Monks Cross development would bring £14.5m and 400 jobs say experts (From York Press)

Nick Eggleton says the report is not impartial? I'd say it was more impartial than the erroneously named Campaign for York - which is run for and on behalf of city centre traders.
As for 'white elephant' stadium, why would it be that? It already has two tenants signed up who'd be paying for its usage, plus NHS, Explore, physiotherapy, concert venue, conference facility and many other uses.
I'm all for people having their say, but before someone starts throwing accusations about regarding 'impartiality' - they maybe should declare their own interests.
I'm a YCFC, so want the stadium for obvious reasons. But I'm also a believer in community and think a stadium is something a city this size deserves.

Even AndyD wrote:
Nick Eggleton says the report is not impartial? I'd say it was more impartial than the erroneously named Campaign for York - which is run for and on behalf of city centre traders.
As for 'white elephant' stadium, why would it be that? It already has two tenants signed up who'd be paying for its usage, plus NHS, Explore, physiotherapy, concert venue, conference facility and many other uses.
I'm all for people having their say, but before someone starts throwing accusations about regarding 'impartiality' - they maybe should declare their own interests.
I'm a YCFC, so want the stadium for obvious reasons. But I'm also a believer in community and think a stadium is something a city this size deserves.

Nice post Andy, reflects what I was going to write.
Just to add though, you can be a YCFC fan, plus a supporter of local issues too, the things aren't mutually exclusive. Should the Monks Cross retail side be denied we are basically saying that retail development in York is practically dead. Yes there are a few sites within the walls which can be exploited, and lets hope they are, but whilst Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Hull, Doncaster et al expand/redevelop their main shopping centres to attract visitors York ends up in a timewarp with more planning red tape due to the historical buildings etc than any of these other cities have to deal with.

York needs to prove that it can be progressive, otherwise we turn into one giant tourist attraction, with nothing for the residents.

Campaign for York? Campaign to scaremonger and twist facts more like.

I'm sick of Campaign for York sending me leaflets telling me to object, I've told them I'm for Monks Cross but they seem to continuously send them, it boarders on harassment!

I'm all for the new shops. I just dont understand why a new sports stadium should be built for such a small number of fans.

People also need to remember York has the second fastest growing population in the UK. 22,000 more people in the last decade alone - a bigger city needs more stores and facilities which befit its status.

Woody Mellor wrote:
I'm all for the new shops. I just dont understand why a new sports stadium should be built for such a small number of fans.

Lol...this isn't the Nou Camp 2 being built, for heaven's sake. Its a small stadium for 6000. The match tonight against Mansfield should attract about 7000 - so its hardly an inappropriate facility is it? And that is without all the other community uses. What else are 7000 residents going to do in York tonight? Go to the art gallery? Theatre maybe? What nonsense.

Even AndyD wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote:
I'm all for the new shops. I just dont understand why a new sports stadium should be built for such a small number of fans.

Lol...this isn't the Nou Camp 2 being built, for heaven's sake. Its a small stadium for 6000. The match tonight against Mansfield should attract about 7000 - so its hardly an inappropriate facility is it? And that is without all the other community uses. What else are 7000 residents going to do in York tonight? Go to the art gallery? Theatre maybe? What nonsense.

No need for that attitude. I was just asking a question.

I received a Campaign 4 York leaflet the other day. Talk about duplicity. On one page it said the development would kill the city centre because of the ease of access and free parking. On another it said the development was totally unsustainable as there was inadequate access to the site!

Woody Mellor wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote:
I'm all for the new shops. I just dont understand why a new sports stadium should be built for such a small number of fans.

Lol...this isn't the Nou Camp 2 being built, for heaven's sake. Its a small stadium for 6000. The match tonight against Mansfield should attract about 7000 - so its hardly an inappropriate facility is it? And that is without all the other community uses. What else are 7000 residents going to do in York tonight? Go to the art gallery? Theatre maybe? What nonsense.

No need for that attitude. I was just asking a question.

Well.......lets say you are not immune to trolling. But if you genuinely wondered why we are building a small stadium for a small club, then my apologies. You now have your answer, my friend. :-)

Who paid for the report?
Then we know who it favours

I will believe when I see 1000 permanent jobs in York!

York has a successful centre and will continue to do so because people may visit the out of town places for an hour but then spend the rest of the day in the centre.

Woody Mellor wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote:
I'm all for the new shops. I just dont understand why a new sports stadium should be built for such a small number of fans.

Lol...this isn't the Nou Camp 2 being built, for heaven's sake. Its a small stadium for 6000. The match tonight against Mansfield should attract about 7000 - so its hardly an inappropriate facility is it? And that is without all the other community uses. What else are 7000 residents going to do in York tonight? Go to the art gallery? Theatre maybe? What nonsense.

No need for that attitude. I was just asking a question.

An interesting point as the York tax payer does subsidise the theatre goer and the art gallery visitor. I dont see people up in arms saying the council should pull funding to these organisatons because they cater for so few people. York City FC and York City Knights pull much bigger crowds than either of these organisations I would guess.

Even AndyD wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote: I'm all for the new shops. I just dont understand why a new sports stadium should be built for such a small number of fans.

Lol...this isn't the Nou Camp 2 being built, for heaven's sake. Its a small stadium for 6000. The match tonight against Mansfield should attract about 7000 - so its hardly an inappropriate facility is it? And that is without all the other community uses. What else are 7000 residents going to do in York tonight? Go to the art gallery? Theatre maybe? What nonsense.

No need for that attitude. I was just asking a question.

Well.......lets say you are not immune to trolling. But if you genuinely wondered why we are building a small stadium for a small club, then my apologies. You now have your answer, my friend. :-)

Ah Andyd. Be careful everyone. If Andy even remotely suspects that you don't agree with him 100%, then you are a troll.

ouseswimmer wrote:
York has a successful centre and will continue to do so because people may visit the out of town places for an hour but then spend the rest of the day in the centre.

Council leader James Alexander said the report had “put my mind at ease”. It would certainly ease my mind if they would just get on with it ! I'm in my early sixties now, will I ever be able to walk round John Lewis unaided...or maybe I'll need a Zimmer frame ??

Mr Anderson wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote: I'm all for the new shops. I just dont understand why a new sports stadium should be built for such a small number of fans.

Lol...this isn't the Nou Camp 2 being built, for heaven's sake. Its a small stadium for 6000. The match tonight against Mansfield should attract about 7000 - so its hardly an inappropriate facility is it? And that is without all the other community uses. What else are 7000 residents going to do in York tonight? Go to the art gallery? Theatre maybe? What nonsense.

No need for that attitude. I was just asking a question.

Well.......lets say you are not immune to trolling. But if you genuinely wondered why we are building a small stadium for a small club, then my apologies. You now have your answer, my friend. :-)

Ah Andyd. Be careful everyone. If Andy even remotely suspects that you don't agree with him 100%, then you are a troll.

Not at all. I think Woody would be the first to admit he likes a leg pull. I try and debate as I see it.
I was also quick to apologise in case I was wrong. Treating people with some respect, you ought to try it.

Jazzper wrote:

ouseswimmer wrote:
York has a successful centre and will continue to do so because people may visit the out of town places for an hour but then spend the rest of the day in the centre.

Council leader James Alexander said the report had “put my mind at ease”. It would certainly ease my mind if they would just get on with it ! I'm in my early sixties now, will I ever be able to walk round John Lewis unaided...or maybe I'll need a Zimmer frame ??

Must admit, it was a funny thing to say. JA is 'unusual' sometimes. Agree re the time frame - the human lifespan just isn't long enough for planning red tape!

Reports for this, debates for that... when is any action actually going to take place? This needs to be built and it needs to be built yesterday.

When it comes to approving the expansion of the universities, decisions are usually made in a timely manner. This has the potentially to be the most drawn out affair in the CoY's history!

Also, Woody, if you want to see why a 6,000 capacity stadium is required, pop along to Bootham Cresent tonight.

The good old C4Y in another lip quivering exercise because not everyone else agrees with them.

Mind you they should rename themselves the 'Campaign for Leeds', seeing as Nick Eggleton and some of his fellow C4Y cronies are Leeds Utd fans.

The Legend Of Keith wrote:
Reports for this, debates for that... when is any action actually going to take place? This needs to be built and it needs to be built yesterday.

When it comes to approving the expansion of the universities, decisions are usually made in a timely manner. This has the potentially to be the most drawn out affair in the CoY's history!

Also, Woody, if you want to see why a 6,000 capacity stadium is required, pop along to Bootham Cresent tonight.

You could almost make a strong case for increasing that capacity from the outset if we manage to get promotion this season (big if though... Lots of minutes on the pitch before now and then!) - Hopefully the powers that be will have enough nouse to negotiate this point should the planning get passed...

Last time we were a league side, we averaged almost bang on 4000. And that was with a poor, relegation campaign. The year before was about 4,200.
Beggars can't be choosers of course, but if we average that again, there are going to be games where you are turning people away. Tonight would also be an example.
In fairness IF we got the move to MX and IF we got success, the plans allow for growth and I'd say that was fair enough.
Stats for this season are an average of 3100, which isn't bad for Conference with very limited away followings.

Eric Bartholomew wrote:
The good old C4Y in another lip quivering exercise because not everyone else agrees with them.

Mind you they should rename themselves the 'Campaign for Leeds', seeing as Nick Eggleton and some of his fellow C4Y cronies are Leeds Utd fans.

What does the football team someone supports have to do with anything? The Campaign for York object to the retail enabling development and not the stadium itself.

Ultimately the council decided that there shouldn't be any expansion of Monks Cross for a variety of reasons including traffic, development densities and so on and so forth. So the C4Y and all of the other businesses and residents have every right to expect CYC to stick by the Local Planning Policies that apply to everyone else. That may not be what the passionate supporters of YCFC want to hear but it is the truth and it is fair.

As for timeframes can YCFC even survive the 3-4 years that this development is going to take?

BioLogic wrote:

Eric Bartholomew wrote:
The good old C4Y in another lip quivering exercise because not everyone else agrees with them.

Mind you they should rename themselves the 'Campaign for Leeds', seeing as Nick Eggleton and some of his fellow C4Y cronies are Leeds Utd fans.

What does the football team someone supports have to do with anything? The Campaign for York object to the retail enabling development and not the stadium itself.

Ultimately the council decided that there shouldn't be any expansion of Monks Cross for a variety of reasons including traffic, development densities and so on and so forth. So the C4Y and all of the other businesses and residents have every right to expect CYC to stick by the Local Planning Policies that apply to everyone else. That may not be what the passionate supporters of YCFC want to hear but it is the truth and it is fair.

As for timeframes can YCFC even survive the 3-4 years that this development is going to take?

I Get the feeling you would be one of the 1st to dance on YCFC'S grave should the worse ever happen.

Definitely, B.Logic if the development was sure to go ahead. This has been a good season with potentially two Wembley finals and healthy gates. Costs could be cut if required, moving forward, and I think a lot of City fans would snap your hand off if you told them a new ground would be up and running in time for 2015/6 season.
But that is looking like a huge if at the moment and from purely a personal point of view, I'd say uncertainty or planning rejection is far more harmful that a projected but fruitful wait.
We shall see though - a week is a long time in politics and football!

BioLogic wrote:

Eric Bartholomew wrote:
The good old C4Y in another lip quivering exercise because not everyone else agrees with them.

Mind you they should rename themselves the 'Campaign for Leeds', seeing as Nick Eggleton and some of his fellow C4Y cronies are Leeds Utd fans.

What does the football team someone supports have to do with anything? The Campaign for York object to the retail enabling development and not the stadium itself.

Ultimately the council decided that there shouldn't be any expansion of Monks Cross for a variety of reasons including traffic, development densities and so on and so forth. So the C4Y and all of the other businesses and residents have every right to expect CYC to stick by the Local Planning Policies that apply to everyone else. That may not be what the passionate supporters of YCFC want to hear but it is the truth and it is fair.

As for timeframes can YCFC even survive the 3-4 years that this development is going to take?

Sorry - am I missing something? The council haven't made a ruling on Monks X yet so how can you say the "council decided that there shouldn't be any expansion of Monks Cross"??

The local planning policies are all well and good, but the government themselves say that the over riding objective is "sustainable growth". If the council can prove that this development will grow Yorks Economy and that it is sustainable then planning policies are less valid.

BioLogic wrote:

Eric Bartholomew wrote: The good old C4Y in another lip quivering exercise because not everyone else agrees with them. Mind you they should rename themselves the 'Campaign for Leeds', seeing as Nick Eggleton and some of his fellow C4Y cronies are Leeds Utd fans.

What does the football team someone supports have to do with anything? The Campaign for York object to the retail enabling development and not the stadium itself. Ultimately the council decided that there shouldn't be any expansion of Monks Cross for a variety of reasons including traffic, development densities and so on and so forth. So the C4Y and all of the other businesses and residents have every right to expect CYC to stick by the Local Planning Policies that apply to everyone else. That may not be what the passionate supporters of YCFC want to hear but it is the truth and it is fair. As for timeframes can YCFC even survive the 3-4 years that this development is going to take?

The C4Y object to the retail development but not the stadium? don't make me laugh.

Clearly if they(the C4Y)can discredit the stadium they know the retail development can't happen,just as if the retail development doesn't happen neither does the stadium.

Both developments rely on the other,so by this virtue of someone objecting to one,they are objecting to the other.

The C4Y tact is clear,why else does Eggleton mention "A white Elephant Stadium" in the report if he is purely against the retail side?

And this isn't the 1st time he has made such statements,you only have to look through the comments section of some articles to find other such references.

Council leader James Alexander said the report had “put my mind at ease”.

This is more than he said about the Planning Inspector's verbal report on the Council's Core Strategy at last weeks exploratory meeting.
Is James' mind at ease, over the fact that the council's CS, which has taken 8-years to prepare, is unsound as it stands ? What has he to say about the six-month delay the council's incompetence has caused to this process ?
Is he embarrassed ? He certainly should be !

I have no problems with this development, particularly with subsidised bus service 20 providing access from many parts of the City not covered by First. My main concern is that the rents payable by both clubs may be nothing like their current payments and they will be unable to meet them.

The Tory-Green alliance at the heart of the so-called "Campaign 4 York" has been anti-stadium from the outset. It's downright dishonest of them to suggest otherwise.

Mr Eggleton's "white elephant" comment confirms their attitude to the stadium and their contempt for the thousands of people who will be packing Bootham Crescent tonight.

"bring £14.5m and 400 jobs "

Bring or move.

Jobs like this don't create extra demand

Nick Eggleton has neither York or the people of York's best interests at heart.

In olden days he'd be first in line for the stocks so we could throw rotten fruit at the village fool.

Comment on John Guildford's Twitter account reads:

Positive meeting today with coyc things Are looking better now.

I enjoy going through town and seeing that the majority of shops that had the C4Y posters (still an insignificant number) have either taken them down knowing they're getting pelters for being fools or have folded the bottom bit up because it's a load of tripe!

O dear, O dear. Ive read every comment above and no one mentions the council's own planning departments opposition to the Monks Cross proposal as it stands.Do posters on this site not realise what this means and what effect this will certainly have on the government inspector who will certainly preside over a public enquiry even IF the Council pass the plan.Government planning Inspectors will not be swayed by the kind of bullying abuse used by YCFC fans on this site, My own feeling is that this plan has had it because of the planning issue if nothing else! hook line and sinker! looks like you will have to build your own stadium lads but still, good luck against Mansfield!

It's very interesting how those that post on here and understand the planning process say that this development should not receive permission are abused by those that don't understand the process and seem to think the development should be permitted for various reasons from "the football club needs it" to "it will benefit the city".

The problem is the development is in the wrong location in both land use and transportation terms and there is not an overiding justification to build it. Like it or not there is well funded opposition to the whole development. They will resist to the last moment if they think it appropriate and based on the support or the stadium on here will do it with a far better constructed argument than "it's the only way York City will survive" which is meaningless in a planning process. I've no particular love for YCFC as being someone that lived not far from Bootham Crescent for a number of years, YCFC have shown little corporate responsibility toward improving the behaviour of fans around the ground and clearing up their mess. As I'm not a football supporter, to me, as they are to many York residents they are just a local business that imposes itself as a burden on those that live around it. I think the best thing would be to get YCFC away from an area now wholly inappropriate for that usage and an out of town site would be a good idea, but this scheme is poorly concieved, predicated on public investment which I think Nick Eggleton correctly describes as a White Elephant (try looking up the definition) and requires an enabling development which is so controversial it is likely to bring the stadium project down with it. So no I'm not a nay sayer, I'm saying have your stadium (sure I'd prefer that there was no public money involved, but labour seemed determined to chase that populist dragon) but it needs to be in the right place and not supported by a shopping centre which is likely to be tied up in planning wrangles for years to come.

I've just read every comment B.logic and cant see anyone getting abused because they have mentioned planning policies...

The transport issue IS a big problem however, I am happy to admit that, but I don't think its insurmountable. Also I believe that York needs to move forward in some capacity. There is very little space within the city walls for this to happen so do we just give up and let the continuing number of shoppers desert York for the likes of Leeds, Hull etc (which is statistically proven). Soon York will have nothing for residents and become a tourists playground.

When was the last time you attended a match, Biologic, or lived in Bootham - the 1980s? From someone who goes regularly, I'm afraid to say your prejudiced view of fans as a disorderly burden is way off beam. A season can easily pass now without any incident, families and children attend, some games require little or no police presence. That isn't bad when you consider nearly 100,000 people attend each season - I'm sure that compares very well with the races. The Knights too have a similar record.
As for community, the YCFC community work with schools and the disabled is well documented and available for all to view.
White elephant is wrong because we have two tenants already reading to pay agreed rent. I'd also say that those against the project time and again ignore the other community uses, which once more are well documented.
You also suggest this is a Labour initiative, but ignore the fact is was commenced under Lib Dem leadership.
One thing I do agree with you on, because despite your stereotypical labelling of football fans we are not all brainless morons, is location. Its not ideal for supporters either. But given the dire infrastructure issues this city has, I'm not sure anywhere would be good in terms of traffic.
Finally, yes C4Y are well funded, which is one of the reasons I think this plan will fail, we've already seen the Council ready to incorporate parking charges at MX despite the fact the UK has a history of out of town being free.
Whether C4Y represent York as they claim, or just vested interests I will leave for others to comment upon. Ditto whether democracy is served by their actions.

The other thing I'd say is we've seen another 22,000 people move here in the last decade - surely that alone justifies two new out of town stores - or are we just to allow these people to go to Leeds, Sheffield, Metro Centre, etc?

I also find it somewhat ironic, that those who say YCFC represent a tiny minority of the York populace, are the same who accuse the Council of engaging in some popularity, vote winning project. Which is it? If this is just about giving YCFC a home and there are so few of us, why on earth would the Council be looking to alienate the majority?

The Legend Of Keith wrote:
Reports for this, debates for that... when is any action actually going to take place? This needs to be built and it needs to be built yesterday.

When it comes to approving the expansion of the universities, decisions are usually made in a timely manner. This has the potentially to be the most drawn out affair in the CoY's history!

Also, Woody, if you want to see why a 6,000 capacity stadium is required, pop along to Bootham Cresent tonight.

Thanks for the offer Keith. I've nothing against footy, but personally, I'd find watching paint dry much more exciting.

Just out of interest, was it a good turn out last night?

Even AndyD wrote:
When was the last time you attended a match, Biologic, or lived in Bootham - the 1980s? From someone who goes regularly, I'm afraid to say your prejudiced view of fans as a disorderly burden is way off beam. A season can easily pass now without any incident, families and children attend, some games require little or no police presence. That isn't bad when you consider nearly 100,000 people attend each season - I'm sure that compares very well with the races. The Knights too have a similar record.
As for community, the YCFC community work with schools and the disabled is well documented and available for all to view.
White elephant is wrong because we have two tenants already reading to pay agreed rent. I'd also say that those against the project time and again ignore the other community uses, which once more are well documented.
You also suggest this is a Labour initiative, but ignore the fact is was commenced under Lib Dem leadership.
One thing I do agree with you on, because despite your stereotypical labelling of football fans we are not all brainless morons, is location. Its not ideal for supporters either. But given the dire infrastructure issues this city has, I'm not sure anywhere would be good in terms of traffic.
Finally, yes C4Y are well funded, which is one of the reasons I think this plan will fail, we've already seen the Council ready to incorporate parking charges at MX despite the fact the UK has a history of out of town being free.
Whether C4Y represent York as they claim, or just vested interests I will leave for others to comment upon. Ditto whether democracy is served by their actions.

I've never attended a match as just like Woody I'd rather watch paint dry. You have a fabulous talent for twisting what people said. I talk about corporate responsibility and you turn it into fans being disorderly and me applying stereotypical labels. Are you reading what I write or listening to a voice in your own head?

Aside of the well publicised instances of disorder where football fans have been arrested after home games, I never witnessed any disorder, I am talking about issues of corporate responsibility, like addressing rubbish issues around the ground, parking issues which affect local residents. Like most antisocial issues, they are small elements that have a significant effect on the lives of residents. I can tell you that YCFC never showed any interest in engaging in any consideration of what happens outside their own boundary, in todays day and age thats not how to run any business, but then that perhaps is an indicator as to why YCFC have had to go cap in hand to ensure the survival of the business.

The description of White Elephant is as follows:

A white elephant is an idiom for a valuable but burdensome possession of which its owner cannot dispose and whose cost (particularly cost of upkeep) is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth.

As a council asset, that is a brilliant description of this "community stadium". It is nto something the council need, they won't be able to sell readily and is going to cost them money to upkeep. And yes yes they will make a profit we are told, but its about risk. What happens if the football club does fold, where will the council be then as there will be little use for concerts etc as there is not the demand and there are too many issues around noise.

The community uses are well documented I do not disagree with you, however I, like many, feel thae these uses are not genuine "community facilities" and are actually just lip service to the idea. We are going to continue to disagree on that topic, but it would be worthwhile you understanding why others see the description as "community stadium" as being disingenuous.

Nor did I suggest it was a Labour initiative, the phrase I used was "chase that populist dragon" in that they were pursuing a populist topic with their core voters, how is that saying it was their idea?

All of those involved have a special interest, oakgate, ycfc, cyc , what makes C4Y any more different other than it actually gives those taht think the stadium is a bad idea a voice that they never had before. So of course democracy is served here. Whats more important is that justice is served and that the planning rules, in place to ensure a fair and level playing field are followed.

BioLogic wrote:

Even AndyD wrote: When was the last time you attended a match, Biologic, or lived in Bootham - the 1980s? From someone who goes regularly, I'm afraid to say your prejudiced view of fans as a disorderly burden is way off beam. A season can easily pass now without any incident, families and children attend, some games require little or no police presence. That isn't bad when you consider nearly 100,000 people attend each season - I'm sure that compares very well with the races. The Knights too have a similar record. As for community, the YCFC community work with schools and the disabled is well documented and available for all to view. White elephant is wrong because we have two tenants already reading to pay agreed rent. I'd also say that those against the project time and again ignore the other community uses, which once more are well documented. You also suggest this is a Labour initiative, but ignore the fact is was commenced under Lib Dem leadership. One thing I do agree with you on, because despite your stereotypical labelling of football fans we are not all brainless morons, is location. Its not ideal for supporters either. But given the dire infrastructure issues this city has, I'm not sure anywhere would be good in terms of traffic. Finally, yes C4Y are well funded, which is one of the reasons I think this plan will fail, we've already seen the Council ready to incorporate parking charges at MX despite the fact the UK has a history of out of town being free. Whether C4Y represent York as they claim, or just vested interests I will leave for others to comment upon. Ditto whether democracy is served by their actions.

I've never attended a match as just like Woody I'd rather watch paint dry. You have a fabulous talent for twisting what people said. I talk about corporate responsibility and you turn it into fans being disorderly and me applying stereotypical labels. Are you reading what I write or listening to a voice in your own head? Aside of the well publicised instances of disorder where football fans have been arrested after home games, I never witnessed any disorder, I am talking about issues of corporate responsibility, like addressing rubbish issues around the ground, parking issues which affect local residents. Like most antisocial issues, they are small elements that have a significant effect on the lives of residents. I can tell you that YCFC never showed any interest in engaging in any consideration of what happens outside their own boundary, in todays day and age thats not how to run any business, but then that perhaps is an indicator as to why YCFC have had to go cap in hand to ensure the survival of the business. The description of White Elephant is as follows: A white elephant is an idiom for a valuable but burdensome possession of which its owner cannot dispose and whose cost (particularly cost of upkeep) is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth. As a council asset, that is a brilliant description of this "community stadium". It is nto something the council need, they won't be able to sell readily and is going to cost them money to upkeep. And yes yes they will make a profit we are told, but its about risk. What happens if the football club does fold, where will the council be then as there will be little use for concerts etc as there is not the demand and there are too many issues around noise. The community uses are well documented I do not disagree with you, however I, like many, feel thae these uses are not genuine "community facilities" and are actually just lip service to the idea. We are going to continue to disagree on that topic, but it would be worthwhile you understanding why others see the description as "community stadium" as being disingenuous. Nor did I suggest it was a Labour initiative, the phrase I used was "chase that populist dragon" in that they were pursuing a populist topic with their core voters, how is that saying it was their idea? All of those involved have a special interest, oakgate, ycfc, cyc , what makes C4Y any more different other than it actually gives those taht think the stadium is a bad idea a voice that they never had before. So of course democracy is served here. Whats more important is that justice is served and that the planning rules, in place to ensure a fair and level playing field are followed.

BioLogic wrote: "All of those involved have a special interest, oakgate, ycfc, cyc , what makes C4Y any more different other than it actually gives those taht think the stadium is a bad idea a voice that they never had before."

So the C4Y is against the stadium,if they are giving a voice to those that think it is a bad idea.

Yet earlier in these comments you wrote: "The C4Y object to the retail enabling development and not the stadium itself"

Make up your mind Biologic,which is it?

On second thoughts you don't need to answer,as most readers of this story,including most YCFC supporters,will already have been able work out which it is.

Eric Bartholomew wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

Even AndyD wrote: When was the last time you attended a match, Biologic, or lived in Bootham - the 1980s? From someone who goes regularly, I'm afraid to say your prejudiced view of fans as a disorderly burden is way off beam. A season can easily pass now without any incident, families and children attend, some games require little or no police presence. That isn't bad when you consider nearly 100,000 people attend each season - I'm sure that compares very well with the races. The Knights too have a similar record. As for community, the YCFC community work with schools and the disabled is well documented and available for all to view. White elephant is wrong because we have two tenants already reading to pay agreed rent. I'd also say that those against the project time and again ignore the other community uses, which once more are well documented. You also suggest this is a Labour initiative, but ignore the fact is was commenced under Lib Dem leadership. One thing I do agree with you on, because despite your stereotypical labelling of football fans we are not all brainless morons, is location. Its not ideal for supporters either. But given the dire infrastructure issues this city has, I'm not sure anywhere would be good in terms of traffic. Finally, yes C4Y are well funded, which is one of the reasons I think this plan will fail, we've already seen the Council ready to incorporate parking charges at MX despite the fact the UK has a history of out of town being free. Whether C4Y represent York as they claim, or just vested interests I will leave for others to comment upon. Ditto whether democracy is served by their actions.

I've never attended a match as just like Woody I'd rather watch paint dry. You have a fabulous talent for twisting what people said. I talk about corporate responsibility and you turn it into fans being disorderly and me applying stereotypical labels. Are you reading what I write or listening to a voice in your own head? Aside of the well publicised instances of disorder where football fans have been arrested after home games, I never witnessed any disorder, I am talking about issues of corporate responsibility, like addressing rubbish issues around the ground, parking issues which affect local residents. Like most antisocial issues, they are small elements that have a significant effect on the lives of residents. I can tell you that YCFC never showed any interest in engaging in any consideration of what happens outside their own boundary, in todays day and age thats not how to run any business, but then that perhaps is an indicator as to why YCFC have had to go cap in hand to ensure the survival of the business. The description of White Elephant is as follows: A white elephant is an idiom for a valuable but burdensome possession of which its owner cannot dispose and whose cost (particularly cost of upkeep) is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth. As a council asset, that is a brilliant description of this "community stadium". It is nto something the council need, they won't be able to sell readily and is going to cost them money to upkeep. And yes yes they will make a profit we are told, but its about risk. What happens if the football club does fold, where will the council be then as there will be little use for concerts etc as there is not the demand and there are too many issues around noise. The community uses are well documented I do not disagree with you, however I, like many, feel thae these uses are not genuine "community facilities" and are actually just lip service to the idea. We are going to continue to disagree on that topic, but it would be worthwhile you understanding why others see the description as "community stadium" as being disingenuous. Nor did I suggest it was a Labour initiative, the phrase I used was "chase that populist dragon" in that they were pursuing a populist topic with their core voters, how is that saying it was their idea? All of those involved have a special interest, oakgate, ycfc, cyc , what makes C4Y any more different other than it actually gives those taht think the stadium is a bad idea a voice that they never had before. So of course democracy is served here. Whats more important is that justice is served and that the planning rules, in place to ensure a fair and level playing field are followed.

BioLogic wrote: "All of those involved have a special interest, oakgate, ycfc, cyc , what makes C4Y any more different other than it actually gives those taht think the stadium is a bad idea a voice that they never had before."

So the C4Y is against the stadium,if they are giving a voice to those that think it is a bad idea.

Yet earlier in these comments you wrote: "The C4Y object to the retail enabling development and not the stadium itself"

Make up your mind Biologic,which is it?

On second thoughts you don't need to answer,as most readers of this story,including most YCFC supporters,will already have been able work out which it is.

Grow up please!!

Is that your best response?

Case proved then...

Agree to disagree B.Logic, but you brought up 'fan behaviour' which needed to be 'improved', so I genuinely didn't think I was twisting anyone's words.
No, I don't have 'voices in my head' - a little ironic that you throw this sort of stuff around then tell others to 'grow up'.
FWIW - the stadium looks doomed. What is coming out of Council now is a complete sea change - reports which suggest planning refusal and their own officers (transport) saying something similar. Not sure if this ties in with the Mr Vickery blast they received, but I recognise a u-turn when I see it.
Shame, I feel a fool for hoping, genuinely thought that something might be built for residents, but after all, this is York.

Even AndyD wrote:
Agree to disagree B.Logic, but you brought up 'fan behaviour' which needed to be 'improved', so I genuinely didn't think I was twisting anyone's words.
No, I don't have 'voices in my head' - a little ironic that you throw this sort of stuff around then tell others to 'grow up'.
FWIW - the stadium looks doomed. What is coming out of Council now is a complete sea change - reports which suggest planning refusal and their own officers (transport) saying something similar. Not sure if this ties in with the Mr Vickery blast they received, but I recognise a u-turn when I see it.
Shame, I feel a fool for hoping, genuinely thought that something might be built for residents, but after all, this is York.

Interesting a football supporter jumps straight to violence when the behaviour of fans is mentioned instead of thinking about the far more mundane and irritating issues first. What does that tell us.

What you are seeing with CYC is not a sea change but simply the separation of politics and bureaucracy. The politicians may want this development to go forward, but when the bureaucrats have assessed it against the legal framework for planning, it has been found wanting, this makes the politicians look silly. So no u-turn per se, just politicians, as usual failing to do their homework before opening their mouths.....

What absolute nonsense and driffle is talked about in this article.

Creating shopping centres may provide a temporary blip in the requirement for staff (just to fill those shops) but they denude the resourcefulness of the other local shops in the areas nearby and as we have seen from that cause these to close down and remove a valuable need for local shops and localised employment. The style of development we see here being promoted are a thin end of a wedge to oblivion, for all that happens is the total spread of shoppers' ability to spend money is diluted from one area to another. Remember that the huge "out-of-town" shopping complexes we see as Meadow hall (Sheffield) or Lakeside (Tilbury) and its parallel in Kent or the developments in other cities like Birmingham or Manchester (in that awful Trafford Centre) only act to close down local stores. They cannot do - as they claim - expand the ability of the public to spend more for there is only a specific amount of money available to spend in these services.

Frankly what Yorkshire needs is real jobs in manufacturing industries or as an alternative a way to reduce Local Government and Central Government expenditure so that the Public can really have more money in their pockets. Regrettably this Council (City of York) and Yorkshire County Council are doing the complete opposite and here there is an example on the door step.

These two Councils have dutifully hood-winked and manipulated the Council Tax Payers to coerce them to accept a massively over-blown and expensive Incineration project (disguised as a Waste to Energy plant) in a fiasco of huge proportions. This project which will cost the area Council Tax Payers over £1000 million over the next 25 years (do your own homework, the costs are disguised so much that every council tax payer in the area will be paying over four times as much as needs be here because of the wrong choice of plant) when just down the road at South Milford (less than 20 miles away) LITERALLY ON THE DOOR-STEP the entrepreneurial company Mytum and Selby Recycling from Sherburn in Elmet will be building a fully-fledged Residual Waste plant which will convert the same materials, as proposed for the whole of the area of York/North Yorks CC project, at a quarter of the cost and it will also produce a valuable fuel which the major Super-Markets in the whole area need to help us achieve lower fuel costs.

You may remember – probably do not recall any more now that the publicity has been quiet about this for the past three months – that these two Councils have ridden rough-shod over the 40,000 and more objectors to this project using all manner of excuses about the need for this project to start in order to avoid potential issues of “failing to meet Legislative targets!!

Bunkum, this is absolutely not the case.

Those advisors that are paid for by these two Councils are part of the whole subterfuge of making it appear that the only solution is the most expensive solution. Of course they would say that when there are vested interests all around the waste industry. Remember that this issue about what to do with the residual wastes we generate in our municipalities has been going on for decades, and like the proverbial “mountains out of mole hills” they continue to profligate the most expensive options because – you are right – they get huge fees for this. And also because they are so expensive the Tax Payers to the Councils and the Central Government through its subsidies make the system even worse by promoting these as PFI (Private Finance Initiative) projects, and we all now know what that means as the Privatised NHS Hospitals and Schools and Roads programmes have told us.

So now to the crux of the article in this discussion. Do not be deluded by the fact that the statement and headlines about a new shopping complex is a distraction from reality. The Incineration project for York/North Yorks CC will do you more harm financially than you can ever imagine particularly as it is not needed with Mytum and Selby’s real project just being developed on the door step. If you don’t believe me then contact them in Sherburn-in-Elmet.

And you think that you in York City and North Yorkshire County Council are the only ones affected here: wrong, you are not alone, Keeds City Council is following you...and yes they are within 18 miles of the same Mytum and Selby site.

Even AndyD wrote:
The other thing I'd say is we've seen another 22,000 people move here in the last decade - surely that alone justifies two new out of town stores - or are we just to allow these people to go to Leeds, Sheffield, Metro Centre, etc?

Yes Andy,as you said "22,000 people moved here in the last decade",has the outer ring road on the Strensall,Haxby,Wigg
ington side been improved during this time? No.I would gladly travel to Leeds etc to visit these stores rather than having to wait in long traffic jams trying to get out off our village everyday.I wait in anticipation now for the council to do their surveys on the amount of traffic on the outer ring road in this area,they will sit from approx 10am until 4pm,missing all the rush hours,typical.

Well quite - have made that very same point elsewhere on these forums. If we can't cope with two more shops, then surely the A1237 is holding the city back and something needs to be done. Not just for this project, but if we want new housing, retail or almost anything on that side of York. Its not a minor issue either, its a huge one - anyone who lives to the West will tell you the same. The bypass is beyond crisis, it does not work.