Conservative's plan for council to buy Bootham Crescent slammed (From York Press)

The Knights would be bad to agree to this.

Even before the £2 Million black hole in the plan, the Knights when moved to BC would have:
- No office space
- No kitroom
- A smaller bar and half or possibly no revenue
- No reserve or academy matches
- No training facilities (unless they share Wiggy Road which would be a major hassle for semi-pro players)
- No physio room
- Notoriously poor pitch drainage

For the fans:
- seating down the sides rather than preferred terracing
- Worse "lounge" facilities for sponsors and guests

All thats clear from the Tory plans is that they do not support any of the Sport Clubs of this City.

Bad? I meant mad. Although being mad can at times be mad.

The Great Buda wrote:
The Knights would be bad to agree to this.

Even before the £2 Million black hole in the plan, the Knights when moved to BC would have:
- No office space
- No kitroom
- A smaller bar and half or possibly no revenue
- No reserve or academy matches
- No training facilities (unless they share Wiggy Road which would be a major hassle for semi-pro players)
- No physio room
- Notoriously poor pitch drainage

For the fans:
- seating down the sides rather than preferred terracing
- Worse "lounge" facilities for sponsors and guests

All thats clear from the Tory plans is that they do not support any of the Sport Clubs of this City.

You may be right there but if Guildford is serious about buying HS there may be no need for the Knights to play at BC and the athletics club could stay put in improved facilities.

Could the press not have combined the two articles rather than printing one (perhaps to get a reaction) then printing a response. It was clearly an inappropriate idea yesterday. Nothing change between yesterday and today. All it has done is thrown egg on the face of some torys trying to rack up votes.

The Great Buda wrote:
The Knights would be bad to agree to this.

Even before the £2 Million black hole in the plan, the Knights when moved to BC would have:
- No office space
- No kitroom
- A smaller bar and half or possibly no revenue
- No reserve or academy matches
- No training facilities (unless they share Wiggy Road which would be a major hassle for semi-pro players)
- No physio room
- Notoriously poor pitch drainage

For the fans:
- seating down the sides rather than preferred terracing
- Worse "lounge" facilities for sponsors and guests

All thats clear from the Tory plans is that they do not support any of the Sport Clubs of this City.

I would imagine that ANY new stadium would be all seater anyway.

the Football ground isn't suitable for Rugby. the simple point of fans being able to drink inn the stands is one issue that arrises straight away,

this is a pipe dream.

I wish they would just hurry up and start building a new one.

Would the athletics club not be able to go to the University still? The 'Community Facilities' aspect of the stadium could still be built so they could still get planning and the money from Oakgate.

Remember the 'Community Facilities' are the reason for the Oakgate money as the actual stadium is just for YCFC and YCK is it not?

Would the athletics club not be able to go to the University still? The 'Community Facilities' aspect of the stadium could still be built so they could still get planning and the money from Oakgate.

Remember the 'Community Facilities' are the reason for the Oakgate money as the actual stadium is just for YCFC and YCK is it not?

Would the athletics club not be able to go to the University still? The 'Community Facilities' aspect of the stadium could still be built so they could still get planning and the money from Oakgate.

Remember the 'Community Facilities' are the reason for the Oakgate money as the actual stadium is just for YCFC and YCK is it not?

I think the point is that the £2m is for the community stadium, there isn't the room for any expansion at BC unless they buy either shipton street school or the barracks.

the school would be a good buy and it would be a propper community stadium with an educational centre for sports.

it would be a tight squeeze without buying the houses too

kanchelskis wrote:
Would the athletics club not be able to go to the University still? The 'Community Facilities' aspect of the stadium could still be built so they could still get planning and the money from Oakgate.

Remember the 'Community Facilities' are the reason for the Oakgate money as the actual stadium is just for YCFC and YCK is it not?

A point so important it had to be made 3 times :D

The athletics would cost £1.28m to rehouse at the university. Thats not in the Torys proposals. A purpose built stadium would house additional streams of revenue - Theres hardly room for a decent conference room at BC. Planning proposals would be REALLY difficult to get through, being in a heavily populated residential area.

"Stadium project manager Tim Atkins said the Conservative ideas were considered among options in 2009/10, but were not taken forward for “financial and legal reasons”"

Mr Gillies must have known this, so why is he resurrecting this idea now, if not to cause confusion and conflict?

speaks99 wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:
Would the athletics club not be able to go to the University still? The 'Community Facilities' aspect of the stadium could still be built so they could still get planning and the money from Oakgate.

Remember the 'Community Facilities' are the reason for the Oakgate money as the actual stadium is just for YCFC and YCK is it not?

