Out-of-town complex critic says he wants what’s right for York (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Out-of-town complex critic says he wants what’s right for York
9:25am Saturday 11th February 2012 in News
Adam Sinclair: Confirmed he owns China China
ONE of the leading critics of proposals for a huge retail complex on the edge of York has denied that his own out-of-town store creates a conflict of interest.
Adam Sinclair, who chairs York Chamber of Trade and owns the Mulberry Hall fine china and crystal shop in Stonegate, has confirmed he also “100 per cent” owns the China China store at York Designer Outlet.
The chamber and individual traders in the centre of York are opposing plans for John Lewis and Marks & Spencer stores at Monks Cross in a development which would also include a community stadium for York City FC and York City Knights, saying the new retail arrivals would ruin city-centre businesses.
Oakgate (Monks Cross) Ltd’s planning application is expected to go before City of York Council’s planning committee next month.
Mr Sinclair is among the traders who have called for the plans to be rejected, but says his involvement in China China, which dates back to 1998, is “totally different” to the debate currently raging about York’s retail future.
He said that during construction of the designer outlet in 1998, he was told by the Royal Doulton group that one of Mulberry Hall’s competitors was negotiating for space there. He said: “I was informed that Royal Doulton and McArthur Glen wanted to do it with me as the incumbent specialist in York and to build bridges with the city centre.
“Had I not done this, I believe the survival of my business would have been in jeopardy. The current planning debate is totally different – it is not about me, Oakgate’s managing director Richard France, York City chairman Jason McGill, John Lewis, Marks & Spencer or council leader James Alexander.
“It is about what is right for the city of York, guided by local, regional and national planning policies, so I don’t accept there is any conflict of interest whatsoever. Once the current planning process is resolved, we will all go our own way to ensure we survive as businesses and individuals, whether or not that is the best thing for York.”
Mr Sinclair said John Lewis’s move into the massive Cribbs Causeway shopping development outside Bristol, despite having originally opposed it, was an example of how planning debates stretched beyond individual businesses.
He said: “I am not the only person with business interests inside and outside the city centre.
“I have never sought to personalise this debate – it is important that everybody sticks to the planning and economic issues – nor have we sought to oppose existing out-of-town developments, any proposed new stadium or, for that matter, York City’s current Bootham Crescent ground.”
Comments(68)
speaks99
says...
10:09am Sat 11 Feb 12
Our city is thriving. Its not going to implode because of two department stores.
city_view
says...
10:32am Sat 11 Feb 12
Maybe Oakgate should get Betty's or Barnitts or Browns to open a store in the currently unallocated and apparently forgotten 3rd retail unit in their development, in one of these 'bridge building' exercises? ...
Go nothing against the man but to say it's totally different - it all looks the same to me - he protected his own interests, people always do, and developers know that and use it to their advantage.
johnabostock
says...
11:23am Sat 11 Feb 12
city_view
says...
11:24am Sat 11 Feb 12
It's a shame this 'community stadium' plan is causing such divisions in the community ...
Cllr.John Galvin
says...
11:37am Sat 11 Feb 12
Dr Brian
says...
11:45am Sat 11 Feb 12
Cllr.John Galvin wrote:Something for the whole community? - which this debate is proving this stadium will be far from that.
Can somebody define what a Community Stadium is?
But if a Councillor does not know the answer to that question what chance do us mere mortals have of providing the correct answer. Perhaps we should say "pass" to that and not pass the planning application?
city_view
says...
12:09pm Sat 11 Feb 12
It is I guess a better choice than the alternative 'We have to have this as those who said they were safeguarding the asset of Bootham Crescent actually sold it from underneath us Stadium.' ?
Punk_Ian
says...
12:51pm Sat 11 Feb 12
The people who'll use the out of town shops will be the residents of York and surrounding areas who don't visit the City anyway due to the inconvenience of travel so I don't see how this development is going to effect things.
Even AndyD
says...
