York City fans give cautious welcome to York Community Stadium management plan

Manager Nigel Worthington and chairman Jason McGill with the plans for the new stadium

Manager Nigel Worthington and chairman Jason McGill with the plans for the new stadium

First published in News
Last updated
by

FOOTBALL fans have cautiously welcomed the news that York City FC will manage the new community stadium to be built at Monks Cross.

More than 50 supporters attended a consultation session at the club's current headquarters in Bootham Crescent to see the plans for the new building and discuss the future.

Those present said they hoped it would enable the club to raise more income by having access to the stadium on non-match days and were relieved the ground would not be maintained by someone new to football, though some were worried about the move and about the logistics, such as how 8,000 people would leave the ground after late night matches in winter if Park and Ride buses have ceased for the day.

Sophie McGill, club director, revealed that the new 8,000 seat stadium could become a wedding venue, as well as host conferences, business meetings and other income generating events.

Also present were York Knight fans, whose rugby league club will also play its home matches at the new stadium from autumn 2016 and representatives of Greenwich Leisure Ltd (GLL), who currently run Waterworld and who will run the leisure centre with 25 m swimming pool, gym and sports facilities which will be alongside the stadium. Waterworld is expected to close in December 2014.

David Metcalfe, a lifelong City supporter, said he was concerned that an 8,000 seat stadium could create financial problems for the club and that it should develop a stronger youth programme.

He said of the decision to let the club run the stadium: "I'm very supportive of it because it will mean more income for the club and there will be better facilities and better training for the youth team."

Leigh Allaker of GLL said its partnership with Charlton Athletic to run a sports centre next to a football stadium worked well and he was confident GLL and York City could work well together on the Monks Cross site.

Ms McGill said she was getting positive feedback from supporters about the stadium plans unveiled in the Pitchside Bar of Bootham Crescent and about the club running the new stadium.

She added it will offer far better surroundings for business and other non-football events than the Bootham Crescent stadium, which was built in 1932. She said the club wanted to work with York Knights.

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:18am Tue 2 Sep 14

amike says...

'She said the club wanted to work with York Knights.'

Surely the club has had plenty of time during the last few years in the development of these plans to build a relationship with the Knights.
'She said the club wanted to work with York Knights.' Surely the club has had plenty of time during the last few years in the development of these plans to build a relationship with the Knights. amike
  • Score: -12

10:24am Tue 2 Sep 14

The Great Buda says...

amike wrote:
'She said the club wanted to work with York Knights.'

Surely the club has had plenty of time during the last few years in the development of these plans to build a relationship with the Knights.
It takes two to tango.
[quote][p][bold]amike[/bold] wrote: 'She said the club wanted to work with York Knights.' Surely the club has had plenty of time during the last few years in the development of these plans to build a relationship with the Knights.[/p][/quote]It takes two to tango. The Great Buda
  • Score: 23

10:38am Tue 2 Sep 14

Monks Boss says...

There are alot of intelligent people heading this project.Ian confident they will make this a successful transition.As long as we can avoid a Darlington fiasco then we should be fine.
There are alot of intelligent people heading this project.Ian confident they will make this a successful transition.As long as we can avoid a Darlington fiasco then we should be fine. Monks Boss
  • Score: 5

10:42am Tue 2 Sep 14

windowlicker says...

The terracing/safe standing issue isn't done yet, time to lobby the Football Foundation regarding the terms of the loan/grant and the current climate regarding standing at games and to remind them safe standing is permissible up to the Championship.

If the new place is to have an atmosphere then it needs some standing areas.
The terracing/safe standing issue isn't done yet, time to lobby the Football Foundation regarding the terms of the loan/grant and the current climate regarding standing at games and to remind them safe standing is permissible up to the Championship. If the new place is to have an atmosphere then it needs some standing areas. windowlicker
  • Score: 7

11:05am Tue 2 Sep 14

Tug job says...

amike wrote:
'She said the club wanted to work with York Knights.'