A point so important it had to be made 3 times :D

The athletics would cost £1.28m to rehouse at the university. Thats not in the Torys proposals. A purpose built stadium would house additional streams of revenue - Theres hardly room for a decent conference room at BC. Planning proposals would be REALLY difficult to get through, being in a heavily populated residential area.

Sorry about that speaks99. One posting would have sufficed.

Zetkin wrote:
"Stadium project manager Tim Atkins said the Conservative ideas were considered among options in 2009/10, but were not taken forward for “financial and legal reasons”" Mr Gillies must have known this, so why is he resurrecting this idea now, if not to cause confusion and conflict?

He overdosed on free sandwiches.

I know that Ian Gillies is a long term fan of both the Knights and of City but this proposal is just doownright silly. It completely overlooks the all the discussions, legal opinions and business proposals of the past 8 years, which is very concerning if this is how his party approaches local government. The most disappointing thing is the inability of the party to engage in the ongoing work.

I really do despair of the Tories. We want a new stadium for York and Mr Gillies views have been proven not to be feasible - see above. What they should be doing is concentrating minds on the reduction of services we will all have to suffer from April;increased council borrowing of £20 million, £19.7 million of new cuts including green waste collection, services for the elderly, apprenticeships slashed, libraries to be outsourced, archives privatised; footpath and road maintenance slashed by £2.6million and oh by the way James didn't have the courage to tell staff jobs were going - found out through the media - just sent an e mail saying things were hard and blaming it all on the government - tosh!

magic cat wrote:
I really do despair of the Tories. We want a new stadium for York and Mr Gillies views have been proven not to be feasible - see above. What they should be doing is concentrating minds on the reduction of services we will all have to suffer from April;increased council borrowing of £20 million, £19.7 million of new cuts including green waste collection, services for the elderly, apprenticeships slashed, libraries to be outsourced, archives privatised; footpath and road maintenance slashed by £2.6million and oh by the way James didn't have the courage to tell staff jobs were going - found out through the media - just sent an e mail saying things were hard and blaming it all on the government - tosh!

Oh, well, at least it takes one's mind off the latest NHS madness!

James Alexander says it would be 'illegal'.

That's not the same as dropping the idea for 'financial and legal reasons'.

Unworkable possibly...

But what is the actual legal problem?

So why does not somebody give us the basics of the viability study for the new stadium..I suspect there is not one and we are being asked to put money into something that could cost us all a lot in the future
I'm not against something that works for us, the football club, rugby club, athletics club but we must be entitled to see how it does work financially before voting for or against it
that is not an unreasonable request

Council leader James Alexander said the council buying Bootham Crescent would be illegal and would threaten City’s future.

He said: “This proves the Conservatives are against a community stadium - they have presented a collection of unworkable solutions at the 11th hour.”

He said York City had confirmed the Tory suggestions “don’t stack up”.

Stadium project manager Tim Atkins said the Conservative ideas were considered among options in 2009/10, but were not taken forward for “financial and legal reasons”

SO JAMES MAY BE RIGHT BUT WHY NOT EXPLAIN WHY?
SOPHIE ALSO SAYS IT DOESN'T STACK UP..PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THIS DOES NOT STACK UP AND WHY THE NEW STADIUM IS A MORE VIABLE PROJECT
IF WE ALL HAVE A TRUE PICTURE ITS BETTER FOR EVERYONE

"not taken forward for...legal reasons" - per Tim Atkins. "illegal" per James Alexander. They are saying EXACTLY the same thing. Mud slinging SS - that's how low you've dropped. Perhaps you should look up the 2009 feasibility study and it'll be explained in there...

Meme: I assume Sophies response is referring to the £10m needed to get BC onto a break even basis. Not the peanuts the article is talking about. Plus the problems surrounding the FF loan.

If you want the truth then spend some time researching the topic, not just what is published by the paper. The answers are there.

Nobody should be looking to move anywhere or build anything at the moment.

Unless your TV sets have been off since yesterday, you will have heard about another round of Quantitative Easing with the Bank of England pumping another £50 billion into the economy. The country as a whole isn't generating near enough money to support itself. The upshot is that the pound will slowly start to devalue. If you throw in the fact that still, at the end of each month, we are borrowing billions to keep things going, the situation is very dire indeed and it certainly isn't the time for a council to be a surrogate for a private business.

You can't simply keep on printing money. It isn't the measure of a nations true wealth. If all the world desired retail and house construction, the UK would be max'd out.

Osborne and co are struggling against a flooding tide here and they're inert, out of touch and out of ideas. You can lay the blame directly at labour's door because their uncontrolled spending has put the country in this position where fiscal collapse IS a possibility and this will affect football clubs as well.