12:54pm Sat 11 Feb 12
More importantly though, this isn't just about YCFC or Mr Sinclair, its about what the people of York want and I for one will be glad when the Press actually conduct some sort of poll, rather than just giving the same old names more publicity and column inches.
Cllr.John Galvin
says...
12:56pm Sat 11 Feb 12
Dr Brian wrote:Actually I know full well what a Community Stadium is. But it seems many others do not including many fellow councillors!!
Cllr.John Galvin wrote:Something for the whole community? - which this debate is proving this stadium will be far from that.
Can somebody define what a Community Stadium is?
But if a Councillor does not know the answer to that question what chance do us mere mortals have of providing the correct answer. Perhaps we should say "pass" to that and not pass the planning application?
city_view
says...
1:02pm Sat 11 Feb 12
I know the massive efforts made ten years or so ago to keep the club going, and to keep it at Bootham Crescent, at that time. YCFC do deserve support from the wider community - it's not just another business (as some have suggested) - as is proved when things are going well and Wembley visits occur - suddenly the club seems to have many more thousand followers, doesn't it, who want to see 'our team' prosper.
Even AndyD
says...
1:07pm Sat 11 Feb 12
Dr Brian wrote:Rather one sided argument there. One could just as easily say that centre-traders are putting the remote possibility of a drop their profits (do Betty's REALLY compete with M&S and JL??) above what residents want. They are also putting their profit above sport in this city, above not holding York back, above allowing York to compete with other towns and cities, above having a community asset for a knock down price.
Unfortunately as has been pointed out the community stadium is causing divisions in the community.
I think we all know that the sporting community would probably not give a **** about this shopping centre was the carrott of a new stadium not being dangled. York City fans are really not doing the proud club any justice with their lets boycott shops in York suggestions. The community is more important than a white elephant stadium which will barely attract a couple of thousand people. If York City cannot survive without the rest of the community having to suffer sobeit. The Tories have made a sensible suggestion - the FC do not like it (perhaps because their greedy directors will not make massive profits if they stay at Bootham Crescent) But I for one will not support this move to fill the pockets of York City directors and to allow the thugs (who I am sure are few in numbers) who support York City to blackmail the hard working traders of York with the threats of "lets boycott any city centre shop that does not support the move"
If those who see this as the trader stance wish to boycott their stores, surely that is fair enough? Are you saying they should be forced to shop at Barnitts et al?
You can argue it both ways as to who is campaigning therefore, although I'd say the traders are the ones with a campaign up and running, wouldn't you? They are the ones printing thousands of leaflets, holding meetings and obviously contributing stories on a twice/thrice weekly basis to the local rag. Compare this to one or two people saying they will boycott the odd shop and I'd say the bully-boy tactics are not coming from supporters. I don't say this as a YCFC fan, this is how I see things as a reasonable human-being, but I'm open to debate on the issue; just keep it reasonable please.
johnabostock
says...
1:19pm Sat 11 Feb 12
city_view wrote:Many people on this forum, I feel, do not realise that the original instigator of the whole YCFC mess has threatened legal action against anyone who mentions his name and like city-view won`t mention his name. I applaud Speaks99 as does city-view. I have been a YCFC supporter since I was 13 years old and I am now 63 and seen them through good, bad and very bad times, including crowds of just under 25,000 for cup matches. Long may they continue and prosper for future generations of York residents who DO NOT follow Leeds, Man U or other lower league `money-grabbing`team
Speaks99 - hope everyone reads the above. Thanks also for mentioning the instigator of the mess, to whom I alluded above.
I know the massive efforts made ten years or so ago to keep the club going, and to keep it at Bootham Crescent, at that time. YCFC do deserve support from the wider community - it's not just another business (as some have suggested) - as is proved when things are going well and Wembley visits occur - suddenly the club seems to have many more thousand followers, doesn't it, who want to see 'our team' prosper.
s.
johnabostock
says...