Surely the club has had plenty of time during the last few years in the development of these plans to build a relationship with the Knights.
A partnership requires the commitment and input from all parties to be a success. Perhaps if the Knights communicated with the public, took their place at and contributed to all meetings and discussions, formulated their own plans for marketing their product and safeguarding their own interests, and stopped tweeting misleading and alarmist messages, they would be taken as a serious and credible partner.
[quote][p][bold]amike[/bold] wrote: 'She said the club wanted to work with York Knights.' Surely the club has had plenty of time during the last few years in the development of these plans to build a relationship with the Knights.[/p][/quote]A partnership requires the commitment and input from all parties to be a success. Perhaps if the Knights communicated with the public, took their place at and contributed to all meetings and discussions, formulated their own plans for marketing their product and safeguarding their own interests, and stopped tweeting misleading and alarmist messages, they would be taken as a serious and credible partner. Tug job
  • Score: 32

12:05pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Yorkie41 says...

windowlicker wrote:
The terracing/safe standing issue isn't done yet, time to lobby the Football Foundation regarding the terms of the loan/grant and the current climate regarding standing at games and to remind them safe standing is permissible up to the Championship.

If the new place is to have an atmosphere then it needs some standing areas.
I understand that there is a new type of seat that can be used in such a way that you can stand or sit, and that seating arrangements for stadiums where going to be relaxed. Has anyone any update on this.
[quote][p][bold]windowlicker[/bold] wrote: The terracing/safe standing issue isn't done yet, time to lobby the Football Foundation regarding the terms of the loan/grant and the current climate regarding standing at games and to remind them safe standing is permissible up to the Championship. If the new place is to have an atmosphere then it needs some standing areas.[/p][/quote]I understand that there is a new type of seat that can be used in such a way that you can stand or sit, and that seating arrangements for stadiums where going to be relaxed. Has anyone any update on this. Yorkie41
  • Score: 6

12:16pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Zetkin says...

Yorkie41 wrote:
windowlicker wrote: The terracing/safe standing issue isn't done yet, time to lobby the Football Foundation regarding the terms of the loan/grant and the current climate regarding standing at games and to remind them safe standing is permissible up to the Championship. If the new place is to have an atmosphere then it needs some standing areas.
I understand that there is a new type of seat that can be used in such a way that you can stand or sit, and that seating arrangements for stadiums where going to be relaxed. Has anyone any update on this.
"Rail seating" is tried and tested, and I've long thought it would be ideal for a shared football/rugby stadium, allowing football fans to stand behind the goals, and rugby fans to stand along the sides. I imagine (but don't know for certain) that it would probably be too expensive, even within the budget for this development

Windowlicker has identified the heart of the matter - the attitude of the Football Foundation. If they can be persuaded to change their policy, I'm pretty sure the council and the clubs would be delighted to include standing areas.
[quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]windowlicker[/bold] wrote: The terracing/safe standing issue isn't done yet, time to lobby the Football Foundation regarding the terms of the loan/grant and the current climate regarding standing at games and to remind them safe standing is permissible up to the Championship. If the new place is to have an atmosphere then it needs some standing areas.[/p][/quote]I understand that there is a new type of seat that can be used in such a way that you can stand or sit, and that seating arrangements for stadiums where going to be relaxed. Has anyone any update on this.[/p][/quote]"Rail seating" is tried and tested, and I've long thought it would be ideal for a shared football/rugby stadium, allowing football fans to stand behind the goals, and rugby fans to stand along the sides. I imagine (but don't know for certain) that it would probably be too expensive, even within the budget for this development Windowlicker has identified the heart of the matter - the attitude of the Football Foundation. If they can be persuaded to change their policy, I'm pretty sure the council and the clubs would be delighted to include standing areas. Zetkin
  • Score: 10

12:22pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Salsaman says...