Anyway, blah, blah, flipping blah. Human beings. I give up.

Ooh! Just seen the Adam Briggs story without comments on.

Poetry is called for.

Adam Briggs, Adam Briggs with his wad of cash
Adam Briggs, Adam Briggs with his furry tache
Love by the feds, hated by the reds,
Adam Briggs, Adam Briggs, Adam Briggs, Adam Briggs....

A breath of fresh air listening to Neil's comments. Sensible, grounded in reality and without self-serving spin.

meme wrote:
Council leader James Alexander said the council buying Bootham Crescent would be illegal and would threaten City’s future.

He said: “This proves the Conservatives are against a community stadium - they have presented a collection of unworkable solutions at the 11th hour.”

He said York City had confirmed the Tory suggestions “don’t stack up”.

Stadium project manager Tim Atkins said the Conservative ideas were considered among options in 2009/10, but were not taken forward for “financial and legal reasons”

SO JAMES MAY BE RIGHT BUT WHY NOT EXPLAIN WHY?
SOPHIE ALSO SAYS IT DOESN'T STACK UP..PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THIS DOES NOT STACK UP AND WHY THE NEW STADIUM IS A MORE VIABLE PROJECT
IF WE ALL HAVE A TRUE PICTURE ITS BETTER FOR EVERYONE

well put meme just why are the council & the mcgills so desperate for this to go through, ive got a nasty picture in my mind of little brown envelopes been passed round the table, what else but money would make all parties want this over anything else thats banded about

Zetkin wrote:
"Stadium project manager Tim Atkins said the Conservative ideas were considered among options in 2009/10, but were not taken forward for “financial and legal reasons”"

Mr Gillies must have known this, so why is he resurrecting this idea now, if not to cause confusion and conflict?

Because he's a bit stupid. Ever met the man? Not exactly bright, comes to mind.

Septimius Severus wrote:
James Alexander says it would be 'illegal'.

That's not the same as dropping the idea for 'financial and legal reasons'.

Unworkable possibly...

But what is the actual legal problem?

Come on then SS - where is the article you mentioned yesterday? Perhaps not so much in the loop that you think you are...

So, yet more terrible reporting from Mark Stead, in a week where the Press has shown its bias against York Sport by censoring entire comment sections because it upset the pathetic overpriced tat shop Barnitts, and biased reporting (not objective) articles all stiring up negativity against the two shops - sorry, "huge expansion" - at Mx and stadium.

A few people need to be clear on the following.

1) The rugby owner can't even pay his bar bill at HS, nevermind buy HS.

2) York City FC are by far the largest sporting club in the city, followed by the Rugby (with 10-20 percent the crowds of YCFC), followed by the handful of joggers who use HS with the Althletics (how many from York, I may question too).

Let's stop this Press bias campaign, boycott stupid "CFY" poster shops and stop messing around.

City get 2,500 the rugby get 1,000 learn your sums, the only good thing is if the stadium ever gets built it wont be for another 10 years.

speaks99 wrote:

Septimius Severus wrote:
James Alexander says it would be 'illegal'.

That's not the same as dropping the idea for 'financial and legal reasons'.

Unworkable possibly...

But what is the actual legal problem?

Come on then SS - where is the article you mentioned yesterday? Perhaps not so much in the loop that you think you are...

Mark Stead was sent the email at 3.45 yesterday. He's obviously taking a little longer than I thought to edit something.

TerryYork wrote:
So, yet more terrible reporting from Mark Stead, in a week where the Press has shown its bias against York Sport by censoring entire comment sections because it upset the pathetic overpriced tat shop Barnitts, and biased reporting (not objective) articles all stiring up negativity against the two shops - sorry, "huge expansion" - at Mx and stadium.

A few people need to be clear on the following.

1) The rugby owner can't even pay his bar bill at HS, nevermind buy HS.

2) York City FC are by far the largest sporting club in the city, followed by the Rugby (with 10-20 percent the crowds of YCFC), followed by the handful of joggers who use HS with the Althletics (how many from York, I may question too).

Let's stop this Press bias campaign, boycott stupid "CFY" poster shops and stop messing around.

The fact that your comments haven't been deleted shows that The Press are happy for boycotting calls to go ahead, pathetic and churlish they might be, but as happened before some people go a little too far with their 'threats and they removed all the thread to be fair and consistent and that is a responsible thing to do.

1) They refused to pay the rent on the bar because CYC refused to let them have a new contract... It was a protest.

Boycott away if you think that'll work...

Septimius Severus wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

Septimius Severus wrote:
James Alexander says it would be 'illegal'.

That's not the same as dropping the idea for 'financial and legal reasons'.

Unworkable possibly...

But what is the actual legal problem?

Come on then SS - where is the article you mentioned yesterday? Perhaps not so much in the loop that you think you are...

Mark Stead was sent the email at 3.45 yesterday. He's obviously taking a little longer than I thought to edit something.

Jesus - 3.45 - have you never heard of deadlines!!

Council leader James Alexander said the council buying Bootham Crescent would be illegal and would threaten City’s future

This seems to be a default blocking excuse. The same excuse was given for not increasing the affordable housing rural threshold. When sight of the legal advice was requested, the council said that it was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Perhaps Coun Gillies will challenge this excuse and ask for proof that it is illegal ?

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Council leader James Alexander said the council buying Bootham Crescent would be illegal and would threaten City’s future

This seems to be a default blocking excuse. The same excuse was given for not increasing the affordable housing rural threshold. When sight of the legal advice was requested, the council said that it was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Perhaps Coun Gillies will challenge this excuse and ask for proof that it is illegal ?

Perhaps Councillor Gillies can provide the other £10m needed for the development at the same time...

meme wrote:
Council leader James Alexander said the council buying Bootham Crescent would be illegal and would threaten City’s future. He said: “This proves the Conservatives are against a community stadium - they have presented a collection of unworkable solutions at the 11th hour.” He said York City had confirmed the Tory suggestions “don’t stack up”. Stadium project manager Tim Atkins said the Conservative ideas were considered among options in 2009/10, but were not taken forward for “financial and legal reasons” SO JAMES MAY BE RIGHT BUT WHY NOT EXPLAIN WHY? SOPHIE ALSO SAYS IT DOESN'T STACK UP..PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THIS DOES NOT STACK UP AND WHY THE NEW STADIUM IS A MORE VIABLE PROJECT IF WE ALL HAVE A TRUE PICTURE ITS BETTER FOR EVERYONE

Quite right meme..... why doesn't it stack up ?
It couldn't be anything to do with the underlying site value being discounted by the Council's affordable housing policy could it ?
I suggest that an independent valuation by the VOA is requested.
Let's see the numbers and the true reasons why it doesn't stack up ?
I think Coun Gillies is smarter than people think, and we are being sold a pup by JA and SH (nee McG).
If you want the truth and honesty, don't ask Labour Councillors !

TerryYork wrote:
So, yet more terrible reporting from Mark Stead, in a week where the Press has shown its bias against York Sport by censoring entire comment sections because it upset the pathetic overpriced tat shop Barnitts, and biased reporting (not objective) articles all stiring up negativity against the two shops - sorry, "huge expansion" - at Mx and stadium. A few people need to be clear on the following. 1) The rugby owner can't even pay his bar bill at HS, nevermind buy HS. 2) York City FC are by far the largest sporting club in the city, followed by the Rugby (with 10-20 percent the crowds of YCFC), followed by the handful of joggers who use HS with the Althletics (how many from York, I may question too). Let's stop this Press bias campaign, boycott stupid "CFY" poster shops and stop messing around.

I'm not sure why you're getting to 'upperty' about the Knights and athletics.
Firstly, York Knights get more than 250 fans (:s) and they have been know to get a few 2,000 plus. Even a couple of 3,000s.

Seondly I'm struggling to read into the point. Don't we all want this to go through with better facilities to increase participation and to increase attendances? Yeah, only a handful may use the Athletics, but let's turn that into a few 1,000. Let's give the Knights better facilities so they get 1,500+ more often. It's hardly a secret that the 'non-hardcore' are put off by the current Stadium.

One things all sports teams should do is support each other and make Sport in York better. We don't need to start getting into slagging matches from either with silly little digs at each other or two chairmen who, while not always going about things very well, have still put a bucket load of money in to both Club for very little back. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy at every corner.

yorkonafork wrote:

TerryYork wrote:
So, yet more terrible reporting from Mark Stead, in a week where the Press has shown its bias against York Sport by censoring entire comment sections because it upset the pathetic overpriced tat shop Barnitts, and biased reporting (not objective) articles all stiring up negativity against the two shops - sorry, "huge expansion" - at Mx and stadium. A few people need to be clear on the following. 1) The rugby owner can't even pay his bar bill at HS, nevermind buy HS. 2) York City FC are by far the largest sporting club in the city, followed by the Rugby (with 10-20 percent the crowds of YCFC), followed by the handful of joggers who use HS with the Althletics (how many from York, I may question too). Let's stop this Press bias campaign, boycott stupid "CFY" poster shops and stop messing around.

I'm not sure why you're getting to 'upperty' about the Knights and athletics.
Firstly, York Knights get more than 250 fans (:s) and they have been know to get a few 2,000 plus. Even a couple of 3,000s.

Seondly I'm struggling to read into the point. Don't we all want this to go through with better facilities to increase participation and to increase attendances? Yeah, only a handful may use the Athletics, but let's turn that into a few 1,000. Let's give the Knights better facilities so they get 1,500+ more often. It's hardly a secret that the 'non-hardcore' are put off by the current Stadium.

One things all sports teams should do is support each other and make Sport in York better. We don't need to start getting into slagging matches from either with silly little digs at each other or two chairmen who, while not always going about things very well, have still put a bucket load of money in to both Club for very little back. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy at every corner.

Well said it's not just about the football club it's about the rugby and the athletics clubs and the people of York and surrounding area.

An analysis:-

A + B = C

A. This deal appears to be engineered for the benefits of a few;
CYC - for kudos for certain councillors and officers.
YCFC - for a bail out and a pay day for the owners.
Oakgate - for a killing.

B. Being used as beneficiaries (pawns) are;
YCFC supporters,
York athletics club.

C. Possibly being taken to the cleaners are ;
York taxpayers
YCK/JG.

Nothing wrong with A and B, as long as the result isn't C !

How upsetting is it that York is struggling to find a shed and field to kick a ball around, when, at the other end of the country £10billion is being spent on an Olympic Games that will mean F-all to the majority of us come September.

If YCfc need £10 million to break even how on earth do they have any chance of survival regardless of where any stadium is located and how can they afford any rent etc?
Something does not add up

yorkonafork wrote:

TerryYork wrote:
So, yet more terrible reporting from Mark Stead, in a week where the Press has shown its bias against York Sport by censoring entire comment sections because it upset the pathetic overpriced tat shop Barnitts, and biased reporting (not objective) articles all stiring up negativity against the two shops - sorry, "huge expansion" - at Mx and stadium. A few people need to be clear on the following. 1) The rugby owner can't even pay his bar bill at HS, nevermind buy HS. 2) York City FC are by far the largest sporting club in the city, followed by the Rugby (with 10-20 percent the crowds of YCFC), followed by the handful of joggers who use HS with the Althletics (how many from York, I may question too). Let's stop this Press bias campaign, boycott stupid "CFY" poster shops and stop messing around.

I'm not sure why you're getting to 'upperty' about the Knights and athletics.
Firstly, York Knights get more than 250 fans (:s) and they have been know to get a few 2,000 plus. Even a couple of 3,000s.

Seondly I'm struggling to read into the point. Don't we all want this to go through with better facilities to increase participation and to increase attendances? Yeah, only a handful may use the Athletics, but let's turn that into a few 1,000. Let's give the Knights better facilities so they get 1,500+ more often. It's hardly a secret that the 'non-hardcore' are put off by the current Stadium.

One things all sports teams should do is support each other and make Sport in York better. We don't need to start getting into slagging matches from either with silly little digs at each other or two chairmen who, while not always going about things very well, have still put a bucket load of money in to both Club for very little back. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy at every corner.

Absolutely. Despite the likes of Septimius trying to turn it into the world versus York City FC, most of us just want to see sport in this city flourish. I've raced (running) in venues all round the UK and community stadia were the centre-point of much of that, often attracting decent crowds, creating an 'event' out of charity runs, etc. Lets get behind this TOGETHER - rugby, football, athletics and residents.

Traders are entitled to their opinions and to air them, but I worry about undue influence being used to scupper something which I think would be good news for York. And yes, I'm a YCFC supporter, but I still see the community benefit.

meme wrote:
If YCfc need £10 million to break even how on earth do they have any chance of survival regardless of where any stadium is located and how can they afford any rent etc?
Something does not add up

Its not £10m a year. Its how much the board thought would be needed to make the Ian Gillies refurb-BC plan to work. As a one off cost. Which in fairness is why this option was discounted about two years ago as being overly expensive.

How could £10m be spent on BC?
I thought it sounded madness that they needed this just to survive as if it were true YCfc would be finished anyway
I agree however with Mr Crabtrees comments above someone should come clean about the costs and rewards for the money spent by York taxpayers to rescue the footie club.
Plus I also am not an expert but it does seem that BC will not be worth anything like it was a few years ago as building land cos of the collapse in land prices and the councils affordable regime. How important is the value of BC to make things work?

meme wrote:
How could £10m be spent on BC?
I thought it sounded madness that they needed this just to survive as if it were true YCfc would be finished anyway
I agree however with Mr Crabtrees comments above someone should come clean about the costs and rewards for the money spent by York taxpayers to rescue the footie club.
Plus I also am not an expert but it does seem that BC will not be worth anything like it was a few years ago as building land cos of the collapse in land prices and the councils affordable regime. How important is the value of BC to make things work?

Given that the whole of the Grovsnor Road end needs serious work, before any stand is built on it. The pop stand has a tunnel underneath which is "unsafe". Are we talking all seater as per FF loan rules. Thats another stand where the DL sits. The pitch would need serious work to make it sustainable for both RL and Football. If we want to make more from corporate sponsorship then we'd need to do something in the main stand. Not sure if we need the stadium to work a little bit harder and whether that has been factored in but I can see how it could easily mount up to £10m.

meme wrote:
How could £10m be spent on BC? I thought it sounded madness that they needed this just to survive as if it were true YCfc would be finished anyway I agree however with Mr Crabtrees comments above someone should come clean about the costs and rewards for the money spent by York taxpayers to rescue the footie club. Plus I also am not an expert but it does seem that BC will not be worth anything like it was a few years ago as building land cos of the collapse in land prices and the councils affordable regime. How important is the value of BC to make things work?

It £10m if we're wanting to bring it up to standard and be used by football & RL. This whole process is, or at least should be, about improving everyone/thing as I stated above. There's no point just giving YCFC £5m to pay off some debts and have it Council own etc, it needs to improvement to become a better place to work from. And so what if YCFC get £5, where does that leave YCK? I know they're ok as the can still control their own destony as it were, but with what, a nothing ground and no facilities to improve match day attendances? Then what about the Athletics in all this 'giving money away' scenario anyway? Will they still get the improvements?
Just 'giving' anyone a small amount of money is going to do nothing for sport in the City. If people can start handing £10-12m to YCFC/YCK here, £3m to Athletic there then great, but sadly that's not going to happen.

Stead with another biased article. Feel sorry for the guy, he's now making news out of comment sections. Clearly he's lost his passion for journalism and is now pandering to a very small minority viewpoint, 10 people in fact, the sum total of people who last met at the "Campaign for York" (a pathetic and insulting name) meeting.

Regardless, I'm becoming really sick of minority sporting clubs trying to dictate towards York City FC, and their minions like Septimius - now on his fourth account after being banned three times previously for spreading falsehoods.

Good news is I see Barnitts was absolutely empty when I passed it earlier today. Went in and noted the fact, was grunted at by their disinterested sales people, after managing to get through all that stock thrown over the floor. So the deletion of ALL 50 comments (not one or two which apparently upset them) hasn't worked.

Keep up the boycotts of the idiot shops with their idiot campaigns. Let store owners with these leaflets know they are traitors to the main sporting club in this city. Cancel your Press subscriptions if you have them.

Philip: Never been banned or had a comment removed. False. Keep dishing the dirt fella. This is the first and only account. I'm no-one's minion!

The C4Y represents 100s of people in lots of organisations - just because you saw a few of the representatives of those organisations doesn't mean they are the only ones.

Traitors! Get a grip.

I think you'll find that I'm not against YCFC at all - I'm against the Malton Mafia who created this situation and watch while we argue amongst ourselves what might be best for the whole community - new stadium or not. The retail development can only be pursued because the owners of the club and CYC prove that it is generally beneficial.

There is no proof. Just guesses.

There is no plan. Just conjecture.

This is not a sustainable plan.

YCFC should stay at a refurbed BC. I think it can be paid for by the council, the ff and the viability of their business plan.

But that wouldn't suit the MM.

The supporters and the campaign should be on the same side. We want the same thing. Continuation of football at BC.

The refusal to deny that they have an interest in Oakgate by the McGills at the supporters trust meeting and the further comment that they actually are considering whether to invest in Oakgate is a sign post that should not be ignored.

If you don't believe me ask someone who was at the meeting.

Septimus. Answer some of the major fundimental questions then with regards to staying at Bootham Crescent.
1) Where will the money come from to refurbish the ground to sufficient standard - circa £5m - £10m?
2) Who will be paying back the FF loan? If the council how will they justify it to the taxpayers?
3) Where is local enough for YCFC to play whilst the development is ongoing - HS isn't close enough to standard even for a season.
4) How will all the people who are owed their share from BC Holdings get there cash (Not just JMG - DC still owns a proportion of it)
5) How will they get past Persimmon having first refusal on the ground - legally?
6) How will the redevelopment overcome strict residential planning rules?
7) How will CoY get some external revenue streams from the ground?
8) How will the stadium fulfill the community aspect of the build?

That should keep you going for starters.

Also, lets not forget that this option was investigated before the whole MX2 proposals were put in place and was discounted for being unfeasible. What's changed since then?

Lots of comments yet again by people with no idea what they are on about !
That includes Leeds being a proper football club....just look at their crook of a chairman.

Carterjason, I agree KenB is a very dodgy guy, but the facts are, LUFC are a more successful team over the years. So they are a more popular football club. That does not mean that a supporter of LUFC who is from York doesn't have an opinion. Nor does it mean it is more valid.

But quantity and quality over locality wins that argument.

Welcome to the conversation PeterStreet & 1localtrader.

But don't take to heart that ycfc fans supporting the application are basing their opinions on the facts, they are only their hopes.

I understand the animosity that jobs probably being lost brings and tax payer money being squandered, but this shouldnt be ycfc versus the rest.

This is 'the rest' versus oakgate and the McGills & possibly tim atkins / james alexander.

JA could, if he had the 'where with all' and will, stop this in it's tracks. He could start fresh. But no. He has tiied himself dogmatically to a weak pledge, because he got his arse burned on the UTCP fiasco.

He wants to leave York for Westminster with a 'legacy' that suits his ambition. Trouble is... we will be left holding the white elephant.

Politician's are the last people we should expect to help solve this issue.

Bit of an over reaction to ONE person's post to ae fair Peter. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

We seem to have got to the usual back end of the comments part where the last thing left in the tank is to tar all City fans as idiots and their opinions don't matter. You could almost set your watch to it. We've also got to the usual point when Speaks asks, in a straight up simple manner, a series of basic questions but certain people find it all a little easier to ignore.
See you all this time tomorrow.

I am a resident of York and I endorse the Monk Cross development scheme.

Sarah York wrote:
Bit of an over reaction to ONE person's post to ae fair Peter. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

We seem to have got to the usual back end of the comments part where the last thing left in the tank is to tar all City fans as idiots and their opinions don't matter. You could almost set your watch to it. We've also got to the usual point when Speaks asks, in a straight up simple manner, a series of basic questions but certain people find it all a little easier to ignore.
See you all this time tomorrow.

Thanks Sarah. I thought it was just me who was noticing this trend. I always try to be civil, I always ask sensible questions and I always try to argue the case of Oakgate by using common sense, statistical evidence and documented report.
Just because you have one person who decides they want to Boycott those shops who are standing in the way of Yorks progression, for whatever reason, be it misinformed advice from City centre traders, fear or pure greed, that's his/her decision. Certainly doesn't warrant the over reaction on here.
The shops displaying these signs must realsise that they are going to upset a certain proportion of the citys residents by displaying them. Its there risk, not that I'm advocating a boycott, everyone can make there own minds up about what action they take.

Spot on Sarah. Petethestreet and 1localtrader seem to have only upped the personal insult tally.
Can we keep it something like guys and girls.

Severus Wrote:
"The refusal to deny that they have an interest in Oakgate by the McGills at the supporters trust meeting and the further comment that they actually are considering whether to invest in Oakgate is a sign post that should not be ignored.

If you don't believe me ask someone who was at the meeting."

So Severus - I did what you suggested and asked someone who goes to these meetings. I can confirm that this has NEVER been mention, NEVER been brought up.
So you have either been lied to, in which case I would take everything this person says with a pinch of salt (even if its one of your "trusted" city centre traders), or you are lying yourself - you've clearly showed you have no respect for what the McGills have done for YCFC, but to lie about their motives is downright desperate.

Perhaps it is you who are showing your true colours now with a dirty smear campaign against the local football club. Shame on you for stooping so low.

"Politician's are the last people we should expect to help solve this issue."

I guess that means we can discount anything that Hunters owner Kevin Hollinrake says then, who loves York so much he was going to run for a seat at... Dewsbury.

I've asked you before where your evidence is that it is the "ycfc vs the rest". It's not. The thousands of York shoppers aren't all York fans. The thousands who currently use Clifton Moor, DO and MX are not YCFC fans or tourists. They are RESIDENTS who happen to want to better choice, more shops, more convenience. Yet it doesn't suit your argument to admit this. Perhaps you should go out on the streets and conduct a poll of what shoppers want.
Perhaps you should go down to the job centre and speak to the citys unemployed and find out what they want. Sorry - we're not allowed to talk about the jobs that are going to be created because, although they benefit the city of York as a whole, they dont benefit your weak arguments.

Perhaps you could give JA some credit for doing his job. We, the people, voted in the council to run the city in a way which will make it prosper. That's what they are doing. Creating jobs, giving people wealth, choice to shoppers, stop the steady leak of shoppers going to other citys, an injection into the local economy.

And heres the BIG BIG hole in the argument against the proposals. The Councils PRIMARY concern is the well being of York. The growth of its economy. Sustainability for the city. Yet they endorse this development because it is providing these very things. Do you honestly believe the councils overiding objectives are to run the city into the ground?

The football fans want a stadium to save their team. Shoppers want the convenience of M&S at MX and a new JL. Residents want a community facility that would have multiple usage and would at last provide a facility that most other towns and cities enjor. Traders are worried about whether there might be any knock on to their businesses.
All these (sometimes) conflicting requirements are valid and those making them have a right to do so.
What isn't valid or fair is certain elements who want to ram their views down the throats of all the rest with ridiculous campaigns, meetings, lobbying and seemingly hijacking the local rag. That is why these forums get heated at times and people start talking about boycotts, etc.

York is about more than a few local traders, who to me at least, seem to be engaging in nothing more than scaremongering.
The attacks on the so called 'Malton Mafia' meanwhile seem nothing short of slander (not libel - forums are slander due to their impermanence, before some pedant says otherwise.) I'm the first to admit I can be one-eyed and naive where my football club are concerned, but I fail to see how the McGills are profiting by ploughing money into the club up to the value of its assets and forgoing the interest. Where is the profiteering in that? From where I sit, they are not the one concerned about personal wealth. As Septimius says though, time will tell and we are all watching.

Septimius Severus wrote:
Philip: Never been banned or had a comment removed. False. Keep dishing the dirt fella. This is the first and only account. I'm no-one's minion!

The C4Y represents 100s of people in lots of organisations - just because you saw a few of the representatives of those organisations doesn't mean they are the only ones.

Traitors! Get a grip.

I think you'll find that I'm not against YCFC at all - I'm against the Malton Mafia who created this situation and watch while we argue amongst ourselves what might be best for the whole community - new stadium or not. The retail development can only be pursued because the owners of the club and CYC prove that it is generally beneficial.

There is no proof. Just guesses.

There is no plan. Just conjecture.

This is not a sustainable plan.

YCFC should stay at a refurbed BC. I think it can be paid for by the council, the ff and the viability of their business plan.

But that wouldn't suit the MM.

The supporters and the campaign should be on the same side. We want the same thing. Continuation of football at BC.

The refusal to deny that they have an interest in Oakgate by the McGills at the supporters trust meeting and the further comment that they actually are considering whether to invest in Oakgate is a sign post that should not be ignored.

If you don't believe me ask someone who was at the meeting.

Wow, I've worked out who you are, otherwise known as Yabba. Nice to see you're bias against the McGills has resulted in you becoming a traitor to the club.

And yet the press will allow that legally questionable post I bet.

If these two clubs can not cover the cost of there grounds without the council cash input or pepper corn rent deal with the council the clubs should just fold

Why should the council tax payer subsidise commercial concerns who can not rise the money they need on the open market because over the years they have either sold there assets or traded them to get a player or two

We have to look hard at this as if the council tax payer is to get involved that there is going to be a return on the investment and not just a drain on council funds

York City Council over the passed years have made some every bad decisions were buildings for public use have been concerned

As you put York1900 it should absolutely be thought about from the point of view that it's an investment. This is why just handing over any sum for next to nothing return as per this latest suggestion is just daft. The new stadium is not a "bail out for ycfc" and does actually helps other Clubs and people, but I'd agree with the term "bail out" if the council just gave ycfc a large handout. People then would have every right to be angry and I don't think any ycfc fan would counter that.

It's important to note though, as you may not fully appreciate this going by your first point, that sports clubs are in that in between bit where they are a commercial business but they are still a vital community asset. The council etc will always be at liberty to find balance between helping out the two factors. As I put though, £4m as a handout certainly isn't that balance.

Sarah York wrote:
As you put York1900 it should absolutely be thought about from the point of view that it's an investment. This is why just handing over any sum for next to nothing return as per this latest suggestion is just daft. The new stadium is not a "bail out for ycfc" and does actually helps other Clubs and people, but I'd agree with the term "bail out" if the council just gave ycfc a large handout. People then would have every right to be angry and I don't think any ycfc fan would counter that.

It's important to note though, as you may not fully appreciate this going by your first point, that sports clubs are in that in between bit where they are a commercial business but they are still a vital community asset. The council etc will always be at liberty to find balance between helping out the two factors. As I put though, £4m as a handout certainly isn't that balance.

Is the right answer. Some would have you believe that this £4m or however much is lost money. What it actually represents is an investment which will reap rewards to the council year on year.

Some people who don't know any better will say that how can York City afford a six figure sum every year for ground rental. What they don't realise is that YCFC are already paying 6 figures every year on maintaining Bootham Crescent. And you don't need to take my word for that - the annual accounts are on public record.

Will you give over repeating the 6 figure maintainance costs every year! Who says it's as much as that every year? Where in the accounts is it shown? What has cost a hundred thousand pounds every year?
Creative acounting maybe?