1:27pm Sat 11 Feb 12
johnabostock wrote:Meant to say `Long may they continue and prosper for future generations of York residents who DO NOT follow Leeds, Man U or other `money grabbing` football clubs that are seen in the Premier and Championship Leagues.
city_view wrote:Many people on this forum, I feel, do not realise that the original instigator of the whole YCFC mess has threatened legal action against anyone who mentions his name and like city-view won`t mention his name. I applaud Speaks99 as does city-view. I have been a YCFC supporter since I was 13 years old and I am now 63 and seen them through good, bad and very bad times, including crowds of just under 25,000 for cup matches. Long may they continue and prosper for future generations of York residents who DO NOT follow Leeds, Man U or other lower league `money-grabbing`team
Speaks99 - hope everyone reads the above. Thanks also for mentioning the instigator of the mess, to whom I alluded above.
I know the massive efforts made ten years or so ago to keep the club going, and to keep it at Bootham Crescent, at that time. YCFC do deserve support from the wider community - it's not just another business (as some have suggested) - as is proved when things are going well and Wembley visits occur - suddenly the club seems to have many more thousand followers, doesn't it, who want to see 'our team' prosper.
s.
Punk_Ian
says...
1:31pm Sat 11 Feb 12
johnabostock wrote:You mean Douglas Craig? who, due to been a greedy so-so tried to destroy the club................
city_view wrote:Many people on this forum, I feel, do not realise that the original instigator of the whole YCFC mess has threatened legal action against anyone who mentions his name and like city-view won`t mention his name. I applaud Speaks99 as does city-view. I have been a YCFC supporter since I was 13 years old and I am now 63 and seen them through good, bad and very bad times, including crowds of just under 25,000 for cup matches. Long may they continue and prosper for future generations of York residents who DO NOT follow Leeds, Man U or other lower league `money-grabbing`team
Speaks99 - hope everyone reads the above. Thanks also for mentioning the instigator of the mess, to whom I alluded above.
I know the massive efforts made ten years or so ago to keep the club going, and to keep it at Bootham Crescent, at that time. YCFC do deserve support from the wider community - it's not just another business (as some have suggested) - as is proved when things are going well and Wembley visits occur - suddenly the club seems to have many more thousand followers, doesn't it, who want to see 'our team' prosper.
s.
....allegedly
speaks99
says...
1:33pm Sat 11 Feb 12
city_view wrote:Seems my comments have been removed because I quoted an offensive post. The gist of my post, if I can remember it, was:
Speaks99 - hope everyone reads the above. Thanks also for mentioning the instigator of the mess, to whom I alluded above.
I know the massive efforts made ten years or so ago to keep the club going, and to keep it at Bootham Crescent, at that time. YCFC do deserve support from the wider community - it's not just another business (as some have suggested) - as is proved when things are going well and Wembley visits occur - suddenly the club seems to have many more thousand followers, doesn't it, who want to see 'our team' prosper.
Bootham Crescent Holdings (who own the ground) is made up from a number of different interests, including Douglas Craig, the man who stared this whole mess in the first place. They all want their cut of the pie, not just the McGills.
The directors of YCFC have been loaning the club money on the basis that once the land has been sold, they will get their money back. They are forgoing any interest payments (£650k) on those loans, so they will receive the exact amount they have loaned the club, not a penny more.
I also stated that there are posters on this forum who are YCFC fans. However, we are not in the majority as far as I'm aware. I am a YCFC fan. I also have an interest in wanting the best for my city. these two aspects are not mutually exclusive. There are a lot of people posting on here who have no interest in the football club but support the development.
Despite some peoples claims, there is no organised boycott of stores who display this poster, nor would I, or most York fans, be party to one. One or two individuals have mentioned that they will PERSONALLY boycott these stores, and if that's the way they want to protest then that is there right. Just as the shop owners are making their protests visible.
Finally, my last sentence which I feel strongly about as a regular contributor to this topic (in the comments section), is that I don't want anyone to think I am bullying anyone regarding my comments. I feel there are a lot of untruths and misdirection bandied about, and I feel that without someone putting these right, they will be assumed correct. By the same token, neither are my comments without redress. If you want to make points to me then please keep them civil and I will respond in kind. I nearly always try to be professional, courteous and civil in my posts, even when I am being goaded by others.