David Metcalfe, a lifelong City supporter, He said of the decision to let the club run the stadium: "I'm very supportive of it because it will mean more income for the club and there will be better facilities and better training for the youth team."
Sorry, why will it mean more income for the Football club? as the major share holder in the stadium shouldn't YCC be getting the income? or will the club be only getting about 20% of the income as that is what they have provided as capital for the project? (YCC £8m YFC2m)
David Metcalfe, a lifelong City supporter, He said of the decision to let the club run the stadium: "I'm very supportive of it because it will mean more income for the club and there will be better facilities and better training for the youth team." Sorry, why will it mean more income for the Football club? as the major share holder in the stadium shouldn't YCC be getting the income? or will the club be only getting about 20% of the income as that is what they have provided as capital for the project? (YCC £8m YFC2m) Salsaman
  • Score: -9

12:33pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Zetkin says...

amike wrote:
'She said the club wanted to work with York Knights.' Surely the club has had plenty of time during the last few years in the development of these plans to build a relationship with the Knights.
As someone who isn't a Knights fan (only ever been to one game), but who has defended them quite a bit over the last couple of days, I'm really disappointed to read ill-informed comments like this.
[quote][p][bold]amike[/bold] wrote: 'She said the club wanted to work with York Knights.' Surely the club has had plenty of time during the last few years in the development of these plans to build a relationship with the Knights.[/p][/quote]As someone who isn't a Knights fan (only ever been to one game), but who has defended them quite a bit over the last couple of days, I'm really disappointed to read ill-informed comments like this. Zetkin
  • Score: 16

1:07pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Poosticks says...

Could do with a new stadium, to double as a live music venue, somewhere to host larger bands!!
Could do with a new stadium, to double as a live music venue, somewhere to host larger bands!! Poosticks
  • Score: 12

1:36pm Tue 2 Sep 14

nomadic85 says...

Salsaman wrote:
David Metcalfe, a lifelong City supporter, He said of the decision to let the club run the stadium: "I'm very supportive of it because it will mean more income for the club and there will be better facilities and better training for the youth team."
Sorry, why will it mean more income for the Football club? as the major share holder in the stadium shouldn't YCC be getting the income? or will the club be only getting about 20% of the income as that is what they have provided as capital for the project? (YCC £8m YFC2m)
The football club has a 13 year contract from GLL to operate the stadium. The Knights will receive the monies they raise from matchdays, as will the football club. The football club will also receive any profits they can make from non match day revenue
[quote][p][bold]Salsaman[/bold] wrote: David Metcalfe, a lifelong City supporter, He said of the decision to let the club run the stadium: "I'm very supportive of it because it will mean more income for the club and there will be better facilities and better training for the youth team." Sorry, why will it mean more income for the Football club? as the major share holder in the stadium shouldn't YCC be getting the income? or will the club be only getting about 20% of the income as that is what they have provided as capital for the project? (YCC £8m YFC2m)[/p][/quote]The football club has a 13 year contract from GLL to operate the stadium. The Knights will receive the monies they raise from matchdays, as will the football club. The football club will also receive any profits they can make from non match day revenue nomadic85
  • Score: -61

1:59pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Justin7 says...

What's this "Cautious" welcome about? Based on talking to two people?

Overwhelming happy is what everyone I know says and on the forums. And "attended by 50 people" - No, 50 people at a time. Several hundred over the event.

Bad reporting.
What's this "Cautious" welcome about? Based on talking to two people? Overwhelming happy is what everyone I know says and on the forums. And "attended by 50 people" - No, 50 people at a time. Several hundred over the event. Bad reporting. Justin7
  • Score: -19

2:15pm Tue 2 Sep 14

TheTruthHurts says...

I think that this is a bad idea, there are a lot of people concerned at just how integral to the 'Community' stadium YCFC are going to become. Isnt there a slight conflict of interests also. And why are YCC letting this happen its not that specialised and i imagine that there were a number of interested parties.
I think that this is a bad idea, there are a lot of people concerned at just how integral to the 'Community' stadium YCFC are going to become. Isnt there a slight conflict of interests also. And why are YCC letting this happen its not that specialised and i imagine that there were a number of interested parties. TheTruthHurts
  • Score: -11

2:59pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Tug job says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
I think that this is a bad idea, there are a lot of people concerned at just how integral to the 'Community' stadium YCFC are going to become. Isnt there a slight conflict of interests also. And why are YCC letting this happen its not that specialised and i imagine that there were a number of interested parties.
Why is there a conflict of interests? My understanding is that the football club and its employees have considerable experience in all aspects of managing a stadium. I also understand that both clubs will be able to generate income on match days, as well as having the same number of non-match days available to them each month, as part of the core offer. There is a real opportunity for the two clubs to work together in raising the profile of professional sport in the city and I would hate to see this squandered through petty bickering and petulant behaviour.
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: I think that this is a bad idea, there are a lot of people concerned at just how integral to the 'Community' stadium YCFC are going to become. Isnt there a slight conflict of interests also. And why are YCC letting this happen its not that specialised and i imagine that there were a number of interested parties.[/p][/quote]Why is there a conflict of interests? My understanding is that the football club and its employees have considerable experience in all aspects of managing a stadium. I also understand that both clubs will be able to generate income on match days, as well as having the same number of non-match days available to them each month, as part of the core offer. There is a real opportunity for the two clubs to work together in raising the profile of professional sport in the city and I would hate to see this squandered through petty bickering and petulant behaviour. Tug job
  • Score: 13

3:40pm Tue 2 Sep 14

TheTruthHurts says...

Tug job wrote:
TheTruthHurts wrote:
I think that this is a bad idea, there are a lot of people concerned at just how integral to the 'Community' stadium YCFC are going to become. Isnt there a slight conflict of interests also. And why are YCC letting this happen its not that specialised and i imagine that there were a number of interested parties.
Why is there a conflict of interests? My understanding is that the football club and its employees have considerable experience in all aspects of managing a stadium. I also understand that both clubs will be able to generate income on match days, as well as having the same number of non-match days available to them each month, as part of the core offer. There is a real opportunity for the two clubs to work together in raising the profile of professional sport in the city and I would hate to see this squandered through petty bickering and petulant behaviour.
The conflict of interest is that YCFC are looking out for the very best interests of YCFC and not the community stadium by itself.

To be fair, anything to get the thing up and running but in the medium to long term it is not the most sensible approach.
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: I think that this is a bad idea, there are a lot of people concerned at just how integral to the 'Community' stadium YCFC are going to become. Isnt there a slight conflict of interests also. And why are YCC letting this happen its not that specialised and i imagine that there were a number of interested parties.[/p][/quote]Why is there a conflict of interests? My understanding is that the football club and its employees have considerable experience in all aspects of managing a stadium. I also understand that both clubs will be able to generate income on match days, as well as having the same number of non-match days available to them each month, as part of the core offer. There is a real opportunity for the two clubs to work together in raising the profile of professional sport in the city and I would hate to see this squandered through petty bickering and petulant behaviour.[/p][/quote]The conflict of interest is that YCFC are looking out for the very best interests of YCFC and not the community stadium by itself. To be fair, anything to get the thing up and running but in the medium to long term it is not the most sensible approach. TheTruthHurts
  • Score: -3

3:43pm Tue 2 Sep 14

The Great Buda says...

Tug job wrote:
TheTruthHurts wrote:
I think that this is a bad idea, there are a lot of people concerned at just how integral to the 'Community' stadium YCFC are going to become. Isnt there a slight conflict of interests also. And why are YCC letting this happen its not that specialised and i imagine that there were a number of interested parties.
Why is there a conflict of interests? My understanding is that the football club and its employees have considerable experience in all aspects of managing a stadium. I also understand that both clubs will be able to generate income on match days, as well as having the same number of non-match days available to them each month, as part of the core offer. There is a real opportunity for the two clubs to work together in raising the profile of professional sport in the city and I would hate to see this squandered through petty bickering and petulant behaviour.
Thats the crux of it.

The way to look at this is this. Lets say the money generated from the statium is £100 a day/month/year, whatever. Of that £100, £25 goes to both YCFC and YCK. The remaining £50 goes to the company running the stadium to cover the costs of doing so.

So sure on the face of it, it looks a bad deal for YCK, but their not lumbered with the costs of running the place YCFC are. YCK are getting a pretty good deal, for not much effort on their part.
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: I think that this is a bad idea, there are a lot of people concerned at just how integral to the 'Community' stadium YCFC are going to become. Isnt there a slight conflict of interests also. And why are YCC letting this happen its not that specialised and i imagine that there were a number of interested parties.[/p][/quote]Why is there a conflict of interests? My understanding is that the football club and its employees have considerable experience in all aspects of managing a stadium. I also understand that both clubs will be able to generate income on match days, as well as having the same number of non-match days available to them each month, as part of the core offer. There is a real opportunity for the two clubs to work together in raising the profile of professional sport in the city and I would hate to see this squandered through petty bickering and petulant behaviour.[/p][/quote]Thats the crux of it. The way to look at this is this. Lets say the money generated from the statium is £100 a day/month/year, whatever. Of that £100, £25 goes to both YCFC and YCK. The remaining £50 goes to the company running the stadium to cover the costs of doing so. So sure on the face of it, it looks a bad deal for YCK, but their not lumbered with the costs of running the place YCFC are. YCK are getting a pretty good deal, for not much effort on their part. The Great Buda
  • Score: 4

3:45pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Fat Harry says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
Tug job wrote:
TheTruthHurts wrote: I think that this is a bad idea, there are a lot of people concerned at just how integral to the 'Community' stadium YCFC are going to become. Isnt there a slight conflict of interests also. And why are YCC letting this happen its not that specialised and i imagine that there were a number of interested parties.
Why is there a conflict of interests? My understanding is that the football club and its employees have considerable experience in all aspects of managing a stadium. I also understand that both clubs will be able to generate income on match days, as well as having the same number of non-match days available to them each month, as part of the core offer. There is a real opportunity for the two clubs to work together in raising the profile of professional sport in the city and I would hate to see this squandered through petty bickering and petulant behaviour.
The conflict of interest is that YCFC are looking out for the very best interests of YCFC and not the community stadium by itself. To be fair, anything to get the thing up and running but in the medium to long term it is not the most sensible approach.
I think it's better than the alternative which would have been GLL doing it for themselves, and the bulk of the revenue disappearing down the M1 to subsidise the Royal Borough of Greenwich.
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: I think that this is a bad idea, there are a lot of people concerned at just how integral to the 'Community' stadium YCFC are going to become. Isnt there a slight conflict of interests also. And why are YCC letting this happen its not that specialised and i imagine that there were a number of interested parties.[/p][/quote]Why is there a conflict of interests? My understanding is that the football club and its employees have considerable experience in all aspects of managing a stadium. I also understand that both clubs will be able to generate income on match days, as well as having the same number of non-match days available to them each month, as part of the core offer. There is a real opportunity for the two clubs to work together in raising the profile of professional sport in the city and I would hate to see this squandered through petty bickering and petulant behaviour.[/p][/quote]The conflict of interest is that YCFC are looking out for the very best interests of YCFC and not the community stadium by itself. To be fair, anything to get the thing up and running but in the medium to long term it is not the most sensible approach.[/p][/quote]I think it's better than the alternative which would have been GLL doing it for themselves, and the bulk of the revenue disappearing down the M1 to subsidise the Royal Borough of Greenwich. Fat Harry
  • Score: 11

3:46pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Salsaman says...

nomadic85 wrote:
Salsaman wrote:
David Metcalfe, a lifelong City supporter, He said of the decision to let the club run the stadium: "I'm very supportive of it because it will mean more income for the club and there will be better facilities and better training for the youth team."
Sorry, why will it mean more income for the Football club? as the major share holder in the stadium shouldn't YCC be getting the income? or will the club be only getting about 20% of the income as that is what they have provided as capital for the project? (YCC £8m YFC2m)
The football club has a 13 year contract from GLL to operate the stadium. The Knights will receive the monies they raise from matchdays, as will the football club. The football club will also receive any profits they can make from non match day revenue
So does this mean that the money YCC has invested will not be repaid if profits are to be shared between YFC and the Knights? sounds to me like the general public in York who are not interested in either football or rugby have been stiched up again.
[quote][p][bold]nomadic85[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Salsaman[/bold] wrote: David Metcalfe, a lifelong City supporter, He said of the decision to let the club run the stadium: "I'm very supportive of it because it will mean more income for the club and there will be better facilities and better training for the youth team." Sorry, why will it mean more income for the Football club? as the major share holder in the stadium shouldn't YCC be getting the income? or will the club be only getting about 20% of the income as that is what they have provided as capital for the project? (YCC £8m YFC2m)[/p][/quote]The football club has a 13 year contract from GLL to operate the stadium. The Knights will receive the monies they raise from matchdays, as will the football club. The football club will also receive any profits they can make from non match day revenue[/p][/quote]So does this mean that the money YCC has invested will not be repaid if profits are to be shared between YFC and the Knights? sounds to me like the general public in York who are not interested in either football or rugby have been stiched up again. Salsaman
  • Score: -8

4:13pm Tue 2 Sep 14

the andrew says...

£750,000 was invested by the Wasps in partnership with Rydale council in the current Monks Cross stadium, monies from the sale of Wiggy road so to say YCK are bringing nothing to the table is a bit rich. And no one on here has been party to any meetings YCFC and YCK have had behind closed doors so it is all speculation as to the relationship between the two.
£750,000 was invested by the Wasps in partnership with Rydale council in the current Monks Cross stadium, monies from the sale of Wiggy road so to say YCK are bringing nothing to the table is a bit rich. And no one on here has been party to any meetings YCFC and YCK have had behind closed doors so it is all speculation as to the relationship between the two. the andrew
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Tue 2 Sep 14

CaroleBaines says...

the andrew wrote:
£750,000 was invested by the Wasps in partnership with Rydale council in the current Monks Cross stadium, monies from the sale of Wiggy road so to say YCK are bringing nothing to the table is a bit rich. And no one on here has been party to any meetings YCFC and YCK have had behind closed doors so it is all speculation as to the relationship between the two.
Come on. I don't pretend to be an expert on this situation, but even I can tell that one club owner (Jason McGill) has been professional and positive, while the other has been a bit teddy-out-of-pram. Refusing to attend meetings, sulking, threatening to fold the club. How the hell do you 'work together' with that!?

Also, its not just about how much each club is bringing to the party, its about the rent they will pay. Knights look like they will be paying a fraction of City's contribution. A small fraction at that.

You have to meet people half way in life, or face the consequences. And who is to say this is a bad deal for Knights? As far as I can see, this is just about who runs the stadium, the issues would be the same were it a third party company. At least with YCFC you get an entity which is used to running a stadium, used to pitch management etc.
[quote][p][bold]the andrew[/bold] wrote: £750,000 was invested by the Wasps in partnership with Rydale council in the current Monks Cross stadium, monies from the sale of Wiggy road so to say YCK are bringing nothing to the table is a bit rich. And no one on here has been party to any meetings YCFC and YCK have had behind closed doors so it is all speculation as to the relationship between the two.[/p][/quote]Come on. I don't pretend to be an expert on this situation, but even I can tell that one club owner (Jason McGill) has been professional and positive, while the other has been a bit teddy-out-of-pram. Refusing to attend meetings, sulking, threatening to fold the club. How the hell do you 'work together' with that!? Also, its not just about how much each club is bringing to the party, its about the rent they will pay. Knights look like they will be paying a fraction of City's contribution. A small fraction at that. You have to meet people half way in life, or face the consequences. And who is to say this is a bad deal for Knights? As far as I can see, this is just about who runs the stadium, the issues would be the same were it a third party company. At least with YCFC you get an entity which is used to running a stadium, used to pitch management etc. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 1

5:56pm Tue 2 Sep 14

the andrew says...

More speculation.
More speculation. the andrew
  • Score: -3

6:44pm Tue 2 Sep 14

bloodaxe says...

Given the figures so far for this season for attendances, worries about eight thousand leaving the ground would seem to be optimistic.

TOTAL: 9833 HIGHEST:3448 AVERAGE
:3278 CAPACITY: 9034 AVERAGE:36.2%
Given the figures so far for this season for attendances, worries about eight thousand leaving the ground would seem to be optimistic. TOTAL: 9833 HIGHEST:3448 AVERAGE :3278 CAPACITY: 9034 AVERAGE:36.2% bloodaxe
  • Score: 2

7:14pm Tue 2 Sep 14

CaroleBaines says...

Especially no worries re traffic for Knights games. Averaging about 600 for league games despite topping table. I was really shocked by that - some mistake surely??
Especially no worries re traffic for Knights games. Averaging about 600 for league games despite topping table. I was really shocked by that - some mistake surely?? CaroleBaines
  • Score: 3

7:42pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Tug job says...

the andrew wrote:
£750,000 was invested by the Wasps in partnership with Rydale council in the current Monks Cross stadium, monies from the sale of Wiggy road so to say YCK are bringing nothing to the table is a bit rich. And no one on here has been party to any meetings YCFC and YCK have had behind closed doors so it is all speculation as to the relationship between the two.
I'm not aware that anyone commenting on this article has said that the Knights are "bringing nothing to the table". For whatever reason, the Knights Chairman has refused to attend some of the meetings of the project group, despite being a member of the project Board, and has actively been encouraging the perception that the Knights will, in some way, be disadvantaged - recently claiming that the club could well fold in the next few weeks, even though promotion would see a significant increase in gates next season - and the club has started to lose talented players through its failure to offer new contracts or get players signed up. Nor have the YCK been an accessible source of news and information about the developments. There will be many other supporters of both clubs who can see the unique opportunity we have to move both clubs forwards and it would be good to look to the future, rather than bicker amongst ourselves.
[quote][p][bold]the andrew[/bold] wrote: £750,000 was invested by the Wasps in partnership with Rydale council in the current Monks Cross stadium, monies from the sale of Wiggy road so to say YCK are bringing nothing to the table is a bit rich. And no one on here has been party to any meetings YCFC and YCK have had behind closed doors so it is all speculation as to the relationship between the two.[/p][/quote]I'm not aware that anyone commenting on this article has said that the Knights are "bringing nothing to the table". For whatever reason, the Knights Chairman has refused to attend some of the meetings of the project group, despite being a member of the project Board, and has actively been encouraging the perception that the Knights will, in some way, be disadvantaged - recently claiming that the club could well fold in the next few weeks, even though promotion would see a significant increase in gates next season - and the club has started to lose talented players through its failure to offer new contracts or get players signed up. Nor have the YCK been an accessible source of news and information about the developments. There will be many other supporters of both clubs who can see the unique opportunity we have to move both clubs forwards and it would be good to look to the future, rather than bicker amongst ourselves. Tug job
  • Score: 10

7:50pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Tug job says...

bloodaxe wrote:
Given the figures so far for this season for attendances, worries about eight thousand leaving the ground would seem to be optimistic.

TOTAL: 9833 HIGHEST:3448 AVERAGE

:3278 CAPACITY: 9034 AVERAGE:36.2%
The capacity of Bootham Crescent is 7,800 so your calculations need reworking.

Even accepting your figure, when was the last time the Knights had an average attendance anywhere near 36% of capacity?
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Given the figures so far for this season for attendances, worries about eight thousand leaving the ground would seem to be optimistic. TOTAL: 9833 HIGHEST:3448 AVERAGE :3278 CAPACITY: 9034 AVERAGE:36.2%[/p][/quote]The capacity of Bootham Crescent is 7,800 so your calculations need reworking. Even accepting your figure, when was the last time the Knights had an average attendance anywhere near 36% of capacity? Tug job
  • Score: 9

1:08am Wed 3 Sep 14

jumbojet says...

What are the plans for the markings on the pitch? every football ground I have visited, after a rugby event , has been a total mess, and has remained the same for weeks after, lines in the wrong place, referees confused, and a general neglected appearance.
Let the rugby team find it's own bit of grass, if they are only getting 600 persons per game, the Knavesmire will do, and will not impinge on the super new grass with unwanted markings.
What are the plans for the markings on the pitch? every football ground I have visited, after a rugby event , has been a total mess, and has remained the same for weeks after, lines in the wrong place, referees confused, and a general neglected appearance. Let the rugby team find it's own bit of grass, if they are only getting 600 persons per game, the Knavesmire will do, and will not impinge on the super new grass with unwanted markings. jumbojet
  • Score: -5

3:20am Wed 3 Sep 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Jumbo, you are having a laugh. BC is YCFC's bit of grass. The former Athletics stadium is actually the Knights bit of grass, as you call it, at least the centre green.
You do raise a point though and this will all end in tears and a so called community stadium will simply become a home for the football club, As is the intention from the start, bailed out by York Council Tax payers and at the expense of our Athletics stadium.
This Council has just left a trail of expensive disasters behind them, this stadium fiasco just one more. I'm not surprised the Knights are staying quiet: Would you want to be associated with such a lash up?
Jumbo, you are having a laugh. BC is YCFC's bit of grass. The former Athletics stadium is actually the Knights bit of grass, as you call it, at least the centre green. You do raise a point though and this will all end in tears and a so called community stadium will simply become a home for the football club, As is the intention from the start, bailed out by York Council Tax payers and at the expense of our Athletics stadium. This Council has just left a trail of expensive disasters behind them, this stadium fiasco just one more. I'm not surprised the Knights are staying quiet: Would you want to be associated with such a lash up? ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -7

10:07am Wed 3 Sep 14

CaroleBaines says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Jumbo, you are having a laugh. BC is YCFC's bit of grass. The former Athletics stadium is actually the Knights bit of grass, as you call it, at least the centre green.
You do raise a point though and this will all end in tears and a so called community stadium will simply become a home for the football club, As is the intention from the start, bailed out by York Council Tax payers and at the expense of our Athletics stadium.
This Council has just left a trail of expensive disasters behind them, this stadium fiasco just one more. I'm not surprised the Knights are staying quiet: Would you want to be associated with such a lash up?
The stadium project was inherited by this Council from the Lib Dems, was it not?
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Jumbo, you are having a laugh. BC is YCFC's bit of grass. The former Athletics stadium is actually the Knights bit of grass, as you call it, at least the centre green. You do raise a point though and this will all end in tears and a so called community stadium will simply become a home for the football club, As is the intention from the start, bailed out by York Council Tax payers and at the expense of our Athletics stadium. This Council has just left a trail of expensive disasters behind them, this stadium fiasco just one more. I'm not surprised the Knights are staying quiet: Would you want to be associated with such a lash up?[/p][/quote]The stadium project was inherited by this Council from the Lib Dems, was it not? CaroleBaines
  • Score: 6
Post a comment

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

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree