 12

9:02am Tue 7 Jan 14

Fat Harry says...

I still think it's crazy to insist on one company not only designing and building the stadium bit also operating it and the other council leisure facilities; it's taking the privatisation fetish to the nth degree.

I suspect the operator will subcontract the catering operation (the new caterers at Bootham Crescent this season no doubt hope to be in the running) and all sorts of other functions.

Each of those companies will want its cut of the profits which makes me wonder how much of the extra revenue generated by the stadium will find its way to City, the Knights, and the council.

That said, it's good to hear that the project is at least inching forwards, even though we'd all prefer that it was moving a lot faster.
I still think it's crazy to insist on one company not only designing and building the stadium bit also operating it and the other council leisure facilities; it's taking the privatisation fetish to the nth degree. I suspect the operator will subcontract the catering operation (the new caterers at Bootham Crescent this season no doubt hope to be in the running) and all sorts of other functions. Each of those companies will want its cut of the profits which makes me wonder how much of the extra revenue generated by the stadium will find its way to City, the Knights, and the council. That said, it's good to hear that the project is at least inching forwards, even though we'd all prefer that it was moving a lot faster. Fat Harry
  • Score: 16

9:42am Tue 7 Jan 14

Some old bloke says...

"It said an initial 6,000 capacity had always been seen as the maximum possible with the funding available."
So why is it that new stadiums can be built elsewhere that have a larger capacity and cost less?
"It said an initial 6,000 capacity had always been seen as the maximum possible with the funding available." So why is it that new stadiums can be built elsewhere that have a larger capacity and cost less? Some old bloke
  • Score: 35

9:48am Tue 7 Jan 14

Knavesmire view says...

So we are going to build something that doesn't even have the potential to have the capacity increased?
Crazy in my opinion and very worrying. I know the opponents say that YCFC only currently average 3-3,500 but these things can change, look at the progression clubs like Yeovil have made in recent years.
To not even have the option to expand at all is typical of the problems that have beset this project from the start.
Look at the projects delivered by other councils across the country, which have been better value for money and bigger capacity.
The sooner the stadium is built the sooner Tim Atkins stops earning a fortune for doing diddly-squat and the sooner rents will flow into the public coffers from the clubs to start repaying, and eventually making a profit for the tax payer.
So we are going to build something that doesn't even have the potential to have the capacity increased? Crazy in my opinion and very worrying. I know the opponents say that YCFC only currently average 3-3,500 but these things can change, look at the progression clubs like Yeovil have made in recent years. To not even have the option to expand at all is typical of the problems that have beset this project from the start. Look at the projects delivered by other councils across the country, which have been better value for money and bigger capacity. The sooner the stadium is built the sooner Tim Atkins stops earning a fortune for doing diddly-squat and the sooner rents will flow into the public coffers from the clubs to start repaying, and eventually making a profit for the tax payer. Knavesmire view
  • Score: 22

9:55am Tue 7 Jan 14

Some old bloke says...

Just to add to my earlier comment, Chesterfield's stadium has a capacity of 10,500 and cost £13 million, according to reports. Obviously there may be good reason for the discrepancy but it seems strange, even allowing for the time lag.
Just to add to my earlier comment, Chesterfield's stadium has a capacity of 10,500 and cost £13 million, according to reports. Obviously there may be good reason for the discrepancy but it seems strange, even allowing for the time lag. Some old bloke
  • Score: 26

10:02am Tue 7 Jan 14

The Great Buda says...

Knavesmire view wrote:
So we are going to build something that doesn't even have the potential to have the capacity increased?
Crazy in my opinion and very worrying. I know the opponents say that YCFC only currently average 3-3,500 but these things can change, look at the progression clubs like Yeovil have made in recent years.
To not even have the option to expand at all is typical of the problems that have beset this project from the start.
Look at the projects delivered by other councils across the country, which have been better value for money and bigger capacity.
The sooner the stadium is built the sooner Tim Atkins stops earning a fortune for doing diddly-squat and the sooner rents will flow into the public coffers from the clubs to start repaying, and eventually making a profit for the tax payer.
Very good post Knavesmire.

I think the new stadium should have terracing, its what both the football and rugby fans want. Also it means more money can go to the other parts of this scheme, namly the new Athletics village.

Its criminal that York lags so far behind in its sporting facilities.
[quote][p][bold]Knavesmire view[/bold] wrote: So we are going to build something that doesn't even have the potential to have the capacity increased? Crazy in my opinion and very worrying. I know the opponents say that YCFC only currently average 3-3,500 but these things can change, look at the progression clubs like Yeovil have made in recent years. To not even have the option to expand at all is typical of the problems that have beset this project from the start. Look at the projects delivered by other councils across the country, which have been better value for money and bigger capacity. The sooner the stadium is built the sooner Tim Atkins stops earning a fortune for doing diddly-squat and the sooner rents will flow into the public coffers from the clubs to start repaying, and eventually making a profit for the tax payer.[/p][/quote]Very good post Knavesmire. I think the new stadium should have terracing, its what both the football and rugby fans want. Also it means more money can go to the other parts of this scheme, namly the new Athletics village. Its criminal that York lags so far behind in its sporting facilities. The Great Buda
  • Score: 25

11:04am Tue 7 Jan 14

Minsterred says...

And this new thinking comes to Light after how many years?ycfc have had crowds of between 4-5k in the conference so how on earth 6000 is a realistic figure I don't know.. seems like we are getting a smaller capacity at a higher price then everywhere else and it doesn't make sense. This short sightedness also limits the commercials and future revenues, a good cup run or promotion push in a new stadium would easily sell out. I don't expect anything special but why can york as a city never ever do anything for the people who live here? Rotherham, chesterfield, barnet, Doncaster, to name but a few can all do it and are hardly European superpowers or major cities, why is it that it has to be so unambitious and so utterly painful to get this built in york....
And this new thinking comes to Light after how many years?ycfc have had crowds of between 4-5k in the conference so how on earth 6000 is a realistic figure I don't know.. seems like we are getting a smaller capacity at a higher price then everywhere else and it doesn't make sense. This short sightedness also limits the commercials and future revenues, a good cup run or promotion push in a new stadium would easily sell out. I don't expect anything special but why can york as a city never ever do anything for the people who live here? Rotherham, chesterfield, barnet, Doncaster, to name but a few can all do it and are hardly European superpowers or major cities, why is it that it has to be so unambitious and so utterly painful to get this built in york.... Minsterred
  • Score: 19

11:12am Tue 7 Jan 14

maybejustmaybe says...

Two contractors need to bid for this, the ones that built Rotherham and chesterfield stadiums. greater capacity at a lower cost.
Two contractors need to bid for this, the ones that built Rotherham and chesterfield stadiums. greater capacity at a lower cost. maybejustmaybe
  • Score: 26

12:49pm Tue 7 Jan 14

haxbyreds says...

Maybe I'm stupid or should work on this project?went to the impressive new chesterfield stadium earier this season (10500 capacity and cheaper to build) why not approach company who built it,fans and clubs happier with bigger ground and cheaper,no brainer to me,why are council employing a project manager who never seems to get anywhere,SIMPLE GET A GROUND LIKE CHESTERFIELD
Maybe I'm stupid or should work on this project?went to the impressive new chesterfield stadium earier this season (10500 capacity and cheaper to build) why not approach company who built it,fans and clubs happier with bigger ground and cheaper,no brainer to me,why are council employing a project manager who never seems to get anywhere,SIMPLE GET A GROUND LIKE CHESTERFIELD haxbyreds
  • Score: 24

12:54pm Tue 7 Jan 14

roskoboskovic says...

biggest mistake that city will ever make.myself and hundreds of others used to walk down to clarence st to watch york rugby on a sunday afternoon but we don t want to drive after a lunchtime drink.
biggest mistake that city will ever make.myself and hundreds of others used to walk down to clarence st to watch york rugby on a sunday afternoon but we don t want to drive after a lunchtime drink. roskoboskovic
  • Score: 9

12:55pm Tue 7 Jan 14

meme says...

but its York and of course it costs more money think of the time and salaries for Mr Atkins and team etc
what's worse when it proves to be a financial disaster we the ratepayers will pick up a bill for what is in effect a private business.
but its York and of course it costs more money think of the time and salaries for Mr Atkins and team etc what's worse when it proves to be a financial disaster we the ratepayers will pick up a bill for what is in effect a private business. meme
  • Score: 3

12:59pm Tue 7 Jan 14

SethArmstrong says...

I don't remember so much fuss over the new council HQ's.
6k isn't enough, they know it, we've all been saying it from the start, they seem to determined to plow on through with it anyway. A new stadium in an area nobody would choose to put one, with a capacity that limits the clubs ambitions and sends a signal out that we're a small club happy to stay small. What's the point?! Find me one club of similar size to York historically looking to move into such a small ground, indeed any club looking to move into a ground with a smaller capacity than their current home. Just one... This is a City of 200,000 people, according to the last census it grew by about 9%, one of the fastest growth rates in the country. We should be doing all we can to get these people in, there's real potential in this City but everyone in a position to do something about it seems too blind to see it. The City and its politicians never exactly shys away from riding off the back of YCFC when its beating Man Utd or winning trophies at Wembley. If the stadium benefited tourism somehow you can guarantee money would be no object.
I don't remember so much fuss over the new council HQ's. 6k isn't enough, they know it, we've all been saying it from the start, they seem to determined to plow on through with it anyway. A new stadium in an area nobody would choose to put one, with a capacity that limits the clubs ambitions and sends a signal out that we're a small club happy to stay small. What's the point?! Find me one club of similar size to York historically looking to move into such a small ground, indeed any club looking to move into a ground with a smaller capacity than their current home. Just one... This is a City of 200,000 people, according to the last census it grew by about 9%, one of the fastest growth rates in the country. We should be doing all we can to get these people in, there's real potential in this City but everyone in a position to do something about it seems too blind to see it. The City and its politicians never exactly shys away from riding off the back of YCFC when its beating Man Utd or winning trophies at Wembley. If the stadium benefited tourism somehow you can guarantee money would be no object. SethArmstrong
  • Score: 20

1:09pm Tue 7 Jan 14

upthecity says...

tell FSIF to keep their funding if they are threatening to withdraw it. Then it will allow YCFC the freedom to amend the design to include terraces at both ends which would be cheaper to build than seated stands and would in turn increase the capacity towards 8,000 (although 10,000 capacity should be a realistic aim). It a no-brainer and not complicated. It's what the fans want so the Council should stop being so rigid and bogged down in buracracy and make sure the scheme the club and fans want is delivered.
tell FSIF to keep their funding if they are threatening to withdraw it. Then it will allow YCFC the freedom to amend the design to include terraces at both ends which would be cheaper to build than seated stands and would in turn increase the capacity towards 8,000 (although 10,000 capacity should be a realistic aim). It a no-brainer and not complicated. It's what the fans want so the Council should stop being so rigid and bogged down in buracracy and make sure the scheme the club and fans want is delivered. upthecity
  • Score: 9

1:15pm Tue 7 Jan 14

sixtyfourfive says...

Cannot the Press follow up such as a FOI request to try and ascertain what exactly this guy Atkins precise job spec/modus operandi is. To me it beggars belief what a total fiasco is being made of pushing this forward. Has as a previous poster alludes Atlkins even spoken to such as Chesterfield?
Cannot the Press follow up such as a FOI request to try and ascertain what exactly this guy Atkins precise job spec/modus operandi is. To me it beggars belief what a total fiasco is being made of pushing this forward. Has as a previous poster alludes Atlkins even spoken to such as Chesterfield? sixtyfourfive
  • Score: 14

2:16pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Yorkieroy60 says...

It seems strange that the same Company is going to design build and operate the new Stadium-what will they care?-do the gate receipts go to them!-where will the income for the Clubs go i.e.City or the Knights?-seems ridiculous to me. As far as the capacity goes who has asked for 12,000? where's that figure come from? what we want is more then the 6,000 originally mentioned with this project. I think maybe 8,000 all seater with a view to a capacity increase with sections reverting to standing-not that it's likely to happen. As an above post has stated it automatically puts us in the 'small club' bracket but any other town or City in the Country that had a Club with the tradition and history of York City would have more foresight then to build a 6000 capacity ground. It seems to me that whoever has ben involved in this project from the off has not been fighting our corner hard enough. The ambition of the football team must at least be to gain promotion to League 1 I can imagine the surge in support if this were to happen (I believe it will before too long) then your looking at playing some big Clubs with big support depending who's in that particular league at the time and a 6000 capacity will be nowhere near enough bearing in mind certain sections may have to be closed for security reasons. But as the stadium will be run by an outside operation will they be bothered!-Somebody please tell me if I'm wrong!
It seems strange that the same Company is going to design build and operate the new Stadium-what will they care?-do the gate receipts go to them!-where will the income for the Clubs go i.e.City or the Knights?-seems ridiculous to me. As far as the capacity goes who has asked for 12,000? where's that figure come from? what we want is more then the 6,000 originally mentioned with this project. I think maybe 8,000 all seater with a view to a capacity increase with sections reverting to standing-not that it's likely to happen. As an above post has stated it automatically puts us in the 'small club' bracket but any other town or City in the Country that had a Club with the tradition and history of York City would have more foresight then to build a 6000 capacity ground. It seems to me that whoever has ben involved in this project from the off has not been fighting our corner hard enough. The ambition of the football team must at least be to gain promotion to League 1 I can imagine the surge in support if this were to happen (I believe it will before too long) then your looking at playing some big Clubs with big support depending who's in that particular league at the time and a 6000 capacity will be nowhere near enough bearing in mind certain sections may have to be closed for security reasons. But as the stadium will be run by an outside operation will they be bothered!-Somebody please tell me if I'm wrong! Yorkieroy60
  • Score: 9

3:11pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Some old bloke says...

Regarding the capacity, a 6000 seater stadium is never going to accommodate 6000 people anyway, because of the uncertainty of visiting supporters numbers, the need to segregate opposing fans, etc. I believe that Fletwood's stadium was built originally to have a 6000 or 6500 capacity but the quoted figure is now a little over 5300.
Regarding the capacity, a 6000 seater stadium is never going to accommodate 6000 people anyway, because of the uncertainty of visiting supporters numbers, the need to segregate opposing fans, etc. I believe that Fletwood's stadium was built originally to have a 6000 or 6500 capacity but the quoted figure is now a little over 5300. Some old bloke
  • Score: 3

3:17pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Some old bloke says...

Sorry, just to add to that. A few years ago City had an important match (possibly Luton in the play-offs?) and we were told that the match was a sell-out, yet the number of tickets sold was about 1000 less than the official ground capacity (I'm sure H and Safety had something to do with it).
Sorry, just to add to that. A few years ago City had an important match (possibly Luton in the play-offs?) and we were told that the match was a sell-out, yet the number of tickets sold was about 1000 less than the official ground capacity (I'm sure H and Safety had something to do with it). Some old bloke
  • Score: 4

3:28pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Yorkieroy60 says...

Some old bloke wrote:
Regarding the capacity, a 6000 seater stadium is never going to accommodate 6000 people anyway, because of the uncertainty of visiting supporters numbers, the need to segregate opposing fans, etc. I believe that Fletwood's stadium was built originally to have a 6000 or 6500 capacity but the quoted figure is now a little over 5300.
Exactly right! and Fleetwood's fan base compared to City's given the success they have had? no comparison.
[quote][p][bold]Some old bloke[/bold] wrote: Regarding the capacity, a 6000 seater stadium is never going to accommodate 6000 people anyway, because of the uncertainty of visiting supporters numbers, the need to segregate opposing fans, etc. I believe that Fletwood's stadium was built originally to have a 6000 or 6500 capacity but the quoted figure is now a little over 5300.[/p][/quote]Exactly right! and Fleetwood's fan base compared to City's given the success they have had? no comparison. Yorkieroy60
  • Score: 2

5:27pm Tue 7 Jan 14

openallhours says...

Chesterfield's impressive stadium cost 13 million (10'500 capacity) and yet we're possibly looking at a 6000 capacity stadium for 19 million. Time to replace the cretins overseeing this project with intelligent people who have the best interests at heart of both the football and rugby clubs.
Chesterfield's impressive stadium cost 13 million (10'500 capacity) and yet we're possibly looking at a 6000 capacity stadium for 19 million. Time to replace the cretins overseeing this project with intelligent people who have the best interests at heart of both the football and rugby clubs. openallhours
  • Score: 7

5:56pm Tue 7 Jan 14

haxbyreds says...

I don't get the figures 13 million for 10500 stadium or 19 million for a 6000 stadium,where do these people come from absolute no confidence in council or is it corrupt,questions have got to answered
I don't get the figures 13 million for 10500 stadium or 19 million for a 6000 stadium,where do these people come from absolute no confidence in council or is it corrupt,questions have got to answered haxbyreds
  • Score: 5

7:37pm Tue 7 Jan 14

AB- says...

nearlyman wrote:
This is all very worrying, the companies building and operating the stadium will no doubt wish to max everything they can get out of it. Prepare yourselves for the £4 cup of tea and the £7 pie. (And does that artists impression look somewhat different to what we will actually get ??
I am also worried about artists impressions, just study those on the stadium website, some images suggest a covered stadium including corners other impressions suggest no covered corners but floodlight pylons, CofY council need to get this thing moving and with a lot more clarity.
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: This is all very worrying, the companies building and operating the stadium will no doubt wish to max everything they can get out of it. Prepare yourselves for the £4 cup of tea and the £7 pie. (And does that artists impression look somewhat different to what we will actually get ??[/p][/quote]I am also worried about artists impressions, just study those on the stadium website, some images suggest a covered stadium including corners other impressions suggest no covered corners but floodlight pylons, CofY council need to get this thing moving and with a lot more clarity. AB-
  • Score: 1

9:06pm Tue 7 Jan 14

yorkma says...

Typical coyc they could not run a bath between them. It is so clearly obvious that the ground needs to be bigger. Look at other clubs not so long ago Rotherham used to play at Millmoor in front of 2-4,000 as did Swansea, Doncaster and for that matter Wigan, not forgetting Chesterfield. They showed ambition built good sized grounds with excellent facilities and the fans flowed in. This could be a gold mine for both clubs but no an overpaid executive who does not listen and a council that are top of the class in incompetence just bumble along. £19 million give me a break. GO AND TALK TO CHESTERFIELD's builders Scunthope are getting another new ground as well.
Typical coyc they could not run a bath between them. It is so clearly obvious that the ground needs to be bigger. Look at other clubs not so long ago Rotherham used to play at Millmoor in front of 2-4,000 as did Swansea, Doncaster and for that matter Wigan, not forgetting Chesterfield. They showed ambition built good sized grounds with excellent facilities and the fans flowed in. This could be a gold mine for both clubs but no an overpaid executive who does not listen and a council that are top of the class in incompetence just bumble along. £19 million give me a break. GO AND TALK TO CHESTERFIELD's builders Scunthope are getting another new ground as well. yorkma
  • Score: 1

10:32pm Tue 7 Jan 14

jumbojet says...

How can this be allowed to go on? As everyone has quoted, the ground at Chesterfield was £13million with a 10000+ capacity, and we are messing about with £19million for a pathetic 6000 capacity. Have these people had a meeting, have they sat around a table, they cannot be serious with this supposed arrangement. Why have they not spoken to any of the other football towns within our geographical area, and come up with something similar. How can York City look forward to 1st Division football with a 'hotchpotch' of a stadium, shared with a rugby club, located in the depths of nowhere, this is a disaster, and needs to be sorted NOW, before these people start digging soil, we, the fans, need a meeting, and lets get the MP for York involved.
How can this be allowed to go on? As everyone has quoted, the ground at Chesterfield was £13million with a 10000+ capacity, and we are messing about with £19million for a pathetic 6000 capacity. Have these people had a meeting, have they sat around a table, they cannot be serious with this supposed arrangement. Why have they not spoken to any of the other football towns within our geographical area, and come up with something similar. How can York City look forward to 1st Division football with a 'hotchpotch' of a stadium, shared with a rugby club, located in the depths of nowhere, this is a disaster, and needs to be sorted NOW, before these people start digging soil, we, the fans, need a meeting, and lets get the MP for York involved. jumbojet
  • Score: 1

10:41pm Tue 7 Jan 14

openallhours says...

openallhours wrote:
Chesterfield's impressive stadium cost 13 million (10'500 capacity) and yet we're possibly looking at a 6000 capacity stadium for 19 million. Time to replace the cretins overseeing this project with intelligent people who have the best interests at heart of both the football and rugby clubs.
Forgot to mention the tax payer as well.
[quote][p][bold]openallhours[/bold] wrote: Chesterfield's impressive stadium cost 13 million (10'500 capacity) and yet we're possibly looking at a 6000 capacity stadium for 19 million. Time to replace the cretins overseeing this project with intelligent people who have the best interests at heart of both the football and rugby clubs.[/p][/quote]Forgot to mention the tax payer as well. openallhours
  • Score: 1

4:30am Wed 8 Jan 14

York1900 says...

I have all ways said that it was too small it will be like most things in York that will be not fit for purpose with in a few years of completion most other Cities and towns have build bigger stadium with similar number supporters
York City FC or York City Knights only need to have good runs in there respective cup runs and divisions and then the stadium is too small to take all the away fans and new fans
But that is York all over think small stay small
I have all ways said that it was too small it will be like most things in York that will be not fit for purpose with in a few years of completion most other Cities and towns have build bigger stadium with similar number supporters York City FC or York City Knights only need to have good runs in there respective cup runs and divisions and then the stadium is too small to take all the away fans and new fans But that is York all over think small stay small York1900
  • Score: 0

9:51am Wed 8 Jan 14

joeya96YCFC says...

That is the totally wrong response from the Labour cabinet - or should that be "cabal"?

Why this dithering even now - years down the line and the design is apparently still being talked about - its pathetic. Are the Council having second, third or fourth thoughts or are they just incompetent? We all know the stadium will be in the wrong place - there is still lots of room next to the railway station near the teardrop site. Monks Cross is no good for away supporters using public transport.

People in charge of sizable projects have got to have the ability to see it through. Nothing thus far has shown me that anyone connected with this has the knowledge and 'drive' to do so.

Managers of projects such as this need to be ambitious, inventive - they make it happen - plan for the future - please don't let this be a case of making do for now something which in ten years will not be fit for purpose. Other places i.e. Chesterfield, Rotherham, don't seem to have had all this delay in agreeing designing and building a new stadium in much less time and money - a good job made of them as well..

They - stadium Tsar Tim Atkins along with Charlie Croft and the rest - should be doing their utmost to move this along instead of (I suppose because certain of them depend on it financially) delaying at every verse end - newts come to mind - what rubbish - just another delaying tactic. Why all the big time lapses between any news?


If the current projected designs are for a 6,000 capacity and cannot be altered “without significant compromise to the appearance and design of the stadium” then scrap them for ones that do include allowance for expansion!! Come on - get your fingers out.

If however what they say is correct (you never know it might be!) then they are surely saying there are existing firm plans of what the stadium will be - so what are they, lets see them before firms are asked to tender to build otherwise they could be constructing something the people of York are not happy with.

The plain truth is that there is a lack of ability, desire, political will and whatever else you want to call it by those involved to provide York with a stadium its citizens can be proud of. The money cannot be made an issue - given that the Council have had the cash (£13.75m) from the developers for some time. On that, can Tim Atkins confirm that while we wait this is invested and earning interest that will be used on the stadium? Even at the present low rates that capital can earn some good cash if managed properly (O dear perhaps that is also too much to hope for with this Council).

As far as I am aware the most recent club (relatively locally) to announce a new stadium is Scunthorpe United - 12,000 capacity at a cost of £18m and will be ready for use for the start of 2015/16 season. As other posts above we can only provide 6,000 capacity for £19m - something wrong somewhere? What makes the people in charge of delivering the Monks Cross stadium think York does not deserve a stadium to match those at Rotherham, Scunthorpe or Chesterfield? They seem to think YCFC and YCK will never progress up the leagues so no need to try to do anything that would be encouraging and exciting for them or York. A major difference with the Scunthorpe scheme is that it is being led by developers who have the incentive to get things done and have not let themselves be dragged into the local government bureaucratic morass and political negative thinking as has happened at Monks Cross.

All that said I'd rather stay at Bootham Crescent any way!!
That is the totally wrong response from the Labour cabinet - or should that be "cabal"? Why this dithering even now - years down the line and the design is apparently still being talked about - its pathetic. Are the Council having second, third or fourth thoughts or are they just incompetent? We all know the stadium will be in the wrong place - there is still lots of room next to the railway station near the teardrop site. Monks Cross is no good for away supporters using public transport. People in charge of sizable projects have got to have the ability to see it through. Nothing thus far has shown me that anyone connected with this has the knowledge and 'drive' to do so. Managers of projects such as this need to be ambitious, inventive - they make it happen - plan for the future - please don't let this be a case of making do for now something which in ten years will not be fit for purpose. Other places i.e. Chesterfield, Rotherham, don't seem to have had all this delay in agreeing designing and building a new stadium in much less time and money - a good job made of them as well.. They - stadium Tsar Tim Atkins along with Charlie Croft and the rest - should be doing their utmost to move this along instead of (I suppose because certain of them depend on it financially) delaying at every verse end - newts come to mind - what rubbish - just another delaying tactic. Why all the big time lapses between any news? If the current projected designs are for a 6,000 capacity and cannot be altered “without significant compromise to the appearance and design of the stadium” then scrap them for ones that do include allowance for expansion!! Come on - get your fingers out. If however what they say is correct (you never know it might be!) then they are surely saying there are existing firm plans of what the stadium will be - so what are they, lets see them before firms are asked to tender to build otherwise they could be constructing something the people of York are not happy with. The plain truth is that there is a lack of ability, desire, political will and whatever else you want to call it by those involved to provide York with a stadium its citizens can be proud of. The money cannot be made an issue - given that the Council have had the cash (£13.75m) from the developers for some time. On that, can Tim Atkins confirm that while we wait this is invested and earning interest that will be used on the stadium? Even at the present low rates that capital can earn some good cash if managed properly (O dear perhaps that is also too much to hope for with this Council). As far as I am aware the most recent club (relatively locally) to announce a new stadium is Scunthorpe United - 12,000 capacity at a cost of £18m and will be ready for use for the start of 2015/16 season. As other posts above we can only provide 6,000 capacity for £19m - something wrong somewhere? What makes the people in charge of delivering the Monks Cross stadium think York does not deserve a stadium to match those at Rotherham, Scunthorpe or Chesterfield? They seem to think YCFC and YCK will never progress up the leagues so no need to try to do anything that would be encouraging and exciting for them or York. A major difference with the Scunthorpe scheme is that it is being led by developers who have the incentive to get things done and have not let themselves be dragged into the local government bureaucratic morass and political negative thinking as has happened at Monks Cross. All that said I'd rather stay at Bootham Crescent any way!! joeya96YCFC
  • Score: 2

12:42pm Wed 8 Jan 14

CaroleBaines says...

haxbyreds wrote:
I don't get the figures 13 million for 10500 stadium or 19 million for a 6000 stadium,where do these people come from absolute no confidence in council or is it corrupt,questions have got to answered
Because £19m is for the whole development - athletics stuff too etc. Stadium alone is something like £11.3 isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]haxbyreds[/bold] wrote: I don't get the figures 13 million for 10500 stadium or 19 million for a 6000 stadium,where do these people come from absolute no confidence in council or is it corrupt,questions have got to answered[/p][/quote]Because £19m is for the whole development - athletics stuff too etc. Stadium alone is something like £11.3 isn't it? CaroleBaines
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree