Council ‘should buy Bootham Crescent’ (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
City of York Council ‘should buy Bootham Crescent’
8:50am Thursday 9th February 2012 in News
COUNCIL chiefs should look at buying York City’s current ground rather than building a new stadium, the city’s main opposition party has claimed.
City of York Council’s Conservative group wants the authority to consider using its £4 million allocation towards a new Monks Cross home for the football club and York City Knights to purchase Bootham Crescent instead.
The party said the lack of a “robust and workable business case” meant it cannot currently support the project, fearing an “unacceptable financial risk” to taxpayers. Its leader, Coun Ian Gillies, said Huntington Stadium could be sold, with the proceeds funding replacement athletics facilities and upgrades to the football ground, and suggested City and the Knights could share Bootham Crescent.
City director Sophie Hicks branded the idea “unworkable”, claiming up to £10 million would have to be spent on Bootham Crescent to “break even” and staying there would threaten their full-time status.
Coun Gillies raised concerns about repayment of the council’s stadium investment and City’s financial contribution to the project, saying it could become “a financial white elephant”. He suggested City’s £2 million Football Foundation loan, to be turned into a grant once Bootham Crescent is sold, could instead be used for ground improvements.
“Having been a season-ticket holder at City and the Knights, I want to help secure their future and I am concerned short-term gain will lead to a longer-term demise, particularly of the football club,” he said.
“The council should consider investing the £4 million already committed to the project to buy and maintain Bootham Crescent and secure York City’s initial future. The football club could have mainly fixed costs, the risk element for the council would be significantly reduced, football fans would stay at their spiritual home and, if the Knights were to play there, I would anticipate bigger attendances.”
Mrs Hicks said: "We are disappointed Coun Gillies has put forward this unworkable option at this late stage.
"The community stadium continues to be the only viable option for York City. The Conservative option would result in part-time football, the abandonment of our youth programme and would limit our community activities. We are operationg in a decaying stadium, and the investment the Conservatives suggest would not adequately improve Bootham Crescent to the standard of a new stadium or provude the facilities we need."
Comments(106)
thefutureis
says...
9:03am Thu 9 Feb 12
Even AndyD wrote:Yes an idea that no parties want. Brilliant! Even the football club have admitted this isnt workable. Cllr Gillies knows full well this option has been considered in detail and rejected. And what about his repeated public utterances that the council should not be bailing out the football club. What would buying Bootham Crescent be?!?!? Its either a community stadium with facilities for all or the council shouldnt be doing anything.
Got to love the Press. Mr Guildford's wacky utterances get front page. Whinges from the York-Trader-4 get front page. But when there is some 'real' news about this saga, its tucked away on page fourteen!!
What the hell is going on, Mr Stead?
As for the idea from the Tories - interesting, but sounds too little too late to me. Which is a shame, I think all City fans would want to stay at BC and it would suit the Knights too, surely?
Eric Bartholomew
says...
9:04am Thu 9 Feb 12
For starters The FF loan that turns into a grant can only be used on a 'new build',not for refurbishment of BC.
So thas £2m extra to find away.
Next idea please...
speaks99
says...
9:12am Thu 9 Feb 12
Firstly, The loan will only turn into a grant for a BRAND NEW stadium, not a lick of paint on the old one. That's £2m down the drain.
As I understand the loan money is already spent. So nothing there to spend on ground improvements.
£10m plus on ground improvements, plus the headache of where to play in the meantime - Huntington Stadium wont be allowed.
YCFC or the council don't own the barracks behind the ground so purchase of that would be costly if they wanted to expand.
The pitch would have to be replaced to ensure that the right kind of surface is created to hold up to Rugby League punishment.
Totally unworkable. Perhaps Press, you could do a little editorial about why and how other proposals are unworkable?
Zetkin
says...
9:13am Thu 9 Feb 12
£4 million of council money would soon disappear in paying off the FSIF and Douglas Craig & the other minority shareholders in Bootham Crescent Holdings, making some sort of settlement with Persimmon who still have first refusal on BC whenever it's sold.
YCFC would end up paying rent for its own home, and no doubt still be responsible for mainitaining a crumbling 1930s stadium.
Worse still, the club would be at the mercy of politicians who will feel duty-bound to rack up the rent every time Westminster decides public spending must be cut.
Mr Gillies "plan" does nothing but confuse the issue - he's asking the football club to sign its own death warrant in return for a lick of paint.
The Great Buda
says...
9:14am Thu 9 Feb 12
Which is the real White Elephant; A stadium bringing in £300,000+ a year to Council Coffers, or this plan?
(No degrees in Rocket Science needed)
NeilCOY
says...
9:26am Thu 9 Feb 12
duffy
says...
9:33am Thu 9 Feb 12
windowlicker
says...
9:58am Thu 9 Feb 12
Zetkin
says...
10:27am Thu 9 Feb 12
windowlicker wrote:It would be nice to stay at Bootham Crescent, but the Tories haven't done any work whatever on calculating the costs.
Although not a tory, I must say that's a good Idea. Much better than moving a football club to some obscure shopping center miles from the town center and forcing people to sit down! Folk should be complaining about the nforced all seater!
It's a delaying tactic that would see City forced to go part-time in a couple of years and perhaps even out of business, much to the delight of some people in this city.
As for the enforced all-seater policy, I understand the Football Supporters' Federation's Safe Standing Campaign is holding a meeting in York on February 28th, at the Social Club at Bootham Crescent.
kanchelskis
says...
10:48am Thu 9 Feb 12
Evidently its not just YCK who do not know what is been proposed and he is someone who has attended all meetings.
The Great Buda
says...
11:04am Thu 9 Feb 12
If we where to fall for it; why now? Why not 7+ years ago?
windowlicker
says...
11:14am Thu 9 Feb 12
Say No to all seaters!
meme
says...
11:51am Thu 9 Feb 12
and stops the debate over whether an out of town scheme will kill off the town centre
Why cannot BC be restored/modernised and if YCfc ever gain the league again and are financially viable then a new site if still wanted can be looked at again.
BC was fine before why cannot it be fine again?
speaks99
says...
12:14pm Thu 9 Feb 12
meme wrote:From the person who thinks the council shouldn't spend a penny on the football stadium, where do you think the £4m + purchase costs are going to come from?
Its a good idea and makes more sense than building a footie stadium out of town
and stops the debate over whether an out of town scheme will kill off the town centre
Why cannot BC be restored/modernised and if YCfc ever gain the league again and are financially viable then a new site if still wanted can be looked at again.
BC was fine before why cannot it be fine again?
bloodaxe
says...
12:41pm Thu 9 Feb 12
TerryYork
says...
1:03pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Boycott Barnitts. York Press bias and censorship.
Septimius Severus
says...
1:04pm Thu 9 Feb 12
That said, whether YCFC/YCK can afford £200k - £300k p.a. rent at either location is moot as there is no business plan.
On that IG is absolutley right.
I believe IG must know something that the Malton Mafia aren't letting on about the FF loan and an extention and conversion to grant for a refurb.
I think they (MM) are keeping with Plan A because they profit from it (despite not being allowed to profit in the terms they have with YCST).
For the Malton Mafia to laugh off (ignore / make up numbers on the back of a fag packet) a Plan B is only a political stance. They have a fiduciary responsibility to have a back up plan if they don't get their bail out from Oakgate.
So do YCST.
I think YCFC staying at BC, without any increase in spend by the council is a much more sustainable proposition. Crowds (revenue) are much more likely to be greater.
you might even see people returning to RL.
The 'Stadium Tsar' ought to have a look at this and a proper feasibility study produced. If CYC are spending £600k on the MX stadium plans what will an extra few £100k difference make?
No more 'guessing'.
PhilipInYork
says...
1:21pm Thu 9 Feb 12
TerryYork wrote:Barnitts complained people were not supporting their advertisement (suggestion they paid money for the article), and the Press, and were shocked that over 50 comments, every single one being of the same opinion, were outraged with their stupid and pathetic stance.
Still no sign of the 50+ comments returning on the other article, all in dismay and disgust of Barnitts and Bettys Tea shop selling out their loyalty to York.
Boycott Barnitts. York Press bias and censorship.
Rather than removing any potentially upsetting posts about boycotting their poxy little shop with overpriced tat, they removed EVERY COMMENT.
I am disgusted with Barnitts - who everyone should boycott. And I am disgusted with the Press for their bias. And I am disgusted in Mr Stead for his sniveling "But I'm a City fan, honest, wait for tomorrow" email - published on Red and Blue, and this is the article he comes out with (designed to split City fans with a nonsensical, undetailed plan), which is hidden away in the print version, when Barnitts (bunch of Leeds fans), get the front page.
Press complaints commission will be getting an e-mail from me. I suggest others do the same.
Even AndyD
says...
1:56pm Thu 9 Feb 12
PhilipInYork wrote:Couldn't agree more. That article yesterday smelt very strongly of the old boys club looking after each other. Same goes for the plethora of nearly identical 'stories' we've been fed about Mulberry Hall, Barnitts, Betty's over the last few weeks. Add to that the wiping of nearly fifty comments and you really begin to wonder what the hell is going on - its about time residents had a voice, not the Press, not a small group of traders and not politicians.
TerryYork wrote:Barnitts complained people were not supporting their advertisement (suggestion they paid money for the article), and the Press, and were shocked that over 50 comments, every single one being of the same opinion, were outraged with their stupid and pathetic stance.
Still no sign of the 50+ comments returning on the other article, all in dismay and disgust of Barnitts and Bettys Tea shop selling out their loyalty to York.
Boycott Barnitts. York Press bias and censorship.
Rather than removing any potentially upsetting posts about boycotting their poxy little shop with overpriced tat, they removed EVERY COMMENT.
I am disgusted with Barnitts - who everyone should boycott. And I am disgusted with the Press for their bias. And I am disgusted in Mr Stead for his sniveling "But I'm a City fan, honest, wait for tomorrow" email - published on Red and Blue, and this is the article he comes out with (designed to split City fans with a nonsensical, undetailed plan), which is hidden away in the print version, when Barnitts (bunch of Leeds fans), get the front page.
Press complaints commission will be getting an e-mail from me. I suggest others do the same.
david_york
says...
2:25pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Eric Bartholomew wrote:Not at all, what Mr Gillies is saying is that of the £4M Council contribution to buy Bootham Crescent, £2M would be used to pay off the Football Foundation loan, leaving the majority of the balance to use to make safety improvements and deal with many of the continuing maintenance issues the ground currently suffers from.
Nice try Tories,but you've missed a vital point.
For starters The FF loan that turns into a grant can only be used on a 'new build',not for refurbishment of BC.
So thas £2m extra to find away.
Next idea please...
david_york
says...
2:56pm Thu 9 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:Actually I think this is an emminently positive suggestion from the Tories. The current Administration will clearly try to bulldoze through £4M of Council taxpayers money into the Monks Cross scheme which could fall flat on its face if it goes to public inquiry (highly possible) and that would take years to go through the system, leaving the football club particularly vulnerable and the residents of York completely open to a significant loss in the public purse. The Tories clearly recognise this and rather than risk the £4M, if the Council buy Bootham Crescent, they have an asset that could be worth something if the football and rugby clubs fail in the future. Couple that with the bonus that a good percentage of the balance after paying off the FF loan, will assist in addressing safety and maintenance issues at Bootham Crescent. If the rugby club also went to BC, costs would reduce further for both sport clubs and the City retains a stadium capable of accommodating more than 6,000. Huntington could be sold for development releasing further funds back to the council for investment. The rugby club could even be offered first refusal if Mr Guildford or whoever can meet the market price. John Lewis would then be encouraged to build in Piccadilly, surely everyones real preferred site. This way, professional sport is secured in the City at minimal risk to the Council, everyones a winner!
meme wrote:From the person who thinks the council shouldn't spend a penny on the football stadium, where do you think the £4m + purchase costs are going to come from?
Its a good idea and makes more sense than building a footie stadium out of town
and stops the debate over whether an out of town scheme will kill off the town centre
Why cannot BC be restored/modernised and if YCfc ever gain the league again and are financially viable then a new site if still wanted can be looked at again.
BC was fine before why cannot it be fine again?
Septimius Severus
says...
3:01pm Thu 9 Feb 12
city_view
says...
3:02pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Again, re the Press - what they decide to do on their own website is and should be up to them. We are being offered, for free, a platform to express views. If you don't like it, maybe start your own 'Monks Cross 2' discussion forum?
big boy york
says...
3:05pm Thu 9 Feb 12
meme
says...
3:09pm Thu 9 Feb 12
How much rent are York City going to pay at the new stadium
How much rent are York Knights going to pay
How much rent is anticipated from other community sporting users
What are anticipated running costs
What will this cost in terms of York ratepayers contribution including the £400000 already allocated
So that's a start on viability and let's see who can answer these
Fat Harry
says...
3:11pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Therefore the solution is to come up with a vague idea, with no business case to support it, that makes things worse for everyone involved.
Do those of you who have swallowed Gillies' nonsense realise that York City currently spend around £120,000 each year just to stop BC falling down.
The only way to avoid spending that money is to build a new ground.
I'd love that to be at Bootham Crescent, but that would cost twice the amount Gillies is talking about.
Perhaps his rich friends at Coppergate2/LaSalle are going to club together with Barnitts and Bettys come to the rescue?
Somehow I doubt it.
And while Gillies cluds the issue with pir in the sky rubbish, time is running out. The council mustn't be distracted by this claptrap unless Mr Gillies produces someone willing to stick £6,000,000 into the pot.
Fat Harry
says...
3:12pm Thu 9 Feb 12
kanchelskis
says...
3:37pm Thu 9 Feb 12
meme wrote:Finally someone with a sensible comment. You wouldn't think this would be too difficult to answer at this stage of the project.
As a basic start on viability
How much rent are York City going to pay at the new stadium
How much rent are York Knights going to pay
How much rent is anticipated from other community sporting users
What are anticipated running costs
What will this cost in terms of York ratepayers contribution including the £400000 already allocated
So that's a start on viability and let's see who can answer these
Just add a couple more questions to that and we might just be getting somewhere!
Septimius Severus
says...
3:44pm Thu 9 Feb 12
kanchelskis wrote:Absolutely. Where's a 'Stadium Tsar' when you need one?
meme wrote:Finally someone with a sensible comment. You wouldn't think this would be too difficult to answer at this stage of the project.
As a basic start on viability
How much rent are York City going to pay at the new stadium
How much rent are York Knights going to pay
How much rent is anticipated from other community sporting users
What are anticipated running costs
What will this cost in terms of York ratepayers contribution including the £400000 already allocated
So that's a start on viability and let's see who can answer these
Just add a couple more questions to that and we might just be getting somewhere!
kanchelskis
says...
3:48pm Thu 9 Feb 12
meme wrote:Just to elaborate the rent for the Knights would have to be £0 and the income lost from the bar would need to be replaced.
As a basic start on viability
How much rent are York City going to pay at the new stadium
How much rent are York Knights going to pay
How much rent is anticipated from other community sporting users
What are anticipated running costs
What will this cost in terms of York ratepayers contribution including the £400000 already allocated
So that's a start on viability and let's see who can answer these
The Football Club could possibly pay £120,000 if that is what they are used to paying for up keep of Bootham Crescent (quote fat harry).
kanchelskis
says...
3:53pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Why would any business agree to that?
The Great Buda
says...
3:59pm Thu 9 Feb 12
kanchelskis wrote:We'd really be getting there is JG went to meetings to ask them. But thats too much to hope for.
meme wrote:Finally someone with a sensible comment. You wouldn't think this would be too difficult to answer at this stage of the project.
As a basic start on viability
How much rent are York City going to pay at the new stadium
How much rent are York Knights going to pay
How much rent is anticipated from other community sporting users
What are anticipated running costs
What will this cost in terms of York ratepayers contribution including the £400000 already allocated
So that's a start on viability and let's see who can answer these
Just add a couple more questions to that and we might just be getting somewhere!
speaks99
says...
4:06pm Thu 9 Feb 12
OLD - HEAD
says...
4:06pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Even AndyD
says...
4:09pm Thu 9 Feb 12
kanchelskis wrote:Rugby team went bust a few years back and were they not locked out of their ground a few weeks ago? Lets not get into a slings and arrows between our two fine sporting clubs; its tough time for everyone, which is why we need a solution for all.
It is also important to note that the Knights are a going concern whereas the Football Club lose money each year. The proposals from the Council will force the Knights to lose money each year and ensure that the Football Club are going concern.
Why would any business agree to that?
Even AndyD
says...
4:18pm Thu 9 Feb 12
david_york wrote:But the figures do not add up, David. There isn't anywhere near enough money to repay the loans against Bootham Crescent. And before anyone squeaks bad management, City got themselves into dire strife only when Douglas Craig 'stole' the ground from underneath them, before demanding millions to sell it back. Some of that is still owed to BCH I believe, the rest to the McGills. The second issue is the FF loan is just that, a loan, UNLESS we move to a new ground - then it becomes a grant. Something Mr Gillies has over looked.
speaks99 wrote:Actually I think this is an emminently positive suggestion from the Tories. The current Administration will clearly try to bulldoze through £4M of Council taxpayers money into the Monks Cross scheme which could fall flat on its face if it goes to public inquiry (highly possible) and that would take years to go through the system, leaving the football club particularly vulnerable and the residents of York completely open to a significant loss in the public purse. The Tories clearly recognise this and rather than risk the £4M, if the Council buy Bootham Crescent, they have an asset that could be worth something if the football and rugby clubs fail in the future. Couple that with the bonus that a good percentage of the balance after paying off the FF loan, will assist in addressing safety and maintenance issues at Bootham Crescent. If the rugby club also went to BC, costs would reduce further for both sport clubs and the City retains a stadium capable of accommodating more than 6,000. Huntington could be sold for development releasing further funds back to the council for investment. The rugby club could even be offered first refusal if Mr Guildford or whoever can meet the market price. John Lewis would then be encouraged to build in Piccadilly, surely everyones real preferred site. This way, professional sport is secured in the City at minimal risk to the Council, everyones a winner!
meme wrote:From the person who thinks the council shouldn't spend a penny on the football stadium, where do you think the £4m + purchase costs are going to come from?
Its a good idea and makes more sense than building a footie stadium out of town
and stops the debate over whether an out of town scheme will kill off the town centre
Why cannot BC be restored/modernised and if YCfc ever gain the league again and are financially viable then a new site if still wanted can be looked at again.
BC was fine before why cannot it be fine again?
Most City fans would love to stay at BC, but most also know the realities and amounts involved in the current situation. As such, as much as we'd wish the solution to be Bootham Crescent, it simply isn't! Everyone is NOT a winner.
kanchelskis
says...
4:20pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Even AndyD wrote:10 years ago when the Wasps went out of business.
kanchelskis wrote:Rugby team went bust a few years back and were they not locked out of their ground a few weeks ago? Lets not get into a slings and arrows between our two fine sporting clubs; its tough time for everyone, which is why we need a solution for all.
It is also important to note that the Knights are a going concern whereas the Football Club lose money each year. The proposals from the Council will force the Knights to lose money each year and ensure that the Football Club are going concern.
Why would any business agree to that?
Also Knights were locked out of the bar not the ground, and not due to been unable to pay their bills.
Your right though lets not get into slings and arrows. All the Knights want is some answers and assurances.
Septimius Severus
says...
4:21pm Thu 9 Feb 12
OLD - HEAD wrote:If they were 'with the big business brigade' they'd be supporting Oakgate!
This is a typical Tory statement, to keep in with the big business brigade, who are their main backers. Although it would be most City fans ultimate wish, even the present board of York City Football Club admit that staying at Bootham Crescent, is not a viable option.
Even AndyD
says...
4:25pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Press called Barnitts and Betty's big business yesterday did they not? Think this is what our old-head friend is referring to. As though you didn't know.....bad boy, you! ;-)
OLD - HEAD wrote:If they were 'with the big business brigade' they'd be supporting Oakgate!
This is a typical Tory statement, to keep in with the big business brigade, who are their main backers. Although it would be most City fans ultimate wish, even the present board of York City Football Club admit that staying at Bootham Crescent, is not a viable option.
Septimius Severus
says...
4:34pm Thu 9 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:So the maths is...Land £4m + £2m loan + £10m investment = £16m?
Anyone who thinks this is a viable alternative really needs to look into the detail of it. Where will the money come from to buy the land. I have no idea what the value is but it is well over £2m considering the various interests who need to take a cut of it. Probably nearer £4m or more. Then there is the £2m FF loan that needs repaying. Then there is investment to get the ground up to a standard that will stop it leaking money. So thats £16m or so. Which will come from where?
Let's break that down...
The land might be worth £3 or £4m.
Ok. The council pay for it. They've set aside the money.
The current belief is that the FF say the loan would be converted to a grant either for refurbing BC or towards the new stadium - with conditions regarding 'standards'.
So that £2m goes into the refurb.
So remodelling the old one lets say it's not £10m for arguments sake (cos a new one is only £15m) and say £4m - £6m? (£2m already in the bank from FF).
So you only need to find £2m - £4m.
Sounds easy... YCST could raise that and buy the club back. They've done it before.
Result. YCFC stay at BC, the Malton Mafia go home and everyone is happy. Except Oakgate.
milkybarkid
says...
4:50pm Thu 9 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
5:39pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:There is no agreement, or "belief" that the FF will convert the grant to a loan if it is used to renovate Bootham Crescent. That conversation hasn't recently been had. Perhaps you could point me towards the article which states this assumption. Lets work on the assumption that this is not a major hurdle (which it undoubtedly is):
speaks99 wrote:So the maths is...Land £4m + £2m loan + £10m investment = £16m?
Anyone who thinks this is a viable alternative really needs to look into the detail of it. Where will the money come from to buy the land. I have no idea what the value is but it is well over £2m considering the various interests who need to take a cut of it. Probably nearer £4m or more. Then there is the £2m FF loan that needs repaying. Then there is investment to get the ground up to a standard that will stop it leaking money. So thats £16m or so. Which will come from where?
Let's break that down...
The land might be worth £3 or £4m.
Ok. The council pay for it. They've set aside the money.
The current belief is that the FF say the loan would be converted to a grant either for refurbing BC or towards the new stadium - with conditions regarding 'standards'.
So that £2m goes into the refurb.
So remodelling the old one lets say it's not £10m for arguments sake (cos a new one is only £15m) and say £4m - £6m? (£2m already in the bank from FF).
So you only need to find £2m - £4m.
Sounds easy... YCST could raise that and buy the club back. They've done it before.
Result. YCFC stay at BC, the Malton Mafia go home and everyone is happy. Except Oakgate.
The £2m grant/loan has already been spent - that's a further £2m to find in your calculations.
Then the FF grant is on the proviso that we build an all seater stadium. That's two stands straight away that need to be developed. However, do that and it will substantially reduce the capacity of the ground, so that third stand needs renovating. Either the main stand or the pop stand. I suspect there will need to be some serious renovations on the remaining one. We're practically rebuilding the stadium already. Plus the cost of removing the current pitch and replacing it with a surface which will withstand the punishment of a rugby league season. Rental of a ground fit for purpose whilst this is ongoing?? There's your £10m right there. Then we have to rehouse the athletics. The feasibility study puts the cost of this at £1.24m. Ouch.
Perhaps you'd like to go over to Darlington and tell them how easy it is to raise £2m - £4m, let alone a further £5m on top of that.
speaks99
says...
5:43pm Thu 9 Feb 12
milkybarkid wrote:On what planet did you get these figures from - or are you referring to the loans they have been pumping into the club to keep it afloat?
Main reason Sophie and the rest of the McGill clan do not want stay at BC is because they will lose out financially. Once sold they stand to make approx £1.5 million which is not a bad dividend!
speaks99
says...
5:43pm Thu 9 Feb 12
milkybarkid wrote:On what planet did you get these figures from - or are you referring to the loans they have been pumping into the club to keep it afloat?
Main reason Sophie and the rest of the McGill clan do not want stay at BC is because they will lose out financially. Once sold they stand to make approx £1.5 million which is not a bad dividend!
Even AndyD
says...
6:05pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Full of errors that.
speaks99 wrote:So the maths is...Land £4m + £2m loan + £10m investment = £16m?
Anyone who thinks this is a viable alternative really needs to look into the detail of it. Where will the money come from to buy the land. I have no idea what the value is but it is well over £2m considering the various interests who need to take a cut of it. Probably nearer £4m or more. Then there is the £2m FF loan that needs repaying. Then there is investment to get the ground up to a standard that will stop it leaking money. So thats £16m or so. Which will come from where?
Let's break that down...
The land might be worth £3 or £4m.
Ok. The council pay for it. They've set aside the money.
The current belief is that the FF say the loan would be converted to a grant either for refurbing BC or towards the new stadium - with conditions regarding 'standards'.
So that £2m goes into the refurb.
So remodelling the old one lets say it's not £10m for arguments sake (cos a new one is only £15m) and say £4m - £6m? (£2m already in the bank from FF).
So you only need to find £2m - £4m.
Sounds easy... YCST could raise that and buy the club back. They've done it before.
Result. YCFC stay at BC, the Malton Mafia go home and everyone is happy. Except Oakgate.
The FF is for a new ALL SEATER stadium, there has been no relaxing of the rules on that.
Secondly you need to add £2m to your figures as the grant money has already been spent.
There are also loans again the ground which cannot be written off - for a start, where do you think the cash came from to buy BC back after Douglas Craig et al did their deadly dead?
Thirdly - the ST did not raise millions and without the 'Malton Mafia' (why the disrespect, do you know them personally?) there would be no club as they've pumped the necessary funds in.
There are other errors, but that will do for now!
david_york
says...
6:12pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Even AndyD
says...
6:44pm Thu 9 Feb 12
When it was established a move was by far the cheaper option, was Mr Gillies just not listening? Or is this more likely a political, cheap shot placing in-party squabbles above professional sport in York.
And all this is before we even begin to consider community benefits of a new stadium that just about every other town and city seems to enjoy. Marvellous!
speaks99
says...
7:01pm Thu 9 Feb 12
What he is doing is playing up to the voters and telling them what he thinks they want to hear - not a scrap of viability to this scheme.
kanchelskis
says...
7:05pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Abstemious
says...
7:06pm Thu 9 Feb 12
When was it decided (and by whom) to give £4M of public money to a failing, privately owned entertainment business to help it survive?
About 1.5% of the York population patronise this BUSINESS. Why should the rest of us pay for it?
Even AndyD
says...
7:07pm Thu 9 Feb 12
kanchelskis wrote:Interesting if true. Source please.
Cllr Gillies has said that a Football Foundation representative has stated that money could be used to upgrade BC as well as move to a new stadium.
Even AndyD
says...
7:07pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Abstemious wrote:Your first sentence is spot on.
I must keep more up to date with what's happening with a stadium for YCFC.
When was it decided (and by whom) to give £4M of public money to a failing, privately owned entertainment business to help it survive?
About 1.5% of the York population patronise this BUSINESS. Why should the rest of us pay for it?
speaks99
says...
7:57pm Thu 9 Feb 12
kanchelskis wrote:That's not mentioned in the article, and Gillies has never publicly said this. The football federation have never agreed to this. Any "chat" that Gillies has had will have been completely off the record, and will have to be approved by committee. But even if it was the case, there are so many pitfalls to this. What happens with all seater aspect they were earlier so adamant they required? Can we just drop that as well?
Cllr Gillies has said that a Football Foundation representative has stated that money could be used to upgrade BC as well as move to a new stadium.
But the biggest problem is where the money for the development is going to come from. Whether its £5m or £10m. Who is going to pay for it??
Mr Crabtree
says...
9:04pm Thu 9 Feb 12
david_york wrote:You're right, it isn't worth £4million.
I really doubt Bootham Crescent is worth more than £4M these days - pre 2006/7 maybe. Half that might be closer to the real value these days, particularly with affordable housing policies etc eating into developer margins. The Councils £4M could be close to covering the loan repayment of £2M to the FF and purchase of the ground at current market value. Sale of Huntington stadium pays for Bootham Crescent improvements. Simplistic maybe but I'd argue that Monks Cross 2/stadium plan has little more financial detail after x years and £'s wasted on umpteen reports and Stadium 'Tsar' salary that really haven't really told us anything.
As a housing site (it's probable use if it is vacated) it is probably worth less than £1million owing to the council's affordable housing policy.
CYC could therefore buy it for around £1million, and invest £3m towards ground improvements. YCFC could then pay rent to CYC.
Is this a viable proposition ?
speaks99
says...
9:26pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Mr Crabtree wrote:Nope - you can't build 3 stands with £3m. Plus the £2m grant owed to FF. plus rehousing the athletics. Plus relaying the playing surface for Rugby League use. Plus getting it passed for planning in a densely populated residential area.
david_york wrote:You're right, it isn't worth £4million.
I really doubt Bootham Crescent is worth more than £4M these days - pre 2006/7 maybe. Half that might be closer to the real value these days, particularly with affordable housing policies etc eating into developer margins. The Councils £4M could be close to covering the loan repayment of £2M to the FF and purchase of the ground at current market value. Sale of Huntington stadium pays for Bootham Crescent improvements. Simplistic maybe but I'd argue that Monks Cross 2/stadium plan has little more financial detail after x years and £'s wasted on umpteen reports and Stadium 'Tsar' salary that really haven't really told us anything.
As a housing site (it's probable use if it is vacated) it is probably worth less than £1million owing to the council's affordable housing policy.
CYC could therefore buy it for around £1million, and invest £3m towards ground improvements. YCFC could then pay rent to CYC.
Is this a viable proposition ?
I would love it, Love it, if York could stay at BC, and if someone could come up with some reasonable proposals then I would back it to the hilt. Sadly there has not been one argument which makes sense yet.
Septimius Severus
says...
11:17pm Thu 9 Feb 12
That means they only need to upgrade the 2 other ends.
Nice to see a few people challenging the given 'facts'.
"I would love it, love it". Whoops the veil drops. another angry city fan blaming the rest of the tax paying community for their troubles.
We'd all love it if city could stay at BC, believe me. All those except the ones spinning the truth.
I feel sorry for you. all those half lies you've been told.
On LookNorth last week Jason McGill said
“We’ve got no other option and the Football Stadium Improvement Fund has been fantastic for the last 9 to 10 years and they’ve been very patient. I THINK that patience is rapidly running out and I THINK if there is another delay there is a significant LIKELIHOOD that they will call in the loan and there is no other way of paying off that loan than selling Bootham Crescent.”
That's a lot of 'thinking' and 'guessing' for the Chairman of a football club that stands to get a lot of money back plus interest on the club he bankrolled or is it bankrupted?. Shouldn't he know.
What if he's been misleading you all?
Chairmen of York City have never done that before... have they...?
Eric Bartholomew
says...
11:37pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Huntington stadium goes completely,so out of those proceeds,which is estimated to be 4m,CoYC would pay off the FF(£2m) and would have to still provide the athletics club with a new home(£1m plus).Then there's the purchase of the BC site,which they would have to include.
So basically that's more than the £4m gone.
And what do the council get for that money?
A 1930's stadium that is showing it's age and would need millions spending on it,and with no possibility of a further grant from the FF.
Not very good value for money it seems,something the Tories constantly bang on about.
This is purely a bit of Tory political posturing and pandering to their trader friends,one of whom is very prominent in the Campaign against MX2.
Even AndyD
says...
7:58am Fri 10 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:'The veil drops' - 'Angry city fans' 'The Malton mafia'??
2 of the stands are already all seater or have you not been there in a while?
That means they only need to upgrade the 2 other ends.
Nice to see a few people challenging the given 'facts'.
"I would love it, love it". Whoops the veil drops. another angry city fan blaming the rest of the tax paying community for their troubles.
We'd all love it if city could stay at BC, believe me. All those except the ones spinning the truth.
I feel sorry for you. all those half lies you've been told.
On LookNorth last week Jason McGill said
“We’ve got no other option and the Football Stadium Improvement Fund has been fantastic for the last 9 to 10 years and they’ve been very patient. I THINK that patience is rapidly running out and I THINK if there is another delay there is a significant LIKELIHOOD that they will call in the loan and there is no other way of paying off that loan than selling Bootham Crescent.”
That's a lot of 'thinking' and 'guessing' for the Chairman of a football club that stands to get a lot of money back plus interest on the club he bankrolled or is it bankrupted?. Shouldn't he know.
What if he's been misleading you all?
Chairmen of York City have never done that before... have they...?
Calm down for goodness sake. This is a debate not WWIII - why the need to belittle everyone?
We all get hot under the collar when discussing something we care about, me included, but you seem to append every sentence with some sort of snide dig. Lets behave like adults and then we might actually get somewhere.
The Great Buda
says...
8:09am Fri 10 Feb 12
Eric raises a very good point. Under these plans the Athletics Club loses out. Thats not very fair on them is it? The Comunity Stadium is a once in a life time chance to give the people of York top class facilities.
It seems a sorry few do not wish this.
windowlicker
says...
9:12am Fri 10 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
9:23am Fri 10 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Septimus getting angryh and starting to sling mud rather than comment on the actual article.
2 of the stands are already all seater or have you not been there in a while?
That means they only need to upgrade the 2 other ends.
Nice to see a few people challenging the given 'facts'.
"I would love it, love it". Whoops the veil drops. another angry city fan blaming the rest of the tax paying community for their troubles.
We'd all love it if city could stay at BC, believe me. All those except the ones spinning the truth.
I feel sorry for you. all those half lies you've been told.
On LookNorth last week Jason McGill said
“We’ve got no other option and the Football Stadium Improvement Fund has been fantastic for the last 9 to 10 years and they’ve been very patient. I THINK that patience is rapidly running out and I THINK if there is another delay there is a significant LIKELIHOOD that they will call in the loan and there is no other way of paying off that loan than selling Bootham Crescent.”
That's a lot of 'thinking' and 'guessing' for the Chairman of a football club that stands to get a lot of money back plus interest on the club he bankrolled or is it bankrupted?. Shouldn't he know.
What if he's been misleading you all?
Chairmen of York City have never done that before... have they...?
3 stand would need building because if we renovated just two stands the stadium would sit about 4000. So we need to expand a third section, which would mean demolishing either the pop or the main and starting again. I mentioned that in an earlier post but you're getting so het up you can't see beyond your beloved city centre traders...
I would love it, love it - is a quote from Kevin Keegan and is used in this sentence to show my support at staying at Bootham Crescent.
Those spinning the truth? If you gave me a workable model in which we could stay at BC then I would be over the moon. However, one hasn't been forthcoming. No-one has provided a way to get around the £2m FF loan. Or the £6 - £10m needed to invest in the infrastructure of BC. Nor come up with where YCFC will play whilst development is ongoing. Nor has stated what would happen to the Athletics club.
Perhaps SS you should comment on the actual ARTICLE instead of slinging mud. Or is that too technical for you?
And for someone so "in the know" the McGills will get NO interest back on the loans they have been pumping into the club. You can look that up, but that doesn't suit the picture you would like to paint of the McGills would it?
milkybarkid
says...
9:28am Fri 10 Feb 12
Also been told that they have the cash ready to buy York City Football Club from the McGills, plus paying off debts, and giving 40% of shares to the supporters trust who will also be on the York Sporting Clubs main board.
McGill, i understand, has turned this down.
meme
says...
9:43am Fri 10 Feb 12
I assume the rugby club and YCfc have some idea of what they are being asked to pay and whether its viable to them
I assume CoYC know how much approximately they will have to contribute and roughly what other income will come to us the ratepayers from the other sporting community uses
Not too much to ask to be published and before CoYC start screaming its commercially sensitive information perhaps they would do well to remember its our money. our City and this proposal has split the city so we should be allowed to know what we may/may not be letting ourselves in for
speaks99
says...
9:44am Fri 10 Feb 12
milkybarkid wrote:I've been told the queen is giving money to the football club because she's a secret supporter. Isn't the internet great for making things up? Unless you can proved what you say I'll just take this comment along the same line as all your other anti YCFC comments.
Been told that Guildford has done a deal with four business men to buy and build a new stadium with a large investment for team building been set a side. I understand one could be Gordon Gibb (owner of Flamingo Land) and Craig Harrison who was involved with Doncaster RL.
Also been told that they have the cash ready to buy York City Football Club from the McGills, plus paying off debts, and giving 40% of shares to the supporters trust who will also be on the York Sporting Clubs main board.
McGill, i understand, has turned this down.
speaks99
says...
9:45am Fri 10 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:Don't worry - if its true I'm sure JG will do his usual thing of "leaking" it to the press for column inches.
milkybarkid wrote:I've been told the queen is giving money to the football club because she's a secret supporter. Isn't the internet great for making things up? Unless you can proved what you say I'll just take this comment along the same line as all your other anti YCFC comments.
Been told that Guildford has done a deal with four business men to buy and build a new stadium with a large investment for team building been set a side. I understand one could be Gordon Gibb (owner of Flamingo Land) and Craig Harrison who was involved with Doncaster RL.
Also been told that they have the cash ready to buy York City Football Club from the McGills, plus paying off debts, and giving 40% of shares to the supporters trust who will also be on the York Sporting Clubs main board.
McGill, i understand, has turned this down.
speaks99
says...
9:49am Fri 10 Feb 12
meme wrote:Do you have any idea how sensitive this information is? The council are custodians of our City. We don't need to see business plans, nor agreements as to who pays what, unless all parties are in agreement to this.
can no one answer directly the basic questions I asked ref viability?....If they cannot this scheme should not even be considered until they can.
I assume the rugby club and YCfc have some idea of what they are being asked to pay and whether its viable to them
I assume CoYC know how much approximately they will have to contribute and roughly what other income will come to us the ratepayers from the other sporting community uses
Not too much to ask to be published and before CoYC start screaming its commercially sensitive information perhaps they would do well to remember its our money. our City and this proposal has split the city so we should be allowed to know what we may/may not be letting ourselves in for
I would agree that it might benefit their case were this published. It might also harm their planning bid were the "Campaign for York" to get hold of it and start tearing into it as they would whether it was justifiable or not.
The Great Buda
says...
9:53am Fri 10 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:You mean leak it, then suddenly become uncontactable for futher comment?
speaks99 wrote:Don't worry - if its true I'm sure JG will do his usual thing of "leaking" it to the press for column inches.
milkybarkid wrote:I've been told the queen is giving money to the football club because she's a secret supporter. Isn't the internet great for making things up? Unless you can proved what you say I'll just take this comment along the same line as all your other anti YCFC comments.
Been told that Guildford has done a deal with four business men to buy and build a new stadium with a large investment for team building been set a side. I understand one could be Gordon Gibb (owner of Flamingo Land) and Craig Harrison who was involved with Doncaster RL.
Also been told that they have the cash ready to buy York City Football Club from the McGills, plus paying off debts, and giving 40% of shares to the supporters trust who will also be on the York Sporting Clubs main board.
McGill, i understand, has turned this down.
milkybarkid
says...
10:12am Fri 10 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:How is this post anti YCFC?
milkybarkid wrote:I've been told the queen is giving money to the football club because she's a secret supporter. Isn't the internet great for making things up? Unless you can proved what you say I'll just take this comment along the same line as all your other anti YCFC comments.
Been told that Guildford has done a deal with four business men to buy and build a new stadium with a large investment for team building been set a side. I understand one could be Gordon Gibb (owner of Flamingo Land) and Craig Harrison who was involved with Doncaster RL.
Also been told that they have the cash ready to buy York City Football Club from the McGills, plus paying off debts, and giving 40% of shares to the supporters trust who will also be on the York Sporting Clubs main board.
McGill, i understand, has turned this down.
milkybarkid
says...
10:18am Fri 10 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:The clubs also need to be told what additional income streams there will be and in the Knights case how the income from the Bar will be replaced. Once they know this then the rent issue can be addressed. If both clubs stand to generate additional income from the stadium then IMO increased rent (assuming this is required) is surely not an issue.
meme wrote:Do you have any idea how sensitive this information is? The council are custodians of our City. We don't need to see business plans, nor agreements as to who pays what, unless all parties are in agreement to this.
can no one answer directly the basic questions I asked ref viability?....If they cannot this scheme should not even be considered until they can.
I assume the rugby club and YCfc have some idea of what they are being asked to pay and whether its viable to them
I assume CoYC know how much approximately they will have to contribute and roughly what other income will come to us the ratepayers from the other sporting community uses
Not too much to ask to be published and before CoYC start screaming its commercially sensitive information perhaps they would do well to remember its our money. our City and this proposal has split the city so we should be allowed to know what we may/may not be letting ourselves in for
I would agree that it might benefit their case were this published. It might also harm their planning bid were the "Campaign for York" to get hold of it and start tearing into it as they would whether it was justifiable or not.
milkybarkid
says...
10:18am Fri 10 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:The clubs also need to be told what additional income streams there will be and in the Knights case how the income from the Bar will be replaced. Once they know this then the rent issue can be addressed. If both clubs stand to generate additional income from the stadium then IMO increased rent (assuming this is required) is surely not an issue.
meme wrote:Do you have any idea how sensitive this information is? The council are custodians of our City. We don't need to see business plans, nor agreements as to who pays what, unless all parties are in agreement to this.
can no one answer directly the basic questions I asked ref viability?....If they cannot this scheme should not even be considered until they can.
I assume the rugby club and YCfc have some idea of what they are being asked to pay and whether its viable to them
I assume CoYC know how much approximately they will have to contribute and roughly what other income will come to us the ratepayers from the other sporting community uses
Not too much to ask to be published and before CoYC start screaming its commercially sensitive information perhaps they would do well to remember its our money. our City and this proposal has split the city so we should be allowed to know what we may/may not be letting ourselves in for
I would agree that it might benefit their case were this published. It might also harm their planning bid were the "Campaign for York" to get hold of it and start tearing into it as they would whether it was justifiable or not.
Septimius Severus
says...
10:40am Fri 10 Feb 12
At last some balance to the arguments and rantings of city fans - all calling for some honest common-sense - the opportunity to be reassured that a viable business plan is in place, some transparency from the club owners and accepting that a plan b is a sensible thing to have...
What's wrong with that?
The Great Buda
says...
10:55am Fri 10 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
11:11am Fri 10 Feb 12
I'd prefer it if you just read the contempt.
you say snide I say sarcasm blah blah
I understand city fans must be tearing their hair out, but people are lying on both sides and it really freaking **** me off.
I'll accept that everyone has and should have a vested interest - one way or the other
but blaming the people for things they didnt do and have no control over
cying foul because one company says it's going to do x rather than y
accepting that lots of people may lose jobs and livelihoods because others enjoy free parking
all under the obvious bribe from a fantastically wealthy few individuals who will become more fabulously wealthy
and for the continuance of some people who enjoy a good sing song with their mates while watching men kick a ball around
it's not fair
it's unjust
so whaddya do, roll over or bite back...
if there was less vehemence and absolutism it might be easier to remain lucid.
but people prefer to ignore some obvious inconsistencies and half truths and outright lies and that needs to be challenged.
speaks99
says...
11:15am Fri 10 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:There's no ranting in pointing out the big gaping holes in your arguments!!
Kanchelskis, Meme, Milkybarkid, Abstemious, Mr Crabtree, David_York windowlicker, bloodaxe, city view, big boy york...
At last some balance to the arguments and rantings of city fans - all calling for some honest common-sense - the opportunity to be reassured that a viable business plan is in place, some transparency from the club owners and accepting that a plan b is a sensible thing to have...
What's wrong with that?
The Great Buda
says...
11:19am Fri 10 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:Very well put.
Septimius Severus wrote:There's no ranting in pointing out the big gaping holes in your arguments!!
Kanchelskis, Meme, Milkybarkid, Abstemious, Mr Crabtree, David_York windowlicker, bloodaxe, city view, big boy york...
At last some balance to the arguments and rantings of city fans - all calling for some honest common-sense - the opportunity to be reassured that a viable business plan is in place, some transparency from the club owners and accepting that a plan b is a sensible thing to have...
What's wrong with that?
speaks99
says...
11:23am Fri 10 Feb 12
Try telling the 1000 people at the job centre who might not get the opportunity to work at Monks Cross that its unfair and unjust. Try telling to 275 construction workers that wont get to build the stadium over the next two years that its unfair or unjust.
JONNYGOODSHOES
says...
11:33am Fri 10 Feb 12
milkybarkid wrote:Been told there is a father Christmas, you are a fool maybe thats why people tell you a lot of rubbish.
Been told that Guildford has done a deal with four business men to buy and build a new stadium with a large investment for team building been set a side. I understand one could be Gordon Gibb (owner of Flamingo Land) and Craig Harrison who was involved with Doncaster RL.
Also been told that they have the cash ready to buy York City Football Club from the McGills, plus paying off debts, and giving 40% of shares to the supporters trust who will also be on the York Sporting Clubs main board.
McGill, i understand, has turned this down.
Septimius Severus
says...
11:33am Fri 10 Feb 12
'No evidence'!
'Some' evidence - if you please!
Just to point out the gaping hole in your argument. It's 400 nett 'new' jobs. Not 1000.
It's very easy for statements to be made about how many jobs will be calculated based on the predicted revenue growth. But what if that revenue growth was slightly exagerated! Not so many jobs would be created.
It's more difficult to predict what revenue would be 'removed' from existing business and therefore impossible to accurately forecast the net effect.
But even using their own figures that means 600 jobs will be 'displaced' or (in English) 600 people need to be 'replaced'.
I'd say that's not fair.
Using inaccurate revenue predictions and lower levels of % revenue impact analysis. I'd say that's unfair too.
Did I mention that the Oakgate report is a pile of dog crap!
The Great Buda
says...
11:36am Fri 10 Feb 12
Sounds like the City Centre Brigade need to start paying a better wage.
speaks99
says...
12:00pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:400 extra jobs isn't fair? What screwed up universe do you live in.
LOL - not ranting now!
'No evidence'!
'Some' evidence - if you please!
Just to point out the gaping hole in your argument. It's 400 nett 'new' jobs. Not 1000.
It's very easy for statements to be made about how many jobs will be calculated based on the predicted revenue growth. But what if that revenue growth was slightly exagerated! Not so many jobs would be created.
It's more difficult to predict what revenue would be 'removed' from existing business and therefore impossible to accurately forecast the net effect.
But even using their own figures that means 600 jobs will be 'displaced' or (in English) 600 people need to be 'replaced'.
I'd say that's not fair.
Using inaccurate revenue predictions and lower levels of % revenue impact analysis. I'd say that's unfair too.
Did I mention that the Oakgate report is a pile of dog crap!
meme
says...
12:10pm Fri 10 Feb 12
its OUR money YCC are spending
its a community asset they intend to create not a rescue package for YCfc
Oakgate are bribing YCC with promises of loads of dosh if they get what they want. Fair enough; but just because we get the capital if it does not work for years to come for everyone involved we will be left with huge bills and a white elephant . So long as it breaks even for the taxpayer i'm in favour BUT I personally dont see how it can as the footie club cannot afford the sort of rents required The rugby club have made it clear this deal will bust them and I suspect the athletics club pay very little if anything at all...So where is the revenue stream to support the expenditure?
That's all i want to know
Septimius Severus
says...
12:16pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Again.
It's not a guarantee, it the best guess of a business that needs to show a net gain, so massaged the figures nicely.
Which bit of 'the Oakgate report is pile of dog crap' didn't you hear?
Septimius Severus
says...
12:19pm Fri 10 Feb 12
meme wrote:Absolutely spot on.
sorry why is this sensitive?
its OUR money YCC are spending
its a community asset they intend to create not a rescue package for YCfc
Oakgate are bribing YCC with promises of loads of dosh if they get what they want. Fair enough; but just because we get the capital if it does not work for years to come for everyone involved we will be left with huge bills and a white elephant . So long as it breaks even for the taxpayer i'm in favour BUT I personally dont see how it can as the footie club cannot afford the sort of rents required The rugby club have made it clear this deal will bust them and I suspect the athletics club pay very little if anything at all...So where is the revenue stream to support the expenditure?
That's all i want to know
The Great Buda
says...
12:25pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Again.
It's not a guarantee, it the best guess of a business that needs to scare monger, so massaged the figures nicely.
speaks99
says...
12:25pm Fri 10 Feb 12
meme wrote:Do you think we should be privy to every single tender the council put out? No - because it would give a competitive advantage to other tenderers. On what basis do you think you should be privy to classified information, other than you are a supporter of one of the clubs? You have to accept that you vote in a political party to handle the affairs of York, and that you will not be privy to every decision that is made- that is a basis of democracy. Otherwise the system would fall down on its knees in bureaucracy. There would be dozens of objections for every decision made.
sorry why is this sensitive?
its OUR money YCC are spending
its a community asset they intend to create not a rescue package for YCfc
Oakgate are bribing YCC with promises of loads of dosh if they get what they want. Fair enough; but just because we get the capital if it does not work for years to come for everyone involved we will be left with huge bills and a white elephant . So long as it breaks even for the taxpayer i'm in favour BUT I personally dont see how it can as the footie club cannot afford the sort of rents required The rugby club have made it clear this deal will bust them and I suspect the athletics club pay very little if anything at all...So where is the revenue stream to support the expenditure?
That's all i want to know
Its fairly clear that the football club should be able to afford the rents, given their current maintenance bills are in the hundreds of thousands. The rugby club, per Guildford, have not agreed a figure for rent so you can't make that assumption. They have been told, however, that they will not lose out financially. When they finally get JG to sit round a table to discuss then maybe they can sort this out??
You are very demeaning to the Athletics, just because they don't subscribe to your arguments.
speaks99
says...
12:44pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Perhaps it is a lot of crap. At least they've offered some reasoning backed up with statistical workings. You've nothing apart from what you are told by a bunch of city centre traders who might lose turnover. That's a lot of 'thinking' and 'guessing' for the traders that stands to lose a lot of money...
Even AndyD
says...
1:19pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Mr Crabtree
says...
1:37pm Fri 10 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:Your comments are naieve or misinformed.
meme wrote: sorry why is this sensitive? its OUR money YCC are spending its a community asset they intend to create not a rescue package for YCfc Oakgate are bribing YCC with promises of loads of dosh if they get what they want. Fair enough; but just because we get the capital if it does not work for years to come for everyone involved we will be left with huge bills and a white elephant . So long as it breaks even for the taxpayer i'm in favour BUT I personally dont see how it can as the footie club cannot afford the sort of rents required The rugby club have made it clear this deal will bust them and I suspect the athletics club pay very little if anything at all...So where is the revenue stream to support the expenditure? That's all i want to knowDo you think we should be privy to every single tender the council put out? No - because it would give a competitive advantage to other tenderers. On what basis do you think you should be privy to classified information, other than you are a supporter of one of the clubs? You have to accept that you vote in a political party to handle the affairs of York, and that you will not be privy to every decision that is made- that is a basis of democracy. Otherwise the system would fall down on its knees in bureaucracy. There would be dozens of objections for every decision made. Its fairly clear that the football club should be able to afford the rents, given their current maintenance bills are in the hundreds of thousands. The rugby club, per Guildford, have not agreed a figure for rent so you can't make that assumption. They have been told, however, that they will not lose out financially. When they finally get JG to sit round a table to discuss then maybe they can sort this out?? You are very demeaning to the Athletics, just because they don't subscribe to your arguments.
This information has no commercial sensitivity, it is the right of York residents to know the numbers. If CYC are making an investment with OUR money, we should know what is being contributed by who, what is being paid (in rent) by who.
The remark about tenders is ridiculous - tenderers are entitled to know other bids - it's common practice for them to be disclosed, even the council do it.
The Council insist on open book appraisals for housebuilders to justify their ridiculous affordable housing policy requirements, and that is actually unfair as it has nothing to do with the council. This is commercially sensitive, housebuilders are private companies and their profits and costs are no business of the council.
The Council have a 'do as I say, not as I do' culture - they make the rules but do not play by them - it's called cheating !
York people should not be cheated with another under the table deal, and it's time the Council's cosy deals with their buddies (remember Union Terrace ?) were stopped. Lets have the facts and figures, tell us the truth !
Mr Crabtree
says...
1:51pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Even AndyD wrote:Your argument does not stack up, as it presumes that the out of town developments can continue without any effect on the city centre. Because they didn't bust the city centre traders before, they won't be bust this time ?
At the end of the day, you can do as much thinking, guessing and pointing to x,y or z reports as you wish. Those of us who have lived in York for decades saw all these arguments from centre traders before Clifton Moor, before Monks Cross and before the Designer Outlet. On each occasion there was no meltdown, no Castleford and hey guess what, still HUGE queues outside Betty's. So, lets be real here - this is the same old fuss about nothing. Its only two stores for heavens sake, albeit it large ones. The only difference is, we also get community asset thrown in, something for the residents at last and something most other towns and cities enjoy.
We are in a different world now, money is tight and retailers are fighting for survival. Their needs to be a balance to allow all existing businesses to survive. This deal could be the tipping point and the equilibrium destroyed for the benefit of a new business (to York) in the form of John Lewis (plus Oakgate, of course) to the detriment of York retail veterans; like Barnitts, Browns, Mulberry Hall, Betty's, etc etc. The loss of any of these would be a disaster.
These businesses are York businesses and they deserve the loyalty and support of York people !
speaks99
says...
2:09pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Mr Crabtree wrote:There is no evidence to suggest we are anywhere near "tipping point". If we were at "tipping point" we wouldn't see York bucking national averages regarding the retail environment left, right and centre. If the statistics told a different story I would be forced to agree with you, but York is a very prosperous city for traders still. We are no where near tipping point, unless you or anyone can provide statistics otherwise.
Even AndyD wrote:Your argument does not stack up, as it presumes that the out of town developments can continue without any effect on the city centre. Because they didn't bust the city centre traders before, they won't be bust this time ?
At the end of the day, you can do as much thinking, guessing and pointing to x,y or z reports as you wish. Those of us who have lived in York for decades saw all these arguments from centre traders before Clifton Moor, before Monks Cross and before the Designer Outlet. On each occasion there was no meltdown, no Castleford and hey guess what, still HUGE queues outside Betty's. So, lets be real here - this is the same old fuss about nothing. Its only two stores for heavens sake, albeit it large ones. The only difference is, we also get community asset thrown in, something for the residents at last and something most other towns and cities enjoy.
We are in a different world now, money is tight and retailers are fighting for survival. Their needs to be a balance to allow all existing businesses to survive. This deal could be the tipping point and the equilibrium destroyed for the benefit of a new business (to York) in the form of John Lewis (plus Oakgate, of course) to the detriment of York retail veterans; like Barnitts, Browns, Mulberry Hall, Betty's, etc etc. The loss of any of these would be a disaster.
These businesses are York businesses and they deserve the loyalty and support of York people !
speaks99
says...
2:12pm Fri 10 Feb 12
The Great Buda
says...
2:15pm Fri 10 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
2:37pm Fri 10 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:He would have a point if the following were not true:
Mr Crabtree has clearly swallowed the lies whole.
1) Footfall figures over Christmas period bucking national average
2) Empty shops % half the national average
3) Outlook for Cities report giving York a glowing reference
Only yesterday we've heard about Urban outfitters opening a city centre store. Doesn't sound like the wasteland I've come to expect.
Its comments like these that city centre traders need to be wary of (all lifted from the comments section of the press site):
"I personally used to go to manchester and leeds to shop in primark and urban outfitters"
"How about some clothes for trendy old people? We seem to be inundated with young fashion and nothing else recently"
"I can't personally wait for selfridges or Harvey Nichols to look at York!"
"York needs companies with existing popularity to come into the city to boost footfall"
"I tell you what would do loads for York, an apple store. There isn't one in Leeds."
Plus I cant remember the number of times I've heard people asking for a Primark.
These are real people, real needs, real wants. Perhaps LaSalle could try and focus on what the people actually want from our city rather than protect their land prices, because if they don't provide it somewhere like Monks Cross eventually will.
kanchelskis
says...
2:53pm Fri 10 Feb 12
You must note that this is not a normal application. It is classed as public funding so the public should no what is been proposed.
Even AndyD
says...
3:57pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Mr Crabtree wrote:COULD be the tipping point? COULD destroy the equilibrium? I think its a bit much to accuse my argument of not stacking up and then coming back with load of generalities, hunches, and downright wild guesses yourself! And do you not think there have been 'hard times' before?
Even AndyD wrote:Your argument does not stack up, as it presumes that the out of town developments can continue without any effect on the city centre. Because they didn't bust the city centre traders before, they won't be bust this time ?
At the end of the day, you can do as much thinking, guessing and pointing to x,y or z reports as you wish. Those of us who have lived in York for decades saw all these arguments from centre traders before Clifton Moor, before Monks Cross and before the Designer Outlet. On each occasion there was no meltdown, no Castleford and hey guess what, still HUGE queues outside Betty's. So, lets be real here - this is the same old fuss about nothing. Its only two stores for heavens sake, albeit it large ones. The only difference is, we also get community asset thrown in, something for the residents at last and something most other towns and cities enjoy.
We are in a different world now, money is tight and retailers are fighting for survival. Their needs to be a balance to allow all existing businesses to survive. This deal could be the tipping point and the equilibrium destroyed for the benefit of a new business (to York) in the form of John Lewis (plus Oakgate, of course) to the detriment of York retail veterans; like Barnitts, Browns, Mulberry Hall, Betty's, etc etc. The loss of any of these would be a disaster.
These businesses are York businesses and they deserve the loyalty and support of York people !
But whichever way you look at it, the fact still remains that the scare-mongers are suggesting two more stores will do something three whole retail parks haven't. Its also ignoring the fact that town centres evolve over time and uses change in response to many pressures- demographics, transportation, etc. Even the much quoted GVA report mentions this.
You cannot pick and choose information to suit your argument - you have to weigh up the facts. And evidence suggests that JL and M&S out at MX will not suddenly a ghost town make. It ludicrous.
Malcolm
says...
12:50am Sat 11 Feb 12
JKHowling
says...
7:23pm Sat 11 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
8:01pm Sat 11 Feb 12
JKHowling wrote:OK, I'll bite.
What's the point in anyone paying £4.000.000 for a football ground that hasn't got a football team worth talking about?
1) 14,000 York fans who went to Wembley might disagree with you
2) Yorks premier sporting team
3) Part of the cultural fabric of the city
4) A return on investment for the council circa 5-10%
5) Promotion of health and well being to meet govenment targets
6) York Knights also get a ground. Yorks 2nd sport
7) Athletics get the move they want to excellent facilities over at the university.
8) Job creations relating to the build and management of the new facility
I can continue if you want.
yorkonafork
says...
8:15pm Sat 11 Feb 12
It's vital for any Town or City to have pro-sports teams to look up to however good they are. They provide a massive amount of community work and try and help kids get active. With the current health issues some kids and adults face in the UK, it's vital to have as many things to 'look up to' in order for people to get active. Health is as important as life gets really and the only way to promote this is by having the best facilities with the approriate local ambassadors. There would literally be 1,000s of kids with no outlet or chance to play certain sports without the likes of YCFC and YCK. They may not turn up wearing their hometown team's kit, but they are only there because of them.
Also, I'm a bit confused about why someone is talking about a team no-one talks about. Doh!
JKHowling
says...
6:50pm Sun 12 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:14,000 ??? York City wouldn't get that gate if they were giving tickets away. They're crap. Always were and always will be. The management haven't got a clue how to run a football team, that's why they never get nowhere. Money would be better spent on new talent and not the surroundings they play in. Maybe a raffle would be a good idea to raise funds?
JKHowling wrote:OK, I'll bite.
What's the point in anyone paying £4.000.000 for a football ground that hasn't got a football team worth talking about?
1) 14,000 York fans who went to Wembley might disagree with you
2) Yorks premier sporting team
3) Part of the cultural fabric of the city
4) A return on investment for the council circa 5-10%
5) Promotion of health and well being to meet govenment targets
6) York Knights also get a ground. Yorks 2nd sport
7) Athletics get the move they want to excellent facilities over at the university.
8) Job creations relating to the build and management of the new facility
I can continue if you want.
JKHowling
says...
6:55pm Sun 12 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
7:20pm Sun 12 Feb 12
JKHowling wrote:Where as you have so much time on your hands you prefer to troll on comments sections of provincial newspapers. It must be half term.
The 14,000 'supporters' you claim went to Wembley didn't go for the game. They will have followed each other like the sheep that they are. York City have never been a proper football team. They have no spirit.
yorkonafork
says...
7:31pm Sun 12 Feb 12
JKHowling wrote:No team or player has ever had spirit in the history of the Club? That's an interesting one.
The 14,000 'supporters' you claim went to Wembley didn't go for the game. They will have followed each other like the sheep that they are. York City have never been a proper football team. They have no spirit.
What management team would you like to see in place that you think could improve the current batch of no-hopers at YCFC? Is there any player from League's one or two on your radar that City should be looking at to get in the summer? Maybe from the lower leagues even, I'm sure you've scouted them well with your apparent thirst for footballing knowledge.
Also, just so we have an appropriate goal, which list of teams are, in your opinion' proper football teams of which York City have never been? Is this an elite list of teams and that English football should be just 1 league of 10 teams or is there a cut of point at some stage. Again a point which YCFC have NEVER been at?
I would be interested in your views on these footballing manners.
JKHowling
says...
9:43pm Sun 12 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:These threads are for the purpose of personal opinion.My opinion,like it or not is mine.York City FC are a bunch of no hopers.They're crap and will never get anywhere. Everyone's deserting york.Even Nestles is off abroad!York's going to end up just like its many surrounding pit villages.Skint.York people even slate the tourists that keep them afloat financially and let's face it,tourism is the only thing left here!
JKHowling wrote:Where as you have so much time on your hands you prefer to troll on comments sections of provincial newspapers. It must be half term.
The 14,000 'supporters' you claim went to Wembley didn't go for the game. They will have followed each other like the sheep that they are. York City have never been a proper football team. They have no spirit.
johnabostock
says...
11:06am Tue 14 Feb 12
Even AndyD says...
8:54am Thu 9 Feb 12
What the hell is going on, Mr Stead?
As for the idea from the Tories - interesting, but sounds too little too late to me. Which is a shame, I think all City fans would want to stay at BC and it would suit the Knights too, surely?