Over the past four months I have read fairly extensively on this subject - I've had the time on my hands and it is a matter that I feel is important (for the city). I try to back up my comments where applicable with evidence (statistical or other press articles) and when not available I try to explain my reasoning without making generalisations. Please feel free to pick me up on anything...
Eric Bartholomew
says...
1:55pm Sat 11 Feb 12
What was it this same person said on a local TV news item in November?
"out of town shopping is very bad for City centres,regardless of the retailer"
As a spokesperson for some City Center traders against MX2,he should either now resign from that position or pull out of the out of town site.
Unless this occurs how can he hold any credibility.
This feet in both camps stance has to be a nailed on conflict of interest.
Even AndyD
says...
2:04pm Sat 11 Feb 12
Eric Bartholomew wrote:Doesn't he also have a leading role with York Civic Trust? If so, isn't that another conflict of interest, he can say what is good for his business with a what is best for York hat on? Doesn't seem right to me.
So here we have a City Centre trader who is against Monks Cross who also has a shop in an out of town shopping centre.
What was it this same person said on a local TV news item in November?
"out of town shopping is very bad for City centres,regardless of the retailer"
As a spokesperson for some City Center traders against MX2,he should either now resign from that position or pull out of the out of town site.
Unless this occurs how can he hold any credibility.
This feet in both camps stance has to be a nailed on conflict of interest.
johnabostock
says...
2:07pm Sat 11 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
2:14pm Sat 11 Feb 12
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.
Maybe these trader associations and civic trusts should look at what people are asking for and try to make plans as to how they can fulfil these requirements. York must be one of the few cities who DOESN'T have a Primark!
yorkonafork
says...
3:39pm Sat 11 Feb 12
I have absolutely no issue with the retail plans and think it would be great for York, this would not change in the slightest without the Stadium. I also think it's clear that it's the Stadium 'discussion' if any, that is the one with more plot-holes and debate.
The retail debate is pretty straight forward, there's going to be two new shops which will boost York, most agree and a couple of people don't.
The Stadium part and the ins and outs of how that's built and the business plan is a lot more up to debate and of course is a lot more pesonal to the City fans, Knights fans and athletics etc as all need various bits and bobs to have it sorted. It doesn't mean it shouldn't go ahead, but at least there is a case in point for all the discussion.
If YCFC were given £15m tomorrow to build over BC I would still 100% back the retail as that is what will benefit the entire City. The best interests of my home town will always come before that of my Football team.
Even AndyD
says...
5:27pm Sat 11 Feb 12
It is a highly disingenuous argument to try and make out that City fans are *only* for the Oakgate project because we are somehow stereotypical, one-eyed, football morons who cannot see beyond our club. Disingenuous and frankly, not a little insulting.
Yes it is vital to YCFC, but I for one have used umpteen community stadia up and down the UK and see what they bring to local sport and leisure. I think it is about time York deserves had such a resource given its size and population. Not to mention the valid retail argument, which others mention.
TerryYork
says...
7:09pm Sat 11 Feb 12
Cllr.John Galvin wrote:Firstly, well done to Mr Stead for showing "some" objectivity, as much as this does not forgive the 10 previous articles of editorial bias and the removal of entire comment sections at the whim of Barnitts panicking they backed the wrong horse.
Dr Brian wrote:Actually I know full well what a Community Stadium is. But it seems many others do not including many fellow councillors!!
Cllr.John Galvin wrote:Something for the whole community? - which this debate is proving this stadium will be far from that.
Can somebody define what a Community Stadium is?
But if a Councillor does not know the answer to that question what chance do us mere mortals have of providing the correct answer. Perhaps we should say "pass" to that and not pass the planning application?
Secondly, great picture of Sinclair. Hardly the face of a trusting person. Also, wasn't he in that stupid drama "Eternal Law"?
TerryYork
says...
7:15pm Sat 11 Feb 12
I hope your fellow members are taking notice of Mr Sinclair and his handful of protesters who want York turned into a tourist gift-shop wonderland and are scared two shops at Monks Cross would deny them that.
I also hope it has been noticed you have thousands of council tax paying people of York who want the best for the city's (by far) most popular and best known sporting club, a club capable of getting 3,000+ in for a game in the Conference, a club that can sell out 5,000 away tickets at Bolton and take 14,000 to Wembley.
Name another York establishment which can boast that in York numbers? Racecourse? 1000s of drunk Scousers defacing the city does not count, so no - nothing else, not the snooker, not concepts, not the exhibitions.
So yes, I think the council should also place that under consideration. We may not have 10 pence leaflets in a few rundown stores, but we have the numbers, thousands of council tax paying people who live in York.
loobydriver
says...
9:49pm Sat 11 Feb 12
Our offer is for so much less than that, 2 shops?! And the stadium of course. But what shops? Crucially a John Lewis which will pull in more people from further a field who may well have gone to Leeds. We may even get people from Leeds coming across for a JL, we're closer than Sheffield (nearest JLpresently), surely the moaners have thought of that pull? If they've come to York for a JL trip why not work on promoting a quick trip into the city too? The parking prices may put them off of course but the park & ride is handy there.
I think this development should be seen as a positive move for a drawing in a different clientel, if we can get them into the city too, everybody wins.
Even AndyD
says...
9:53pm Sat 11 Feb 12
Even AndyD
says...
9:55pm Sat 11 Feb 12
city_view
says...
10:22pm Sat 11 Feb 12
Not really bothered how many shops he has and where he has them, and it wouldn't matter at all if he wasn't being a spokesman for the city centre traders' opposition to out-of-town development.
The view from Bristol is interesting. Think that's right about the different shopping 'experiences' co-existing without one having to 'die' - depends who is shopping, for what, at what time of the day, etc.
It does seem to be the case though that this massive expansion of out of town retail goes against many planning policies and isn't something that's actually 'needed'. I've read through a fair few of the comments lodged in response to the planning application, and the most persuasive and considered ones, citing the relevant planning guidelines, are all as far as I can see from the 'anti' development side.
piaggio
says...
11:19pm Sat 11 Feb 12
bolero
says...
10:36am Sun 12 Feb 12
Even AndyD
says...
10:58am Sun 12 Feb 12
adelewallis
says...
8:51pm Sun 12 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
9:13pm Sun 12 Feb 12
adelewallis wrote:The actual numbers of empty shops in York is 5% - half the national average.
why do we have to have out of town shopping ? are the business rates cheaper? I walked through york the other day and could not believe how many shops where for let or for sale. you would think that york city council would look at this as york been a tourist town and keep these shops in use ,like reduce rates that people can afford, you would be shocked to see how much ycc charge for a small retail unit in the town centre ! and then you have your other bills on top ....
speaks99
says...
9:13pm Sun 12 Feb 12
adelewallis wrote:The actual numbers of empty shops in York is 5% - half the national average.
why do we have to have out of town shopping ? are the business rates cheaper? I walked through york the other day and could not believe how many shops where for let or for sale. you would think that york city council would look at this as york been a tourist town and keep these shops in use ,like reduce rates that people can afford, you would be shocked to see how much ycc charge for a small retail unit in the town centre ! and then you have your other bills on top ....
Malcolm
says...
9:20pm Sun 12 Feb 12
The Great Buda
says...
10:32am Mon 13 Feb 12
magic cat
says...
2:27pm Mon 13 Feb 12
meme
says...
4:33pm Mon 13 Feb 12
1. How much money will the York ratepayers put into the scheme
2. What rents are going to be paid approx by the operators IE the sports clubs and anyone else in the buildings which we will be contributing towards
3. What will be the approximate return to ratepayers IE if we spend £10 will we get £1 back each year ..A 10% return
4. What other sporting facilities other than a rugby and football club will be on offer to York's public
Easy enough to answer and will help me decide if the risk of the retail is worth the reward of the facilities on offer
m dee
says...
6:53pm Mon 13 Feb 12
Nothing to do with the fact that John Lewis stocks some identical product ranges then.
bolero
says...
7:08pm Mon 13 Feb 12
johnabostock
says...
9:20pm Mon 13 Feb 12
meme wrote:Speaks99 will have the answers for you if you can get his attention - full of facts and figures through researching this topic thoroughly.
as a York resident can someone please please answer the following so I can make up my mind logically what i support or otherwise.I have asked on other blogs but for some reason nobody can/will answer the questions
1. How much money will the York ratepayers put into the scheme
2. What rents are going to be paid approx by the operators IE the sports clubs and anyone else in the buildings which we will be contributing towards
3. What will be the approximate return to ratepayers IE if we spend £10 will we get £1 back each year ..A 10% return
4. What other sporting facilities other than a rugby and football club will be on offer to York's public
Easy enough to answer and will help me decide if the risk of the retail is worth the reward of the facilities on offer
speaks99
says...
9:46pm Mon 13 Feb 12
2) This has yet to be finalised. The last figures I heard about was £130k for YCFC and £70k YCK - not sure if this was just a rumour or actuals. In all likelyhood these figures are not finalised and it wouldn't be beyond the realms of realism if there were some rebates involved to both clubs though corporate deals and linked "revenue streams". Both clubs have been assured that any deal would not impact negatively on them financially.
3) Difficult to estimate. Given that the investment is £4m and potentially £200k from the two clubs is a ballpark figure, there is a 5% return there. On top of that there will be "community facilities" - admittedly yet to be decided, but these should be income bearing. Discussed are an NHS outpatients facility and a health and welbeing centre by the uni. Again - this would be income bearing. Further, tied into the stadium there would be additional opportunities to further add a return, for example conference facilities, weddings, concerts, events etc.
4) The development is going to serve as home to YCFC and YCK's. Also involved is moving the athletics to the university, a project which they are very keen to further, as they see that Huntington Stadium is no longer fit for purpose, where as the university can offer them state of the art facilities. I understand that the swimming pool will get a refurb from the project, and there is potentially additional 3G pitches & 9 aside pitches.
Magicman!
says...
1:09am Tue 14 Feb 12
Blueberry Smoothie
says...
9:57am Tue 14 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
12:31pm Tue 14 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:1) I think ...
1) I think the council have £4m put aside already for this venture in total.
2) This has yet to be finalised. The last figures I heard about was £130k for YCFC and £70k YCK - not sure if this was just a rumour or actuals. In all likelyhood these figures are not finalised and it wouldn't be beyond the realms of realism if there were some rebates involved to both clubs though corporate deals and linked "revenue streams". Both clubs have been assured that any deal would not impact negatively on them financially.
3) Difficult to estimate. Given that the investment is £4m and potentially £200k from the two clubs is a ballpark figure, there is a 5% return there. On top of that there will be "community facilities" - admittedly yet to be decided, but these should be income bearing. Discussed are an NHS outpatients facility and a health and welbeing centre by the uni. Again - this would be income bearing. Further, tied into the stadium there would be additional opportunities to further add a return, for example conference facilities, weddings, concerts, events etc.
4) The development is going to serve as home to YCFC and YCK's. Also involved is moving the athletics to the university, a project which they are very keen to further, as they see that Huntington Stadium is no longer fit for purpose, where as the university can offer them state of the art facilities. I understand that the swimming pool will get a refurb from the project, and there is potentially additional 3G pitches & 9 aside pitches.
A guess!
2) This has yet to be finalised. The last figures I heard about was £130k for YCFC and £70k YCK - not sure if this was just a rumour or actuals.
Another guess!
3) Difficult to estimate.
On top of that there will be "community facilities" - admittedly yet to be decided, but these should be income bearing. Discussed are an NHS outpatients facility and a health and welbeing centre by the uni. Again - this would be income bearing.
Guess that’s a guess!
Further, tied into the stadium there would be additional opportunities to further add a return, for example conference facilities, weddings, concerts, events etc.
Guessing again!
4) I understand that the swimming pool will get a refurb from the project, and there is potentially additional 3G pitches & 9 aside pitches.
Guess upon guess upon guess!
No facts meme. Just guesses.
meme
says...
2:29pm Tue 14 Feb 12
Even with guesses how will YCK pay £70K per annum? No wonder Guildford is screaming as I understand that the income he gets from 'social' events is what keeps the club going and he will lose this.
If YC fc can pay this much how much will maintenance cost of the ground and who bears those costs
Where will these extra pitches fit in as I dont see them on the plans?
I am trying not to be negative as I want John Lewis in York and if a by product that rescues YCfc etc so be it. BUT I dont want to find I and the rest of York end up paying out for ever and a day to rescue YCfc so i hope someone can show how this works financially as so far there have been guesses but nothing solid
I begin to wonder if there is a solid business plan?
Even AndyD
says...
5:58pm Tue 14 Feb 12
I'd say that was better planning than borrowing £43m on the never-never for new council offices, but people don't seem to bothered by that. Strange.
speaks99
says...
8:23pm Tue 14 Feb 12
meme wrote:I did try and stress that these figures could be rumours or could be planned. I also stressed that there could be rebates which would reduce this rate. What I would say is that there are some houses which charge the same as what the Knights are paying for HS. You could even argue that it is unfair on the taxpayers that they are currently getting away with a peppercorn rental agreement.
So no one has any hard facts
Even with guesses how will YCK pay £70K per annum? No wonder Guildford is screaming as I understand that the income he gets from 'social' events is what keeps the club going and he will lose this.
If YC fc can pay this much how much will maintenance cost of the ground and who bears those costs
Where will these extra pitches fit in as I dont see them on the plans?
I am trying not to be negative as I want John Lewis in York and if a by product that rescues YCfc etc so be it. BUT I dont want to find I and the rest of York end up paying out for ever and a day to rescue YCfc so i hope someone can show how this works financially as so far there have been guesses but nothing solid
I begin to wonder if there is a solid business plan?
Maintenance on the ground will be dramatically low on a new build stadium compared to a 1930's monolith, never design to handle the rigours of a health and safety society. You can't compare maintenance on BC to a brand new stadia, much of which would be covered in the first instance by the developers.
The pitches aren't currently on the plans, but there is scope to add them if the council wished. There is also scope to add a small budget hotel to the proposals, which would be a big income.
As for business plans, we can demand to see it and if enough voices speak up, maybe we will, but ultimately that is at the councils discretion. There is no legal reason why they should. Secretly I hope they do come forward, but I'll not hold my breath!
Mr Crabtree
says...
8:37pm Tue 14 Feb 12
Even AndyD wrote:Correction the people of York have £10m of their money (£4 from CYC coffers plus £6m given to us by Oakgate in return for giving them planning consent) invested to give a poor return on an asset that will need maintaining possibly out of the revenue they receive from rent thus reducing that return even further.
The simple facts are, Meme, that COYC gets a £10m asset for £4m. From that they can take rents and thus obtain a far greater rate of return than the markets are providing at the moment. Saving the city's professional football club and gaining a community facility are also plus points, but commercially this makes sense too. I'd say that was better planning than borrowing £43m on the never-never for new council offices, but people don't seem to bothered by that. Strange.
I was under the impression that CYC's new office iss funded to a large extent from the proceeds from the sale of St Leonards, and that this will result in a saving overtime of is it £17m ?
For a councillor, you are either badly informed, or deceiptful, or both ?
aspirationalchina
says...
10:51pm Tue 14 Feb 12
Can we get that hotel inspector woman who now does retail shows round to Mulberry Hall to help them improve their turnover? Then maybe Adam won't have to shout so much x
city_view
says...
12:43pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Even AndyD
says...
6:23pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Not the best pun ever, I'll admit, but obviously too much for your one-eyed obsessions. I don't want an apology, but Mr D'Agorne might!
Thanks for making me smile, anyway. :-)
Mr Crabtree
says...
6:51pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Even AndyD wrote:You know full well that the Press are unable to disclose your identity.
Oh dear - Mr Crabtree. Lets say, if I really am a councillor, you can expose me and call me a downright liar. I hereby give you permission to ask the Press if I'm Mr D'A. Before you do so though, you might want to say my user name aloud - Even Andy D. = Even handed. Gerrit? Not the best pun ever, I'll admit, but obviously too much for your one-eyed obsessions. I don't want an apology, but Mr D'Agorne might! Thanks for making me smile, anyway. :-)
The pun is a very poor red herring, and not at all convincing - why not just call yourself 'Even Handed' ?
Those who know the Councillor will be aware if he is or is not a York City supporter, and no doubt if he is, his doppleganger will say that it is just a coincidence.
I have read quotes by the said councillor, and there is more than a vague resemblance to the style and phrasing of Even AndyD's comments on this site.
I think you have been outed my friend !
city_view
says...
7:15pm Wed 15 Feb 12
And expect that if Mr D'Agorne posts comments on here he does so under his full name and title, as most councillors do.
If you're looking for clarification you can email Cllr D'Agorne via the contact details freely available on the City of York Council website, and ask him for his position re the Monks Cross development.
Even AndyD
says...
7:18pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Tell you what - lets have a bet. If I am Andy D'Agorne I will pay £10,000 to your chosen charity. If I am not, you pay £100 to mine. The Press can be the guarantee - they know the identity of us both from their email records and after all - 'Council Party leader makes fake bet' would be a good story for them.
Deal?
city_view
says...
7:28pm Wed 15 Feb 12
city_view
says...
7:30pm Wed 15 Feb 12
For or against low-energy lightbulbs?
Even AndyD
says...
7:32pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Even AndyD
says...
7:44pm Wed 15 Feb 12
city_view wrote:I'd love us to be sustainable in terms of wind energy. We could be the wind version of Qatar. Only, well its difficult and (as yet) uneconomical to harness isn't it?
We could set you a test Even AndyD, on your views on sustainable energy and cycling-related policies.
As for recycling, I'm good and do it 99% of the time, but our boxes are in the garage and its cold in there. Occasionally I confess to putting the odd tin can in the kitchen bin. Shameful, but there you go. Outed! :-)
Even AndyD
says...
7:46pm Wed 15 Feb 12
city_view
says...
8:17pm Wed 15 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
8:59pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Even AndyD wrote:Aha! Andy D'Agorne probably has tonnes of cats!! Outed yourself lol!
Low energy lightbulbs meanwhile are rubbish. That ever-so-annoying three second delay before they come on is just enough time to fall over the cat and end up on your a*se!
Even AndyD
says...
9:08pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Mr Crabtree
says...
11:16pm Wed 15 Feb 12
I'll now get back to my other obsession, campaigning against the council's affordable housing policy, and hope I have more success proving that I'm at least right on that conspiracy theory !!!
Mr Crabtree
says...
11:24pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Even AndyD wrote:Does this tell us that you are a teacher/lecturer or student ?
The irony is, I saw the real Andy D. in York College a few weeks back putting up an anti-MX2 poster. If I see him there again, will say hello and have a laugh about it all. :-)
Even AndyD
says...
8:31am Thu 16 Feb 12
Mr Crabtree wrote:Lol...maybe, maybe not. But nice one on seeing the amusing side. :-)
Even AndyD wrote:Does this tell us that you are a teacher/lecturer or student ?
The irony is, I saw the real Andy D. in York College a few weeks back putting up an anti-MX2 poster. If I see him there again, will say hello and have a laugh about it all. :-)
bolero
says...
12:36pm Thu 16 Feb 12
speaks99 says...
10:04am Sat 11 Feb 12
Do as I say, not do as I do anyone?
Sinclairs true colours come to light.