LIVE: Stadium and new shops get go ahead

The scene at today's planning committee meeting.

The scene at today's planning committee meeting.

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , News editor

Follow this rolling story throughout the day, as councillors debate plans for a new stadium and superstores on the edge of York.

..........

7.50pm - There should now be a new story on our news page, giving reaction from various parties involved in the big debate today. Thanks to everyone who has commented below, tweeted or emailed today. That's all from this rolling story.

6.41pm - Just collating reaction now from both sides of the debate, and will have that online very soon. James Alexander, council leader, is very happy and says the decision shows York is open for business. Green councillor Dave Taylor says an appeal and public inquiry are almost inevitable.

6.32pm - The Oakgate plan to build a stadium, John Lewis store and Marks + Spencer store is APPROVED by 11 votes to 4. All voted in favour except Couns D'Agorne, Watt, Healey and Galvin.

6.22pm - So, planning permission for the expansion and re-arrangement of the existing Monks Cross shopping centre has been REFUSED. Next up, the Oakgate plan for a new stadium and two superstores (John Lewis and Marks and Spencer).

6.19pm - We're now having the vote on the first plan - the Monks Cross expansion. The vote is to REFUSE planning permission.

6.15pm - Apologies for the gap there. After 8 hours, the iPad is ailing! Paul Firth (LD, Haxby and Wigginton) has spoken in favour now. We're currently 9-4 in favour of the stadium plan.

6.05pm - Joe Watt (Con, Skelton, Rawcliffe and Clifton Without), says too many councillors have been seduced by big business. He says out-of-town shopping centres were a product of their age, and were right for their time but no longer. He criticises fellow councillors for going against national policies, and says: "Clearly, I am going to vote against the community stadium project."

5.59pm - John Galvin (Con, Bishopthorpe) says the council is being asked to "take a punt" and gamble on the future of York. He says the council must do everything in its power to preserve what it has, the only certainty in the city. He says: "We have to preserve and maintain the shoping figure in the city."

He says that, "regretfully" he cannot support the proposal. That's 8-3 in favour now.

5.58pm - Steve Burton (Lab, Westfield, joins the yes camp, making it 8-2 in favour so far. He says that, on balance, it is a good proposal.

5.54pm - We're back under way. Tina Funnell (Lab, Heworth) speaks in favour, so that's 7-2 in favour now. She says people in her ward want jobs, better transport links and better health care, and the stadium application would give that. She says: "I would not know one end of a football pitch from the other" but says it is an exciting proposal that she supports.

She adds: "We can tend to get a bit prissy, as if everyone in York lives within the City Walls, and as if the only thing that matters is our fantastic heritage. I would fight to the death to protect that but we have to act in terms of the whole city."

5.40pm - There's been a big Government announcement today on business rates, which has major ramifications for the development being debated today. The Government says councils can keep 50% of the extra business-rates created by developments after April 2013. The stadium, John Lewis and Marks + Spencer plan has been predicted to yield an extra £7.1m of business rates - this new announcement means £3.55 million of that would stay in York, rather than going into the national pot.

5.36pm - Another break has been called. We reconvene at 5.45pm. Impressive dedication and staying-power in the public gallery today!

5.34pm - Tracey Simpson-Laing (Lab, Acomb) speaks in favour. These are indications, rather than votes, but the two usually correlate. So far, it's 6-2 in favour, with 7 left to speak. Cllr Simpson-Laing says she is worried that York could be left trailing by new developments in Leeds, and says the benefits of Oakgate's plan outweigh the disadvantages.

5.23pm - Paul Healey (Con, Rural West York), says he agrees with most of what Coun D'Agorne has said. He asks: "How can we move forward with development partners at difficult sites such as Castle Piccadilly or York Central?". He says Monks Cross is "hardly the most sustainable site" and says the benefits are being upped when, without the stadium, the council would refuse them for going against national plans.

5.19pm - Andy D'Agorne (Green, Fishergate) says that if the application was solely for a stadium, he would be supportive, but he says the shopping element flies in the face of the council's planning strategies and policies. He says a 'yes' vote today would undermine the council when dealing with future applications.

5.15pm - Barbara Boyce (Lab, Heworth) says people have long predicted that new projects would harm York, but they haven't. She says that years ago, people had to go to Leeds for fashionable shopping, but not any more. She says: "Retailing has to evolve." She says retailers that cater for demands will always be popular, and says: "Two new shops at Monks Cross are not going to change that." She says she's proud to support the application. That's five out of five in favour so far.....

5.10pm - Ken King (Lab, Clifton) says that for far too long, the only people to speak on big proposals have been opponents. He says: "It's about time that people who supported these schemes had their say and most if not all have spoken with vision and foresight, and we have to listen to them. There has been a lot of scaremongering today but scaremongering will not win the argument.... We have to support this development and I do not think it will be detrimental to the city at all."

5.04pm - Ann Reid (Lib Dem, Dringhouses and Woodthorpe) praises the quality of debate and discussion today, and says many people have spoken well. She says most support the idea of a stadium but say it is a difficult decision to say whether the positives outweigh the negatives. She says the disagreement between the Chamber of Commerce and Chamber of Trade shows how tough a call it is.

She says: "I do think the claims being made around the city centre are a little bit exaggerated." She says people now look back on the Coppergate II or Castle Piccadilly plans with rose-tinted glasses, and says those who objected to the creation of shops on that site ten years ago are now supporting the same thing now. "That does perhaps undermine some of their arguments," she says.

She says although the city-centre's share of the retail economy has dipped, footfall and the number of visitors has increased.

5.01pm - Dafydd Williams (Lab, Westfield) says that whatever councillors decide today, they will be judged on it in future. He says it's the biggest application in his time in York, and many others' time. He says: "Nobody doubts there will be a negative impact on trade in the city centre but I do think there has been an over-stating of the case." He says people claimed the original Monks Cross, Designer Outlet and pedestrianisation would kill the city-centre, but says that has not happened and he says York will remain a interesting, dynamic city-centre.

He says the one thing York misses is a first-class sports facility and says the benefits outweigh the negative. He says: "We would be mad to turn this down" and says he will be voting in favour of the plan.

4.52pm - First up is Brian Watson (Lab, Guildhall). He talks about attendances, which fell when the rugby club moved from Clarence St to Huntington. He says the running track was a big issue there, changing the atmosphere on match-days. There'd be no such track at the proposed new stadium.

He also talks about the impact on city-centre shops, and says big stores at Monks Cross would take trade from major shops in the centre. He says Piccadilly is a "disgrace" due to lack of investment. He says he doesn't like being held to ransom by an organisation saying they would pull out of the city [a reference to LaSalle Venture Fund, one must assume].

He says a shared rugby & football stadium makes sense. He says a stadium holds prestige for people and says the benefits of job creation and a development that would be otherwise impossible are clear-cut, whereas the disadvantages are "in the mind".

4.51pm - Okay, that's the end of the questions from councillors to speakers. We're now beginning the debate.

4.37pm - Cllr John Galvin (Con, Bishopthorpe) asks whether the council would face a financial burden if the football club became unviable. Tim Atkins, the council's stadium project manager, replies. He says it's highly unlikely any football club would go "off the map" but says the majority of the football club's input to the project long-term will be rent, so the council would still have an asset. He says there may be some impact, but the stadium could be put to another use.

4.26pm - Sophie Hicks from York City FC is asked to clarify what the impact would be on the club's community activities if the plan was refused today. She is very emotional as she extols the virtues of the club's community work, and says that if the plan were refused, the club would have to cut its budget and would have no choice but to reduce the community and youth programmes. She said earlier than players were role models and had attended 70 events this season.

4.22pm - Slight panic there - it all went dark. Turned out someone had just lent on the switches by the door.

4.18pm - I've just done a head-count, and I think we've 168 people in the room at the moment. I've covered many planning meetings over the years and can't remember a turn-out like this. They're all here today - politicians past and present, sports fans, campaigners, lobby groups, developers, businessmen and women, council officials and many interested local residents.

4.14pm - We've also had some discussions about how much the developers involved the local community while preparing their plans, and about possible parking charges at either out-of-town shopping site.

4.05pm - Cllr Tracey Simpson-Laing (Labour, Acomb) asks Adam Sinclair about his earlier opposition to the Coppergate II proposals, coupled with his support now for the same site, now known as Castle Piccadilly. Mr Sinclair says he objected to the original plans on the basis of scale and the impact on Clifford's Tower.

3.45pm - We've not gone away - we've just been going through some quite slow questions on some technical points and claims from earlier. Roger Pierce former councillor and a former Ryedale planning officer, has answered questions from Paul Healey about the existing Monks Cross centre. He said when Monks Cross was built, there were restrictions deliberately put on the size of shop it could hold, and the type of goods shops could sell.

3.23pm - Speakers and councillors have taken a break and I've rested my typing fingers, but we're back on the go now. Councillors are questioning the speakers. Ann Reid asks Andrew Mills from John Lewis whether they've been approached about any other city-centre sites. Mr Mills says there have been some talks, but nothing that has led anywhere.

3.05pm - Okay, we're taking another brief break now. When we return in a few minutes, we will move on to questions from the committee to clarify any points, then debate on the Oakgate application After that, there will be debate on the cumulative impact of all applications. If you remember the timetable I posted at 9.30am - we have just finished point 2 of 5!

3.03pm - Green councillor Dave Taylor is the final of our 40 speakers. He says Oakgate's application is contrary to local and national policies. He tells the committee: "You would be putting York at risk by abandoning the principle of city-centre first." He also raises fears over traffic and the preservation of city centre businesses.

3.02pm - Local Conservative leader Ian Gillies congratulates York City on their on-pitch success but says he has fears over the business case for the stadium. He says it is weak and "full of ifs, maybes, whys and wherefores".

2.54pm - Sally Burns, the council's director of communities and neighbourhoods, speaks in support of the application. She says it would "inspire excellence".

Council leader James Alexander also speaks in support. He says it's York's biggest decision for years. He says developers should be made to employ a local workforce. He adds: "York has a vibrant city centre. People come here for a reason and this is the opportunity of a generation - we have to take tough decisions and I support this application."

2.42pm - Andrew Mills from John Lewis says nobody from LaSalle Venture Fund has made meaningful attempts to engage them in talks about Castle Piccadilly, and says two previous attempts to regenerate that site have failed. He says Monks Cross is their only opportunity to open in York. He says the firm would create local jobs, saying 82% of jobs at their new Stratford shop went to lcoal people.

2.40pm - John Handy from Marks and Spencer says the firm's model of a city-centre shop and an out-of-town one has worked well in Leicester and Bournemouth. He says the firm is fully committed to York city centre and says Monks Cross would complement their existing offer. He says the development would help York to compete with Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle.

2.37pm - Neil McClean of the Leeds City Regional Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has spoken in favour of the application. So too has Richard Wood, on behalf of Oakgate. He said it was a "once in a lifetime opportunity" to show York was open for business and to send the football club to Wembley with a "massive vote of confidence". He said the roads problems would not be as bad as has been suggested.

Retail analysis Daniel Brown says York has a strong city centre, says the proposals would add £50m to York, and says the city-centre would recover from an initial dip within two years.

2.27pm - Susie Cawood, of York Chamber of Commerce, says the Chamber is pro-jobs, pro-investment and pro-growth. She says: "York cannot afford to be complacent. This is about much more than whether we want a John Lewis - it is about York showing the world it isa dynamic city - open for business, open for investment and open for economic growth."

She says the public perception of York is often that it is a city that wraps itself in cellophane and preserve its chocolate-box image, and says the city should show otherwise.

She adds: "Two big retailers want to invest. How can we say no? How can we deny young people the opportunity to get off the unemployment register? York city centre is thriving and the addition of more retail at Monks Cross will not mean the end of the city centre but additional jobs and additional wages being spent in the city."

2.24pm - We've had a flurry of speakers,all now in favour of the application. Sophie Hicks, York City's community and communications director, said the development would allow City to build on its existing community involvement. This season, players have attended 70 community events and she says a new stadium would enhance what they can do. She says the players are role models.

Frank Ormston, of the Minstermen Supporters Club, says: "It is Monks Cross or nothing. It is Huntington, or the slow lingering death of sport in this city."

Neil Hunter of York Athletics Club says the development is vital for the future of athletics in York. He warns that if it's rejected: "We would lose our hime and, ironically at the end of Olympic year, there would be no athletics club in York."

2.10pm - Jason McGill, York City chairman, receives loud cheers after his speech. Here's a snapshot of what he said: "York City has been an integral part of the local community since 1922. It is the only professional club in North Yorkshire and has proud history.

..."Since 2009, we will have made 4 appearances at the new Wembley, including twice in 8 days. On Saturday we won this FA Trophy and we hope to add to that on Sunday, hoping to win promotion to the Football League.

..."We are the largest regular gathering of York people - we have 3,000 people who gather 25 times a season. We are just as culturally important as the theatres, galleries and museums. The new stadium will be owned by the City of York Council, which ensures the long-term survival.

...."This is an opportunity to have a 21st-century facility we can be proud of - a chance to raise the facilities to the level befitting of this city."

2.05pm - Ian Yeowart says there were "stop progress" campaigns against the original Monks Cross, Clifton Moor and Designer Outlet. He adds: "You cannot stop progress and you should not stop comeptition."

2pm - Former council leader Steve Galloway speaks. He says that having been involved in the debate for years, it is right he nails his colours to the mast.

He says there is no alternative to the plan on the table. He adds: "There is no reason the city has to be divided in two. The great competition for this city is not between Monks Cross and the city centre. It will be between this city and Leeds. I hope members of the committee will ignore the hyperbole."

1.58pm - Peter Vaughan says the claims about the potential harm to the city centre are "nonsense". He adds: "Not to support this application sends an awful message - that York does not want to compete on behalf of its residents."

1.55pm - Prof Howard Hall of Active York speaks strongly in favour of Oakgate's plans. He says it will help to achieve the aims of the City of York Sport and Active Leisure strategy.

1.52pm - Janice Dunphy of Creepy Crawlies nursery also favours the plans. She says the community aspects of the stadium could help York to pioneer new approaches to play for children. She says: "Going forward, we cannot ignore this fantastic oportunity."

1.50pm - Neil Wilson of York Hospital speaks in support of the plans. The hospital would be involved in the community aspects of the stadium development. He says it would be a fantastic opportunity for health students and new practitioners to work alongside professional athletes, and for the hospital to work with partner organisations.

1.45pm - Adam Sinclair speaks against the plans. He says: "If we get this wrong, the best national and international brands and investors will not come to York city centre or stay in York city centre. They will leave us behind. Please do not risk the future of this spirited city and please do not risk the future reilience of the people of York."

1.35pm - Richard Lane, of York Green Party and Friends of the Earth, says traffic congestion is hindering growth in York, and says the Oakgate proposals would fuel congestion.

1.33pm - Denise Craghill, of York Green Party, says this is the wrong plan for York and urges councillors to vote no.

1.32pm - Peter Brown of York Civic Trust, say the proposal cheapens York's offer, undermines its integrity and makes a mockery of its aspirations to be a world0-heritage site.

1.29pm - Phillip Crowe, of York Tomorrow, says he's unconvinced that all alternative funding options for a stadium have been considered. He says the decision today should be deferred, so a plan for Castle Piccadilly can be drawn up.

1.28pm - Andy Shrimpton, who runs a shop on Bishopthorpe Road, says approving the Oakgate plan would show an "alarming paucity of vision for the long-term future of the city."

1.25pm - Nick Eggleton of the Campaign for York, opposes the plans. He says they would condemn the club, and tells councillors: "If you approve these plans, the council will be blamed for every problem - for every shop that shuts and every job lost." He says other out-of-town stadia have lost money.

1.18pm - James Owens, of the Castle Piccadilly developers, LaSalle Venture Fund, says a new stadium and new shops is appealing but says it will hurt the city centre.

He says: "Existing out of town shopping has caused harm and the city centre has been progressively weakened. These proposals are a major step change and would result in out-of-town shopping exceeding the city centre."

He adds: "If permission is granted today, a comprehensive retail-led regeneration for Castle Piccadilly will not be able to happen. Oakgate is not a choice between investment and non-investment. You can have jobs and be open for business in a position that will aid the city centre."

His speech draws applause from many in the public seats.

1.10pm - Former councillor Roger Pierce speaks in opposition to the Oakgate proposal, and says York City's FA Trophy success (the trophy is here on show), demonstrates that on-pitch success is not dependent on the stadium.

1.09pm - It may be useful to provide a link to the full agenda for today's meeting. Here it is if anyone wants it: agenda link

1.03pm - Council planning officer Michael Jones says the council has received 2,967 letters supporting the Oakgate application and 2,405 opposing it. Council has not had time to check for duplicates, he says. 5,372 submissions is a huge response though. Very few applications, if any, have come close to that in York.

1pm - We are back on here at the Henley Suite at The Park Inn Hotel, and moving on to look at the stadium application by Oakgate. Bill Woolley, City of York Council's director of city strategy, tells the meeting the lack of a recommendation to approve or refuse was unusual, but reflected the sharp contrast between the potential benefits and harms. He also says it's an unusual application, due to the 'enabling' development proposed in the form of the big shops helping to pay for the stadium.

That lack of recommendation had drawn criticism last week from opponents of the development. Ordinarily, council planning officers give a clear recommendation to the planning committee to refuse or approve an application, but this one was left entirely to councillors.

12.20pm - We are stopping now for a half-hour lunch break.

12.15pm - This application is to vary an earlier restriction on Monks Cross, which would reduce the minimum size for any single shop, thus allowing retailers to open smaller stores there. James Owens, for the developer, earlier named two companies that he said wanted to stay at Monks Cross but which would prefer smaller units - namely WH Smith and shoe-shop Clark's.

12.10pm - Okay, after a short break we are back up and running in the Henley Suite again. We're now looking at application 4b, which is the second element of the Monks Cross expansion plan. The separate plan by Oakgate, involving the community stadium, is still some way off.

11.43am - Cllr Ann Reid (LD, Dringhouses and Woothorpe) says she too sympathises with the Monks Cross applicants, but says their plans look too flexible. She says she's "uncomfortable" that it's not clear what the end result would be if planning permission were granted here.

She and Cllr Brian Watson both point out that the original Monks Cross was approved by the old Ryedale Council, drawing people away from York. Cllr Reid says it's ironic that Ryedale now objects to the expansion.

11.42am - Cllrs Andy D'Agorne (Green, Fishergate) and Paul Firth (LD, Haxby and Wigginton), both raises concerns, including over traffic problems. Cllr Paul Healey (Con, Rural West York), says he sympathises with the Monks Cross developer having to have the application heard on the same day as the stadium plan, but says he is minded to approve.

11.32am - Cllr Brian Watson (Lab, Guildhall) - "I think that if we do this, we are going to kill the city centre." .... "If we let things like this go, then the ball will be further away and even York City will not get it in the goal."

11.30am - We're on to debate now on the Monks Cross expansion. Stadium application to follow later.

Cllr Ken King (Labour, Clifton( says the opponents of the Monks Cross expansion have "over-egged" their case and says some of those opposing out-of-town shopping now have out-of-town shops of their own. He says: "I for one will be supporting the application."

Cll Joe Watt (Conservative, Skelton, Rawcliffe and Clifton Without), sounds supportive of the application as well, and warns says that if the Castle Piccadilly developers' case is so weak that they would walk away if Monks Cross were expanded "then you have no business case at all".

11.20am - Discussion now on bus links, and the extent to which the Monks Cross developers couldd/should pay for improved public transport links.

11.10am - We're on a slightly slower stage in the meeting now, where councillors can ask the speakers or their own officers to clarify any points they're unclear on, or which were raised in the speeches.

Phillip Crowe, from York Tomorrow, was asked to clarify what his group wanted at Castle Piccadilly. He says: "We have always taken the view that we would like to see a major public amenity on that site." He says that at the time of the previous proposals for Coppergate II, rejected at public inquiry ten years ago, his group did not object to commercial development - simply the scale proposed then.

10.50am - Huntington and New Earswick councillors Keith Hyman and Carol Runciman (both Lib Dem) say not enough has been proposed to deal with the likely increase in traffic if Monks Cross is expanded. Cllr Runciman says local people would worry about not being able to get out of their drives if traffic increased.

10.40am - Andrew Collier from Indigo Planning, representing the Monks Cross Shopping Park, says their application will safeguard the future of the shopping centre and safeguard long-term jobs.

He says retailers' demands have changed since the centre was built 15 years ago, and says the centre must adapt to meet those demands. He says many big name chains would leave if their leases expired tomorrow, rather than renewing them. But he says: "Every one of those retailers would stay" if there were bigger stores.

His colleague, Tim Waring, says their application is much more modest than Oakgate's plans for a stadium and two new superstores and says he is "bemused" that council officials have recommended refusal for his client's plan.

10.30am - Paul Thompson, boss of Barnitts in the city centre, says that if people were offered free parking at the edge of the city, or charged to park in the centre, they would choose the former.

10.28am - James Owens, of LaSalle Venture Fund, which is behind the Castle Piccadilly plan, says the city-centre's share of York's retail industry has fallen in the past decade, and says the Monks Cross developers have not shown that the new shops cannot be accommodated in the city centre.

10.25am - First speaker is Phillip Crowe, representing the lobby group York Tomorrow. He says the Castle Piccadilly site has been in limbo and a "disgrace to York" since previous plans were rejected, and he fears the new proposals at Monks Cross could hinder fresh plans to develop that city-centre site.

10.18am - The council's legal officer Martin Blythe says it is "unusual" for council officials not to have made a clear recommendation on the stadium application, but says it's perefectly legal and an approach followed by many other planning authorities.

10.15am - Lib Dem councillor Nigel Ayre has withdrawn from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interests, having been involved in an earlier advisory group on the stadium. No substitute, so we are one down.

10am - And we're about to get underway here. The next few hours will shape the future of York and the city's football and rugby clubs. The decision rests with Councillors Cunningham-Cross, Ayre, Firth, Reid, D'Agorne, Healey, Watt, Galvin, Simpson-Laing, Williams, Burton, Boyce, King, McIlveen, Funnell and Watson.

9.45am - The room is filling up. We're told there are 40 public speakers registered, on top of all the applicants and developers. Various officials from York City FC are here too - and they've brought the FA Trophy with them.

9.30am - We're in the Henley Suite here at The Park Inn, and it's already filling up, with half an hour to go until we start. Here's the running order for today:

1) The two applications that relate to the existing Monks Cross shopping park will be heard and debated in full.

2) The stadium application will be heard and debated in full.

3) Councillors will consider and debate the cumulative impact of all applications.

4) Councillors will vote in turn on the two applications on the existing Monks Cross.

5) Finally, councillors will vote on the stadium application.

8.50am - Good morning. Today is D-Day for the plans to build a new community stadium and two new superstores for John Lewis and Marks & Spencer on the edge of York.

We'll be covering the meeting live from The Park Inn Hotel in North Street. Council planning meetings are usually held in Guildhall, but this one has been moved here to accommodate the large number of speakers and a possible large turnout in the public gallery. The meeting is due to begin at 10am, and we will have up-to-the minute coverage as it unfolds.

Comments (349)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:57am Thu 17 May 12

Jazzper says...

Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !!
Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !! Jazzper
  • Score: 0

9:01am Thu 17 May 12

Sir Alex says...

Yes get it built - and make sure its got a BIG room with underpinned supports for displaying trophies!! :)
Yes get it built - and make sure its got a BIG room with underpinned supports for displaying trophies!! :) Sir Alex
  • Score: 0

9:04am Thu 17 May 12

pedalling paul says...

****..just as I'd oiled my bike chain for a quick pedal in to town......
****..just as I'd oiled my bike chain for a quick pedal in to town...... pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

9:04am Thu 17 May 12

Woody Mellor says...

Do I want to go all the way out there to do some shopping? No. I'd much rather have a wander through our beautiful streets to do my shopping.

Do I think we need a multi-million pound sports stadium built? No. We dont 'NEED' one. Especially in these hard, cash strapped times.

Just my opinion.
Do I want to go all the way out there to do some shopping? No. I'd much rather have a wander through our beautiful streets to do my shopping. Do I think we need a multi-million pound sports stadium built? No. We dont 'NEED' one. Especially in these hard, cash strapped times. Just my opinion. Woody Mellor
  • Score: 0

9:08am Thu 17 May 12

aussiepaul says...

...my fear is that councillors will end up deferring the application and not make a decision. Now is not the time to loose momentum!!
...my fear is that councillors will end up deferring the application and not make a decision. Now is not the time to loose momentum!! aussiepaul
  • Score: 0

9:08am Thu 17 May 12

long distance depressive says...

Don't forget the intention that it will be able to be used for the community and other events too. Build it, let let York become a sporting backwater. Let the Masons object all they want but don't be swayed by insular interests.
Don't forget the intention that it will be able to be used for the community and other events too. Build it, let let York become a sporting backwater. Let the Masons object all they want but don't be swayed by insular interests. long distance depressive
  • Score: 0

9:08am Thu 17 May 12

thepman says...

Jazzper wrote:
Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !!
Yes that's right, the developers, M&S, John Lewis etc are all small owner managed local businesses with no vested interests for themselves or their international shareholders. Then again ignorance is bliss.

As a lifelong York season ticket holder and resident I'd rather see us go part time than sell out to this.
[quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !![/p][/quote]Yes that's right, the developers, M&S, John Lewis etc are all small owner managed local businesses with no vested interests for themselves or their international shareholders. Then again ignorance is bliss. As a lifelong York season ticket holder and resident I'd rather see us go part time than sell out to this. thepman
  • Score: 0

9:09am Thu 17 May 12

Micklegate says...

Jazzper wrote:
Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !!
I think the Oakgate business men are fewer and richer than the city centre ones!!
[quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !![/p][/quote]I think the Oakgate business men are fewer and richer than the city centre ones!! Micklegate
  • Score: 0

9:14am Thu 17 May 12

Jazzper says...

Woody Mellor wrote:
Do I want to go all the way out there to do some shopping? No. I'd much rather have a wander through our beautiful streets to do my shopping.

Do I think we need a multi-million pound sports stadium built? No. We dont 'NEED' one. Especially in these hard, cash strapped times.

Just my opinion.
You are welcome to your opinion 'Woody', but if all the people who presently shop at Monks Cross were to "wander through our beautiful streets", there would be NO room for you to have such pleasures...
[quote][p][bold]Woody Mellor[/bold] wrote: Do I want to go all the way out there to do some shopping? No. I'd much rather have a wander through our beautiful streets to do my shopping. Do I think we need a multi-million pound sports stadium built? No. We dont 'NEED' one. Especially in these hard, cash strapped times. Just my opinion.[/p][/quote]You are welcome to your opinion 'Woody', but if all the people who presently shop at Monks Cross were to "wander through our beautiful streets", there would be NO room for you to have such pleasures... Jazzper
  • Score: 0

9:17am Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

23,000 extra population in the last ten years, but C4Y still want to minimise competition.
A stadium paid for largely by private money, a chance to improve our retail and entice those who shop in Leeds to stay here, a JL at last. When you take the scaremongering away - what is there not to like?
23,000 extra population in the last ten years, but C4Y still want to minimise competition. A stadium paid for largely by private money, a chance to improve our retail and entice those who shop in Leeds to stay here, a JL at last. When you take the scaremongering away - what is there not to like? Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

9:18am Thu 17 May 12

jimmy120883 says...

thepman wrote:
Jazzper wrote: Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !!
Yes that's right, the developers, M&S, John Lewis etc are all small owner managed local businesses with no vested interests for themselves or their international shareholders. Then again ignorance is bliss. As a lifelong York season ticket holder and resident I'd rather see us go part time than sell out to this.
Well as a resident and a season ticket holder you should be ashamed of your self saying you would rather see our club go part time and potentially fold.It makes me sick when a so called fan wants our club to go part time and lose 90years of tradition as a profesional sports club.
[quote][p][bold]thepman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !![/p][/quote]Yes that's right, the developers, M&S, John Lewis etc are all small owner managed local businesses with no vested interests for themselves or their international shareholders. Then again ignorance is bliss. As a lifelong York season ticket holder and resident I'd rather see us go part time than sell out to this.[/p][/quote]Well as a resident and a season ticket holder you should be ashamed of your self saying you would rather see our club go part time and potentially fold.It makes me sick when a so called fan wants our club to go part time and lose 90years of tradition as a profesional sports club. jimmy120883
  • Score: 0

9:22am Thu 17 May 12

long distance depressive says...

Referring to anothe rstory in the Press today..The planned Gay Pride event has found a suitable venue near the Knavesmire for their big day out, pity we won't have a Community Stadium to hold it in in the future eh? The stadium was always planned to be able to host 'other stuff'. Am sure that the terribly 'right on' councillors and the city centre business suits won't come out against that use for a community facility.
Referring to anothe rstory in the Press today..The planned Gay Pride event has found a suitable venue near the Knavesmire for their big day out, pity we won't have a Community Stadium to hold it in in the future eh? The stadium was always planned to be able to host 'other stuff'. Am sure that the terribly 'right on' councillors and the city centre business suits won't come out against that use for a community facility. long distance depressive
  • Score: 0

9:28am Thu 17 May 12

Mr Anderson says...

Jazzper wrote:
Woody Mellor wrote:
Do I want to go all the way out there to do some shopping? No. I'd much rather have a wander through our beautiful streets to do my shopping.

Do I think we need a multi-million pound sports stadium built? No. We dont 'NEED' one. Especially in these hard, cash strapped times.

Just my opinion.
You are welcome to your opinion 'Woody', but if all the people who presently shop at Monks Cross were to "wander through our beautiful streets", there would be NO room for you to have such pleasures...
Hmmm. Slight exaggeration there Jazzper.
[quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woody Mellor[/bold] wrote: Do I want to go all the way out there to do some shopping? No. I'd much rather have a wander through our beautiful streets to do my shopping. Do I think we need a multi-million pound sports stadium built? No. We dont 'NEED' one. Especially in these hard, cash strapped times. Just my opinion.[/p][/quote]You are welcome to your opinion 'Woody', but if all the people who presently shop at Monks Cross were to "wander through our beautiful streets", there would be NO room for you to have such pleasures...[/p][/quote]Hmmm. Slight exaggeration there Jazzper. Mr Anderson
  • Score: 0

9:28am Thu 17 May 12

KAT1965 says...

Even AndyD wrote:
23,000 extra population in the last ten years, but C4Y still want to minimise competition.
A stadium paid for largely by private money, a chance to improve our retail and entice those who shop in Leeds to stay here, a JL at last. When you take the scaremongering away - what is there not to like?
I would love to know the demographic of (1) those people that go into Mulberry Hall and (2) those that buy anything. I have done both (mainly for wedding gifts) but I doubt whether the majority of Mr Sinclair's turnover actually comes from the greater York area.
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: 23,000 extra population in the last ten years, but C4Y still want to minimise competition. A stadium paid for largely by private money, a chance to improve our retail and entice those who shop in Leeds to stay here, a JL at last. When you take the scaremongering away - what is there not to like?[/p][/quote]I would love to know the demographic of (1) those people that go into Mulberry Hall and (2) those that buy anything. I have done both (mainly for wedding gifts) but I doubt whether the majority of Mr Sinclair's turnover actually comes from the greater York area. KAT1965
  • Score: 0

9:30am Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Lets hope they vote in favour of the Jobs and Facilities this City so badly needs and reject the lies of the Campaign for Castleford.
Lets hope they vote in favour of the Jobs and Facilities this City so badly needs and reject the lies of the Campaign for Castleford. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

9:31am Thu 17 May 12

long distance depressive says...

Referring to anothe rstory in the Press today..The planned Gay Pride event has found a suitable venue near the Knavesmire for their big day out, pity we won't have a Community Stadium to hold it in in the future eh? The stadium was always planned to be able to host 'other stuff'. Am sure that the terribly 'right on' councillors and the city centre business suits won't come out against that use for a community facility.
Referring to anothe rstory in the Press today..The planned Gay Pride event has found a suitable venue near the Knavesmire for their big day out, pity we won't have a Community Stadium to hold it in in the future eh? The stadium was always planned to be able to host 'other stuff'. Am sure that the terribly 'right on' councillors and the city centre business suits won't come out against that use for a community facility. long distance depressive
  • Score: 0

9:34am Thu 17 May 12

long distance depressive says...

God knows how Mulberry Hall actually make any profit anyway! Over priced pots suitable for impractical wedding presents or a convenient place for tourists to shelter from the rain. Mind you, J Lewis do a rather good selection of quality crockery, Hmmmmm.
God knows how Mulberry Hall actually make any profit anyway! Over priced pots suitable for impractical wedding presents or a convenient place for tourists to shelter from the rain. Mind you, J Lewis do a rather good selection of quality crockery, Hmmmmm. long distance depressive
  • Score: 0

9:38am Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

jimmy120883 wrote:
thepman wrote:
Jazzper wrote: Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !!
Yes that's right, the developers, M&S, John Lewis etc are all small owner managed local businesses with no vested interests for themselves or their international shareholders. Then again ignorance is bliss. As a lifelong York season ticket holder and resident I'd rather see us go part time than sell out to this.
Well as a resident and a season ticket holder you should be ashamed of your self saying you would rather see our club go part time and potentially fold.It makes me sick when a so called fan wants our club to go part time and lose 90years of tradition as a profesional sports club.
Here here.
[quote][p][bold]jimmy120883[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thepman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !![/p][/quote]Yes that's right, the developers, M&S, John Lewis etc are all small owner managed local businesses with no vested interests for themselves or their international shareholders. Then again ignorance is bliss. As a lifelong York season ticket holder and resident I'd rather see us go part time than sell out to this.[/p][/quote]Well as a resident and a season ticket holder you should be ashamed of your self saying you would rather see our club go part time and potentially fold.It makes me sick when a so called fan wants our club to go part time and lose 90years of tradition as a profesional sports club.[/p][/quote]Here here. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

9:40am Thu 17 May 12

duffy says...

It will be passed.
It will be passed. duffy
  • Score: 0

9:41am Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

long distance depressive wrote:
Referring to anothe rstory in the Press today..The planned Gay Pride event has found a suitable venue near the Knavesmire for their big day out, pity we won't have a Community Stadium to hold it in in the future eh? The stadium was always planned to be able to host 'other stuff'. Am sure that the terribly 'right on' councillors and the city centre business suits won't come out against that use for a community facility.
Two-three years ago I did a lot half marathons round the country and these were usually staged from community stadia type facilities, with the finish line being in front of spectators etc. Now okay, I'm a YCFC fan and want a stadium for that reason too, but since that time, its something I've really wanted passionately for York. Towns and cities our size DESERVE such assets and if we get them, people will soon see their uses.

Add into the mix two professional clubs willing to pay rent, the fact private money is funding most of it and there are other uses too NHS, Explore, etc ..... oh it just gets me so cross - BUILD IT!

People try to scoff about York Explore too - but I work from there often and I see its vibrant, full of people, a great café and lots of special needs people are taught from its classrooms. There was also an event there last night when educators and learners received awards. I love these community facilities - in an era when we sit at home with our surround TVs and X-boxes, they are at least somewhere to get out and meet people, do some good. Somewhere safe and cheap for those less fortunate to go.

Am waffling now- but community facilities are about more than YCFC. Community is important.
[quote][p][bold]long distance depressive[/bold] wrote: Referring to anothe rstory in the Press today..The planned Gay Pride event has found a suitable venue near the Knavesmire for their big day out, pity we won't have a Community Stadium to hold it in in the future eh? The stadium was always planned to be able to host 'other stuff'. Am sure that the terribly 'right on' councillors and the city centre business suits won't come out against that use for a community facility.[/p][/quote]Two-three years ago I did a lot half marathons round the country and these were usually staged from community stadia type facilities, with the finish line being in front of spectators etc. Now okay, I'm a YCFC fan and want a stadium for that reason too, but since that time, its something I've really wanted passionately for York. Towns and cities our size DESERVE such assets and if we get them, people will soon see their uses. Add into the mix two professional clubs willing to pay rent, the fact private money is funding most of it and there are other uses too NHS, Explore, etc ..... oh it just gets me so cross - BUILD IT! People try to scoff about York Explore too - but I work from there often and I see its vibrant, full of people, a great café and lots of special needs people are taught from its classrooms. There was also an event there last night when educators and learners received awards. I love these community facilities - in an era when we sit at home with our surround TVs and X-boxes, they are at least somewhere to get out and meet people, do some good. Somewhere safe and cheap for those less fortunate to go. Am waffling now- but community facilities are about more than YCFC. Community is important. Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

9:47am Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

My wife is also loosely involved with DISPORT (sport for those with disabilities) and they use Huntington Stadium. She says its cold, run down, terrible changing facilities and the kids need somewhere half decent. Its this sort of thing people forget. Enough from me now - sorry to go on, but it is something I feel strongly about. Will shut up!
My wife is also loosely involved with DISPORT (sport for those with disabilities) and they use Huntington Stadium. She says its cold, run down, terrible changing facilities and the kids need somewhere half decent. Its this sort of thing people forget. Enough from me now - sorry to go on, but it is something I feel strongly about. Will shut up! Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

9:48am Thu 17 May 12

Jazzper says...

Mr Anderson wrote:
Jazzper wrote:
Woody Mellor wrote:
Do I want to go all the way out there to do some shopping? No. I'd much rather have a wander through our beautiful streets to do my shopping.

Do I think we need a multi-million pound sports stadium built? No. We dont 'NEED' one. Especially in these hard, cash strapped times.

Just my opinion.
You are welcome to your opinion 'Woody', but if all the people who presently shop at Monks Cross were to "wander through our beautiful streets", there would be NO room for you to have such pleasures...
Hmmm. Slight exaggeration there Jazzper.
Hmmm. this is 'The Press' comments board, surely you realize exaggeration is the norm on here !
[quote][p][bold]Mr Anderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woody Mellor[/bold] wrote: Do I want to go all the way out there to do some shopping? No. I'd much rather have a wander through our beautiful streets to do my shopping. Do I think we need a multi-million pound sports stadium built? No. We dont 'NEED' one. Especially in these hard, cash strapped times. Just my opinion.[/p][/quote]You are welcome to your opinion 'Woody', but if all the people who presently shop at Monks Cross were to "wander through our beautiful streets", there would be NO room for you to have such pleasures...[/p][/quote]Hmmm. Slight exaggeration there Jazzper.[/p][/quote]Hmmm. this is 'The Press' comments board, surely you realize exaggeration is the norm on here ! Jazzper
  • Score: 0

9:50am Thu 17 May 12

long distance depressive says...

Even AndyD wrote:
My wife is also loosely involved with DISPORT (sport for those with disabilities) and they use Huntington Stadium. She says its cold, run down, terrible changing facilities and the kids need somewhere half decent. Its this sort of thing people forget. Enough from me now - sorry to go on, but it is something I feel strongly about. Will shut up!
Good point and maybe this avenue hasn't been sufficiently explored/debated in the arguments for/against. A regional centre with an office at a Community Stadium would help sway the liberal types who are anti-most things.
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: My wife is also loosely involved with DISPORT (sport for those with disabilities) and they use Huntington Stadium. She says its cold, run down, terrible changing facilities and the kids need somewhere half decent. Its this sort of thing people forget. Enough from me now - sorry to go on, but it is something I feel strongly about. Will shut up![/p][/quote]Good point and maybe this avenue hasn't been sufficiently explored/debated in the arguments for/against. A regional centre with an office at a Community Stadium would help sway the liberal types who are anti-most things. long distance depressive
  • Score: 0

9:58am Thu 17 May 12

Mr Anderson says...

Jazzper wrote:
Mr Anderson wrote:
Jazzper wrote:
Woody Mellor wrote:
Do I want to go all the way out there to do some shopping? No. I'd much rather have a wander through our beautiful streets to do my shopping.

Do I think we need a multi-million pound sports stadium built? No. We dont 'NEED' one. Especially in these hard, cash strapped times.

Just my opinion.
You are welcome to your opinion 'Woody', but if all the people who presently shop at Monks Cross were to "wander through our beautiful streets", there would be NO room for you to have such pleasures...
Hmmm. Slight exaggeration there Jazzper.
Hmmm. this is 'The Press' comments board, surely you realize exaggeration is the norm on here !
lol!! :0)
[quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Anderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woody Mellor[/bold] wrote: Do I want to go all the way out there to do some shopping? No. I'd much rather have a wander through our beautiful streets to do my shopping. Do I think we need a multi-million pound sports stadium built? No. We dont 'NEED' one. Especially in these hard, cash strapped times. Just my opinion.[/p][/quote]You are welcome to your opinion 'Woody', but if all the people who presently shop at Monks Cross were to "wander through our beautiful streets", there would be NO room for you to have such pleasures...[/p][/quote]Hmmm. Slight exaggeration there Jazzper.[/p][/quote]Hmmm. this is 'The Press' comments board, surely you realize exaggeration is the norm on here ![/p][/quote]lol!! :0) Mr Anderson
  • Score: 0

9:59am Thu 17 May 12

KAT1965 says...

Even AndyD wrote:
My wife is also loosely involved with DISPORT (sport for those with disabilities) and they use Huntington Stadium. She says its cold, run down, terrible changing facilities and the kids need somewhere half decent. Its this sort of thing people forget. Enough from me now - sorry to go on, but it is something I feel strongly about. Will shut up!
AndyD - I think it is time to save the skin on your finger ends and just cross fingers and hope that a majority see sense.
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: My wife is also loosely involved with DISPORT (sport for those with disabilities) and they use Huntington Stadium. She says its cold, run down, terrible changing facilities and the kids need somewhere half decent. Its this sort of thing people forget. Enough from me now - sorry to go on, but it is something I feel strongly about. Will shut up![/p][/quote]AndyD - I think it is time to save the skin on your finger ends and just cross fingers and hope that a majority see sense. KAT1965
  • Score: 0

10:13am Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

I had a steel strung guitar as a kid - I have no finger ends!
I had a steel strung guitar as a kid - I have no finger ends! Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

10:14am Thu 17 May 12

voiceofnormalpeople says...

Its as simple as this, they will reject it due to the fact our single lane bypass can not cope with the extra traffic that a new stadium actracting more sports fans will generate, let alone if city keep moving up the leagues. but the reason we will be told is that the damage to the city centre shopping will be to dramatic.
Its as simple as this, they will reject it due to the fact our single lane bypass can not cope with the extra traffic that a new stadium actracting more sports fans will generate, let alone if city keep moving up the leagues. but the reason we will be told is that the damage to the city centre shopping will be to dramatic. voiceofnormalpeople
  • Score: 0

10:16am Thu 17 May 12

voiceofnormalpeople says...

ps, is this all that yorkhas to report on this morning? 10. 16 and only 4 news storys today..
ps, is this all that yorkhas to report on this morning? 10. 16 and only 4 news storys today.. voiceofnormalpeople
  • Score: 0

10:22am Thu 17 May 12

JC42 says...

Sir Alex wrote:
Yes get it built - and make sure its got a BIG room with underpinned supports for displaying trophies!! :)
you must be joking you have won nothing in the past 20 years , oh i am sorry you won last weekend.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alex[/bold] wrote: Yes get it built - and make sure its got a BIG room with underpinned supports for displaying trophies!! :)[/p][/quote]you must be joking you have won nothing in the past 20 years , oh i am sorry you won last weekend. JC42
  • Score: 0

10:24am Thu 17 May 12

thepman says...

jimmy120883 wrote:
thepman wrote:
Jazzper wrote: Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !!
Yes that's right, the developers, M&S, John Lewis etc are all small owner managed local businesses with no vested interests for themselves or their international shareholders. Then again ignorance is bliss. As a lifelong York season ticket holder and resident I'd rather see us go part time than sell out to this.
Well as a resident and a season ticket holder you should be ashamed of your self saying you would rather see our club go part time and potentially fold.It makes me sick when a so called fan wants our club to go part time and lose 90years of tradition as a profesional sports club.
Who wants the club to go part time, I certainly do not but I also do not believe on balance that would actually be what would happen if the plans aren't approved and even if it did that it would be the death nail for the club in the long term. I simply do not see the attraction of this dismal plan in the long term (save for short term survival of the club). I don't need the likes of you to tell me I am a "so called fan", its the very tradition and fabric of the club I passionately want to keep in the long run.
[quote][p][bold]jimmy120883[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thepman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !![/p][/quote]Yes that's right, the developers, M&S, John Lewis etc are all small owner managed local businesses with no vested interests for themselves or their international shareholders. Then again ignorance is bliss. As a lifelong York season ticket holder and resident I'd rather see us go part time than sell out to this.[/p][/quote]Well as a resident and a season ticket holder you should be ashamed of your self saying you would rather see our club go part time and potentially fold.It makes me sick when a so called fan wants our club to go part time and lose 90years of tradition as a profesional sports club.[/p][/quote]Who wants the club to go part time, I certainly do not but I also do not believe on balance that would actually be what would happen if the plans aren't approved and even if it did that it would be the death nail for the club in the long term. I simply do not see the attraction of this dismal plan in the long term (save for short term survival of the club). I don't need the likes of you to tell me I am a "so called fan", its the very tradition and fabric of the club I passionately want to keep in the long run. thepman
  • Score: 0

10:54am Thu 17 May 12

#TheRealObama says...

people apposing this plan really wind me up, saying that trade will drop off in the city centre. what a load of rubbish i live right in the city centre and town is always packed and bustling. Monks cross as a shopping park on the whole is dreadful, and there is nothing up there that isnt in town, i dont go there and not many of my friends bother to go up there. York need to stop living in the dark ages and move forward. Every major city in the country has a decent sporting venue, are we not a major city? sure maybe not in terms of numbers.. York City centre is turning into one big COFFEE shop. but nobody seems to complain about that. A slave to tourists..
people apposing this plan really wind me up, saying that trade will drop off in the city centre. what a load of rubbish i live right in the city centre and town is always packed and bustling. Monks cross as a shopping park on the whole is dreadful, and there is nothing up there that isnt in town, i dont go there and not many of my friends bother to go up there. York need to stop living in the dark ages and move forward. Every major city in the country has a decent sporting venue, are we not a major city? sure maybe not in terms of numbers.. York City centre is turning into one big COFFEE shop. but nobody seems to complain about that. A slave to tourists.. #TheRealObama
  • Score: 0

10:58am Thu 17 May 12

tricky1992000 says...

If this goes ahead, how do we keep the city centre a vibrant place, the loss of just a few shops, could domino the centre into an area of boarded up windows, and how to we facilitate the fans getting to the stadium? who do not have the use of a car. Also, could the site for the British sugar factory not be considered, there is not much on that side of York. Then a light railway could be considered.
If this goes ahead, how do we keep the city centre a vibrant place, the loss of just a few shops, could domino the centre into an area of boarded up windows, and how to we facilitate the fans getting to the stadium? who do not have the use of a car. Also, could the site for the British sugar factory not be considered, there is not much on that side of York. Then a light railway could be considered. tricky1992000
  • Score: 0

11:02am Thu 17 May 12

TheTruthHurts says...

Even AndyD wrote:
I had a steel strung guitar as a kid - I have no finger ends!
10.15am - Lib Dem councillor Nigel Ayre has withdrawn from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interests, having been involved in an earlier advisory group on the stadium. No substitute, so we are one down.

'
Why has he left it so late?
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: I had a steel strung guitar as a kid - I have no finger ends![/p][/quote][quote] 10.15am - Lib Dem councillor Nigel Ayre has withdrawn from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interests, having been involved in an earlier advisory group on the stadium. No substitute, so we are one down. [/quote] ' Why has he left it so late? TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 0

11:02am Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Looks like tricky1992000 has swallowed the lies whole.
Looks like tricky1992000 has swallowed the lies whole. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

11:06am Thu 17 May 12

Micklegate says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
Even AndyD wrote: I had a steel strung guitar as a kid - I have no finger ends!
10.15am - Lib Dem councillor Nigel Ayre has withdrawn from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interests, having been involved in an earlier advisory group on the stadium. No substitute, so we are one down.
' Why has he left it so late?
Agreed, this seems crazy. How on earth was a decision not taken weeks ago?
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: I had a steel strung guitar as a kid - I have no finger ends![/p][/quote][quote] 10.15am - Lib Dem councillor Nigel Ayre has withdrawn from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interests, having been involved in an earlier advisory group on the stadium. No substitute, so we are one down. [/quote] ' Why has he left it so late?[/p][/quote]Agreed, this seems crazy. How on earth was a decision not taken weeks ago? Micklegate
  • Score: 0

11:10am Thu 17 May 12

chickpea says...

I frequently get the bus into the city centre and shop at Barnitts, the market and have a walk round the various other shops before having a coffee. I also go to Monks Cross every week for my supermarket shop, although the rest of the shops there aren't anything special. The possible end to the number 13/13A bus will put a stop to that for me, so I'm hoping the plans go through and the bus service continues. There's room for both city centre and out of town shopping in York.
I frequently get the bus into the city centre and shop at Barnitts, the market and have a walk round the various other shops before having a coffee. I also go to Monks Cross every week for my supermarket shop, although the rest of the shops there aren't anything special. The possible end to the number 13/13A bus will put a stop to that for me, so I'm hoping the plans go through and the bus service continues. There's room for both city centre and out of town shopping in York. chickpea
  • Score: 0

11:19am Thu 17 May 12

goatman says...

Spot on, Chickpea! Lot's of niche shops in York, but I sure as hell wouldn't come into the centre to buy anything big or shop at multiple stores. If the city-centre tradespeople want to do something useul they should lobby for reliable public transport and an effective traffic management system that keeps the roads moving!
Spot on, Chickpea! Lot's of niche shops in York, but I sure as hell wouldn't come into the centre to buy anything big or shop at multiple stores. If the city-centre tradespeople want to do something useul they should lobby for reliable public transport and an effective traffic management system that keeps the roads moving! goatman
  • Score: 0

11:21am Thu 17 May 12

sperare e coraggio says...

It will get passed.
But it won't get built.
It will get passed. But it won't get built. sperare e coraggio
  • Score: 0

11:23am Thu 17 May 12

onlooker says...

Please scrap the Monk's Cross proposal. If there is the slightest doubt about the negative impact on the city centre, then simply don't do it. Apart from the fact that it contravenes the Local Development and National Planning policy Frameworks,
I do believe it will hit the city centre trade and will create total gridlock at Monk's Cross and the adjacent ring-road. There is NO comparison with McArthur Glen. The specialist shops there are unique and not in direct competition with city centre stores.
Let the big stores develop in Piccadilly, which is in dire need of regeneration. The Stadium is irrelevant in this context and should be considered as a separate issue.
The football club should operate like any other business and if they cannot develop their business and provide their own stadium, they should suffer the consequences and should not be bailed out by developers' bribes of a free facility that they will have difficulty filling and managing. Neither football club is big enough to warrant a 6000 person community stadium, and don't forget that a couple of thousand soccer supporters are only a fraction of the total poluation of the Greater York area. Furthermore, who wants a stadium accessible only by car and not public transport, rail, cycle or foot.
No thanks!!
Please scrap the Monk's Cross proposal. If there is the slightest doubt about the negative impact on the city centre, then simply don't do it. Apart from the fact that it contravenes the Local Development and National Planning policy Frameworks, I do believe it will hit the city centre trade and will create total gridlock at Monk's Cross and the adjacent ring-road. There is NO comparison with McArthur Glen. The specialist shops there are unique and not in direct competition with city centre stores. Let the big stores develop in Piccadilly, which is in dire need of regeneration. The Stadium is irrelevant in this context and should be considered as a separate issue. The football club should operate like any other business and if they cannot develop their business and provide their own stadium, they should suffer the consequences and should not be bailed out by developers' bribes of a free facility that they will have difficulty filling and managing. Neither football club is big enough to warrant a 6000 person community stadium, and don't forget that a couple of thousand soccer supporters are only a fraction of the total poluation of the Greater York area. Furthermore, who wants a stadium accessible only by car and not public transport, rail, cycle or foot. No thanks!! onlooker
  • Score: 0

11:24am Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Another Anti-York poster.
Another Anti-York poster. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

11:26am Thu 17 May 12

long distance depressive says...

Perhaps people such as myself who use Barnitts may reconsider where we shop in future if this stadium doesn't happen and City as a result go under.
Perhaps people such as myself who use Barnitts may reconsider where we shop in future if this stadium doesn't happen and City as a result go under. long distance depressive
  • Score: 0

11:26am Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Well said chickpea. Of course there is room for both. Mr Sinclair must not have much faith in his products ! The main problem is car parking. I'm a City season ticket holder and i also love shopping in the centre of York. As for Councillor Ayre, typical Lib Dem bottler. Sounds like Gillies has done a "Cameron" on him !
Well said chickpea. Of course there is room for both. Mr Sinclair must not have much faith in his products ! The main problem is car parking. I'm a City season ticket holder and i also love shopping in the centre of York. As for Councillor Ayre, typical Lib Dem bottler. Sounds like Gillies has done a "Cameron" on him ! walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

11:30am Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

sperare e coraggio wrote:
It will get passed. But it won't get built.
I think you might be right ? !!!
[quote][p][bold]sperare e coraggio[/bold] wrote: It will get passed. But it won't get built.[/p][/quote]I think you might be right ? !!! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

11:36am Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

10.15am - Lib Dem councillor Nigel Ayre has withdrawn from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interests, having been involved in an earlier advisory group on the stadium. No substitute, so we are one down.


Effectively an abstention, and an assist to Labour. 'Possible conflict of interest' is a tenuous excuse..... bottled it, more like !
[quote] 10.15am - Lib Dem councillor Nigel Ayre has withdrawn from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interests, having been involved in an earlier advisory group on the stadium. No substitute, so we are one down. [/quote] Effectively an abstention, and an assist to Labour. 'Possible conflict of interest' is a tenuous excuse..... bottled it, more like ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

11:37am Thu 17 May 12

JC42 says...

onlooker wrote:
Please scrap the Monk's Cross proposal. If there is the slightest doubt about the negative impact on the city centre, then simply don't do it. Apart from the fact that it contravenes the Local Development and National Planning policy Frameworks, I do believe it will hit the city centre trade and will create total gridlock at Monk's Cross and the adjacent ring-road. There is NO comparison with McArthur Glen. The specialist shops there are unique and not in direct competition with city centre stores. Let the big stores develop in Piccadilly, which is in dire need of regeneration. The Stadium is irrelevant in this context and should be considered as a separate issue. The football club should operate like any other business and if they cannot develop their business and provide their own stadium, they should suffer the consequences and should not be bailed out by developers' bribes of a free facility that they will have difficulty filling and managing. Neither football club is big enough to warrant a 6000 person community stadium, and don't forget that a couple of thousand soccer supporters are only a fraction of the total poluation of the Greater York area. Furthermore, who wants a stadium accessible only by car and not public transport, rail, cycle or foot. No thanks!!
i have to agree with you on all those points. The neither football or Rugby Club is big enough or good enough to warrant a large stadium. Just build it on the knavesmire it will be fine there
[quote][p][bold]onlooker[/bold] wrote: Please scrap the Monk's Cross proposal. If there is the slightest doubt about the negative impact on the city centre, then simply don't do it. Apart from the fact that it contravenes the Local Development and National Planning policy Frameworks, I do believe it will hit the city centre trade and will create total gridlock at Monk's Cross and the adjacent ring-road. There is NO comparison with McArthur Glen. The specialist shops there are unique and not in direct competition with city centre stores. Let the big stores develop in Piccadilly, which is in dire need of regeneration. The Stadium is irrelevant in this context and should be considered as a separate issue. The football club should operate like any other business and if they cannot develop their business and provide their own stadium, they should suffer the consequences and should not be bailed out by developers' bribes of a free facility that they will have difficulty filling and managing. Neither football club is big enough to warrant a 6000 person community stadium, and don't forget that a couple of thousand soccer supporters are only a fraction of the total poluation of the Greater York area. Furthermore, who wants a stadium accessible only by car and not public transport, rail, cycle or foot. No thanks!![/p][/quote]i have to agree with you on all those points. The neither football or Rugby Club is big enough or good enough to warrant a large stadium. Just build it on the knavesmire it will be fine there JC42
  • Score: 0

11:42am Thu 17 May 12

Tel1969 says...

I've been a resident of York, now for 14 years and in my time here I have witnessed time and time again some very baffling decisions from the council in relation to expanding and enhancing this beautiful city. The Barbican, Terry's quite quickly spring to mind of course! We all know that this city is built on an ancient heritage. But let's not have our thinking that way too! Let us combine the ancient and modern and turn York into a city for our future generations. Build it, I say!
I've been a resident of York, now for 14 years and in my time here I have witnessed time and time again some very baffling decisions from the council in relation to expanding and enhancing this beautiful city. The Barbican, Terry's quite quickly spring to mind of course! We all know that this city is built on an ancient heritage. But let's not have our thinking that way too! Let us combine the ancient and modern and turn York into a city for our future generations. Build it, I say! Tel1969
  • Score: 0

11:43am Thu 17 May 12

TerryYork says...

Already two yes votes. COME ON!!
Already two yes votes. COME ON!! TerryYork
  • Score: 0

11:43am Thu 17 May 12

You're Fired says...

Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.
Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research. You're Fired
  • Score: 0

11:43am Thu 17 May 12

powerwatt says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
sperare e coraggio wrote:
It will get passed. But it won't get built.
I think you might be right ? !!!
Could the planning committee put in conditions that if it is not built within a certain time scale they are fined?
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sperare e coraggio[/bold] wrote: It will get passed. But it won't get built.[/p][/quote]I think you might be right ? !!![/p][/quote]Could the planning committee put in conditions that if it is not built within a certain time scale they are fined? powerwatt
  • Score: 0

11:44am Thu 17 May 12

tommyinyork says...

onlooker wrote:
Please scrap the Monk's Cross proposal. If there is the slightest doubt about the negative impact on the city centre, then simply don't do it. Apart from the fact that it contravenes the Local Development and National Planning policy Frameworks,
I do believe it will hit the city centre trade and will create total gridlock at Monk's Cross and the adjacent ring-road. There is NO comparison with McArthur Glen. The specialist shops there are unique and not in direct competition with city centre stores.
Let the big stores develop in Piccadilly, which is in dire need of regeneration. The Stadium is irrelevant in this context and should be considered as a separate issue.
The football club should operate like any other business and if they cannot develop their business and provide their own stadium, they should suffer the consequences and should not be bailed out by developers' bribes of a free facility that they will have difficulty filling and managing. Neither football club is big enough to warrant a 6000 person community stadium, and don't forget that a couple of thousand soccer supporters are only a fraction of the total poluation of the Greater York area. Furthermore, who wants a stadium accessible only by car and not public transport, rail, cycle or foot.
No thanks!!
You really haven't a clue have you. Go away you pathetic nimby and go back to the hole you crawled out from.
[quote][p][bold]onlooker[/bold] wrote: Please scrap the Monk's Cross proposal. If there is the slightest doubt about the negative impact on the city centre, then simply don't do it. Apart from the fact that it contravenes the Local Development and National Planning policy Frameworks, I do believe it will hit the city centre trade and will create total gridlock at Monk's Cross and the adjacent ring-road. There is NO comparison with McArthur Glen. The specialist shops there are unique and not in direct competition with city centre stores. Let the big stores develop in Piccadilly, which is in dire need of regeneration. The Stadium is irrelevant in this context and should be considered as a separate issue. The football club should operate like any other business and if they cannot develop their business and provide their own stadium, they should suffer the consequences and should not be bailed out by developers' bribes of a free facility that they will have difficulty filling and managing. Neither football club is big enough to warrant a 6000 person community stadium, and don't forget that a couple of thousand soccer supporters are only a fraction of the total poluation of the Greater York area. Furthermore, who wants a stadium accessible only by car and not public transport, rail, cycle or foot. No thanks!![/p][/quote]You really haven't a clue have you. Go away you pathetic nimby and go back to the hole you crawled out from. tommyinyork
  • Score: 0

11:45am Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Its amazing to see all the negative posters on here against the proposal who are against the Stadium. They are absolutely clueless. Glib comments like "build it on the Knavesmire". If these people had been following this story for the last few years they would reallise that this is the only way forward for York's main sporting clubs.
Its amazing to see all the negative posters on here against the proposal who are against the Stadium. They are absolutely clueless. Glib comments like "build it on the Knavesmire". If these people had been following this story for the last few years they would reallise that this is the only way forward for York's main sporting clubs. walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

11:45am Thu 17 May 12

PhilipInYork says...

I see the idiots for the CFY have created multiple usernames for themselves, given their no campaign consists of SIX people. Five of whom moved to York for the gift shops within the last 10 years.

Come on COY. Don't listen to these weirdos. Get it voted with a YES!
I see the idiots for the CFY have created multiple usernames for themselves, given their no campaign consists of SIX people. Five of whom moved to York for the gift shops within the last 10 years. Come on COY. Don't listen to these weirdos. Get it voted with a YES! PhilipInYork
  • Score: 0

11:47am Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

TerryYork wrote:
Already two yes votes. COME ON!!
Wrong application - they are talking about the MonksX expansion.
[quote][p][bold]TerryYork[/bold] wrote: Already two yes votes. COME ON!![/p][/quote]Wrong application - they are talking about the MonksX expansion. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

11:48am Thu 17 May 12

long distance depressive says...

Would those opposing the stadium on an increased traffic argument be happy to have more housing development instead? ..now that would be a major increase in local traffic on a 24/7 basis.
Would those opposing the stadium on an increased traffic argument be happy to have more housing development instead? ..now that would be a major increase in local traffic on a 24/7 basis. long distance depressive
  • Score: 0

11:48am Thu 17 May 12

You're Fired says...

There will be way more back lash if it's a NO than if it's a Yes....surely got to be a yes.
There will be way more back lash if it's a NO than if it's a Yes....surely got to be a yes. You're Fired
  • Score: 0

11:49am Thu 17 May 12

TerryYork says...

PhilipInYork wrote:
I see the idiots for the CFY have created multiple usernames for themselves, given their no campaign consists of SIX people. Five of whom moved to York for the gift shops within the last 10 years.

Come on COY. Don't listen to these weirdos. Get it voted with a YES!
Quoted for truth.
[quote][p][bold]PhilipInYork[/bold] wrote: I see the idiots for the CFY have created multiple usernames for themselves, given their no campaign consists of SIX people. Five of whom moved to York for the gift shops within the last 10 years. Come on COY. Don't listen to these weirdos. Get it voted with a YES![/p][/quote]Quoted for truth. TerryYork
  • Score: 0

11:51am Thu 17 May 12

PhilipInYork says...

Green Party.......who on earth actually voted for someone on the Green Party. Jeez.
Green Party.......who on earth actually voted for someone on the Green Party. Jeez. PhilipInYork
  • Score: 0

11:52am Thu 17 May 12

tommyinyork says...

Why is our city so backward and full of pathetic retarded individuals. If this was Hull, Doncaster, Swansea etc it would of gone ahead ages ago.
Why is our city so backward and full of pathetic retarded individuals. If this was Hull, Doncaster, Swansea etc it would of gone ahead ages ago. tommyinyork
  • Score: 0

11:59am Thu 17 May 12

roskoboskovic says...

i don t remember any of these councillors giving a toss about the extra traffic and congestion caused by the proposed germany beck development and thats on a road partly gridlocked every day.i wonder why that would be?
i don t remember any of these councillors giving a toss about the extra traffic and congestion caused by the proposed germany beck development and thats on a road partly gridlocked every day.i wonder why that would be? roskoboskovic
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

long distance depressive wrote:
Would those opposing the stadium on an increased traffic argument be happy to have more housing development instead? ..now that would be a major increase in local traffic on a 24/7 basis.
Ask those who need a house..... 5m nationally on waiting lists. Housing will be built, it cannot be stopped, and the council's delaying tactic using unworkable affordable (social) housing policies will eventually fail. The LDF is flawed, and if councillors vote 'YES' today, that is dead too. LDF R.I.P and those behind it !
[quote][p][bold]long distance depressive[/bold] wrote: Would those opposing the stadium on an increased traffic argument be happy to have more housing development instead? ..now that would be a major increase in local traffic on a 24/7 basis.[/p][/quote]Ask those who need a house..... 5m nationally on waiting lists. Housing will be built, it cannot be stopped, and the council's delaying tactic using unworkable affordable (social) housing policies will eventually fail. The LDF is flawed, and if councillors vote 'YES' today, that is dead too. LDF R.I.P and those behind it ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Thu 17 May 12

JC42 says...

You're Fired wrote:
Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.
Please tell me then how many matches you have had over 6,000 there in the past season ???? maybe once or twice at the maximum !!!!!!!!! I rest my case , and even if you get back in the football league you still wont fill it , I only hope MY council tax is not going to pay for this stupid Stadium.
[quote][p][bold]You're Fired[/bold] wrote: Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.[/p][/quote]Please tell me then how many matches you have had over 6,000 there in the past season ???? maybe once or twice at the maximum !!!!!!!!! I rest my case , and even if you get back in the football league you still wont fill it , I only hope MY council tax is not going to pay for this stupid Stadium. JC42
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Thu 17 May 12

tommyinyork says...

JC42 You really are a first class ****
JC42 You really are a first class **** tommyinyork
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Thu 17 May 12

Paul2012 says...

You're Fired wrote:
Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.
York citys Average attendance was 3,000 last year so it will be a half empty stadium.

Won't be playing playoffs every week.

oh dear haven't done your research!
[quote][p][bold]You're Fired[/bold] wrote: Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.[/p][/quote]York citys Average attendance was 3,000 last year so it will be a half empty stadium. Won't be playing playoffs every week. oh dear haven't done your research! Paul2012
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Thu 17 May 12

Brickyard says...

What use is a 6000 seater stadium, to any football/rugby club, none, it's a sprat to catch a mackerel, wake up you people.
What use is a 6000 seater stadium, to any football/rugby club, none, it's a sprat to catch a mackerel, wake up you people. Brickyard
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Thu 17 May 12

Brickyard says...

What use is a 6000 seater stadium, to any football/rugby club, none, it's a sprat to catch a mackerel, wake up you people.
What use is a 6000 seater stadium, to any football/rugby club, none, it's a sprat to catch a mackerel, wake up you people. Brickyard
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

JC42 and Paul2012

I agree with your statistics, and in my opinion 6,000 is enough currently. It is being designed so that the capacity could be increased if needed. I guess you're not City fans. Just more negativity, eh ?
JC42 and Paul2012 I agree with your statistics, and in my opinion 6,000 is enough currently. It is being designed so that the capacity could be increased if needed. I guess you're not City fans. Just more negativity, eh ? walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Thu 17 May 12

voiceofnormalpeople says...

The only, and i mean only thing that is crippling the city is the extortionate car parking fee's. Nothing to do with any out of town shopping. The desiner outlet is full of crappy clothes that only chavs wear, but i also find myself looking around as the parking is free and it does great fish and chips. I would shop in town a lot more if the parking was half the price and i imagine a lot more people feel the same.
The only, and i mean only thing that is crippling the city is the extortionate car parking fee's. Nothing to do with any out of town shopping. The desiner outlet is full of crappy clothes that only chavs wear, but i also find myself looking around as the parking is free and it does great fish and chips. I would shop in town a lot more if the parking was half the price and i imagine a lot more people feel the same. voiceofnormalpeople
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

Paul2012 wrote:
You're Fired wrote:
Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.
York citys Average attendance was 3,000 last year so it will be a half empty stadium.

Won't be playing playoffs every week.

oh dear haven't done your research!
Right, so by your reckoning that becuase YCFC only average 3300 we should only build a 3300 seater stadium. You really are clueless. If anything 6000 is a trifle too small, but I'm not going to complain too loudly as that's personal opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Paul2012[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You're Fired[/bold] wrote: Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.[/p][/quote]York citys Average attendance was 3,000 last year so it will be a half empty stadium. Won't be playing playoffs every week. oh dear haven't done your research![/p][/quote]Right, so by your reckoning that becuase YCFC only average 3300 we should only build a 3300 seater stadium. You really are clueless. If anything 6000 is a trifle too small, but I'm not going to complain too loudly as that's personal opinion. speaks99
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Thu 17 May 12

Brickyard says...

You would need to have a lot more capacity for other events, It's, and I repeat, a sprat to catch a mackerel. If it goes ahead, our city centre will be devastated.
You would need to have a lot more capacity for other events, It's, and I repeat, a sprat to catch a mackerel. If it goes ahead, our city centre will be devastated. Brickyard
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

Brickyard wrote:
You would need to have a lot more capacity for other events, It's, and I repeat, a sprat to catch a mackerel. If it goes ahead, our city centre will be devastated.
Depends what those other "events" are. Certainly sporting events wouldn't need any more than 6k at this moment. What events do you think will draw in more than 6k crowds?
[quote][p][bold]Brickyard[/bold] wrote: You would need to have a lot more capacity for other events, It's, and I repeat, a sprat to catch a mackerel. If it goes ahead, our city centre will be devastated.[/p][/quote]Depends what those other "events" are. Certainly sporting events wouldn't need any more than 6k at this moment. What events do you think will draw in more than 6k crowds? speaks99
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Thu 17 May 12

tommyinyork says...

Brickyard wrote:
You would need to have a lot more capacity for other events, It's, and I repeat, a sprat to catch a mackerel. If it goes ahead, our city centre will be devastated.
Was our city devastated when clifton moor was built or monks cross or desinger outlet. No it wasn't. Shut up you nimby !
[quote][p][bold]Brickyard[/bold] wrote: You would need to have a lot more capacity for other events, It's, and I repeat, a sprat to catch a mackerel. If it goes ahead, our city centre will be devastated.[/p][/quote]Was our city devastated when clifton moor was built or monks cross or desinger outlet. No it wasn't. Shut up you nimby ! tommyinyork
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Thu 17 May 12

Dr Brian says...

It will be passed - called in and nothing will happen for at least another year or more - so not sure why everybody getting so excited one way or the other
It will be passed - called in and nothing will happen for at least another year or more - so not sure why everybody getting so excited one way or the other Dr Brian
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Thu 17 May 12

You're Fired says...

Paul 2012, change your name to Paul 1981, you're stuck in the past.....In order for the football club to move forward we need a new stadium. It's not so much to do with the size of the ground (I was merely making a point that the stadium would at times be full, since you're being a picky c**t I will be too, our average attendance was 3,239) as we move back up the leagues the attendances will rise, however. Bootham Crescent, although I love it, is falling apart. It soon won't be fit for purpose. Is it the size of the stadium you object to or the stadium itself? We could try and work out the exact number of seats we'd need on a game by game basis if you like??

JC42: I'd imagine you have some ideas for how council tax should be spent, but I don't think I'd agree with them. Oh well, nevermind.
Paul 2012, change your name to Paul 1981, you're stuck in the past.....In order for the football club to move forward we need a new stadium. It's not so much to do with the size of the ground (I was merely making a point that the stadium would at times be full, since you're being a picky c**t I will be too, our average attendance was 3,239) as we move back up the leagues the attendances will rise, however. Bootham Crescent, although I love it, is falling apart. It soon won't be fit for purpose. Is it the size of the stadium you object to or the stadium itself? We could try and work out the exact number of seats we'd need on a game by game basis if you like?? JC42: I'd imagine you have some ideas for how council tax should be spent, but I don't think I'd agree with them. Oh well, nevermind. You're Fired
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Thu 17 May 12

onlooker says...

tommyinyork wrote:
Why is our city so backward and full of pathetic retarded individuals. If this was Hull, Doncaster, Swansea etc it would of gone ahead ages ago.
Precisely. If you want to live in Hull, Doncaster or Swansea then please go ahead. I grew up in Donny and have lived in Hull & would hate to see York dragged down to the same crappy level.
Also I have noticed that anyone who dares to post against this proposal is subjected to verbal abuse. So much for intelligent debate. It says much about the level of intelligence of the writers!
[quote][p][bold]tommyinyork[/bold] wrote: Why is our city so backward and full of pathetic retarded individuals. If this was Hull, Doncaster, Swansea etc it would of gone ahead ages ago.[/p][/quote]Precisely. If you want to live in Hull, Doncaster or Swansea then please go ahead. I grew up in Donny and have lived in Hull & would hate to see York dragged down to the same crappy level. Also I have noticed that anyone who dares to post against this proposal is subjected to verbal abuse. So much for intelligent debate. It says much about the level of intelligence of the writers! onlooker
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Thu 17 May 12

Dr Brian says...

onlooker wrote:
tommyinyork wrote:
Why is our city so backward and full of pathetic retarded individuals. If this was Hull, Doncaster, Swansea etc it would of gone ahead ages ago.
Precisely. If you want to live in Hull, Doncaster or Swansea then please go ahead. I grew up in Donny and have lived in Hull & would hate to see York dragged down to the same crappy level.
Also I have noticed that anyone who dares to post against this proposal is subjected to verbal abuse. So much for intelligent debate. It says much about the level of intelligence of the writers!
A very good point - it is silly to compare one town against another - each have different cultures -
[quote][p][bold]onlooker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tommyinyork[/bold] wrote: Why is our city so backward and full of pathetic retarded individuals. If this was Hull, Doncaster, Swansea etc it would of gone ahead ages ago.[/p][/quote]Precisely. If you want to live in Hull, Doncaster or Swansea then please go ahead. I grew up in Donny and have lived in Hull & would hate to see York dragged down to the same crappy level. Also I have noticed that anyone who dares to post against this proposal is subjected to verbal abuse. So much for intelligent debate. It says much about the level of intelligence of the writers![/p][/quote]A very good point - it is silly to compare one town against another - each have different cultures - Dr Brian
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ?

Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m.

I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant !
Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ? Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m. I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Thu 17 May 12

JC42 says...

tommyinyork wrote:
JC42 You really are a first class ****
Really ???? thats your opinion Tommy. You not like the truth ??? What was the crowd at the city knights last week against Sheffield Eagles I think that was less than 500 . They could play at the acorn and York city could play on the Knavesmire or even Tadcaster Albion.
[quote][p][bold]tommyinyork[/bold] wrote: JC42 You really are a first class ****[/p][/quote]Really ???? thats your opinion Tommy. You not like the truth ??? What was the crowd at the city knights last week against Sheffield Eagles I think that was less than 500 . They could play at the acorn and York city could play on the Knavesmire or even Tadcaster Albion. JC42
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Thu 17 May 12

Brickyard says...

tommyinyork wrote:
Brickyard wrote:
You would need to have a lot more capacity for other events, It's, and I repeat, a sprat to catch a mackerel. If it goes ahead, our city centre will be devastated.
Was our city devastated when clifton moor was built or monks cross or desinger outlet. No it wasn't. Shut up you nimby !
Nimby's are usually, proved right, you idiot.
[quote][p][bold]tommyinyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brickyard[/bold] wrote: You would need to have a lot more capacity for other events, It's, and I repeat, a sprat to catch a mackerel. If it goes ahead, our city centre will be devastated.[/p][/quote]Was our city devastated when clifton moor was built or monks cross or desinger outlet. No it wasn't. Shut up you nimby ![/p][/quote]Nimby's are usually, proved right, you idiot. Brickyard
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Oh dear, the trolls are out and about trying to deflect this topic from what its really about: The privileged few (aka Campaign for Castleford) trying to hold the rest of the City and the people who live, work and breath in it back.
Oh dear, the trolls are out and about trying to deflect this topic from what its really about: The privileged few (aka Campaign for Castleford) trying to hold the rest of the City and the people who live, work and breath in it back. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Thu 17 May 12

You're Fired says...

Why would a city team go and play in a nearby town? Who do you support JC42?
Why would a city team go and play in a nearby town? Who do you support JC42? You're Fired
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Thu 17 May 12

Sir Alex says...

JC42 wrote:
Sir Alex wrote:
Yes get it built - and make sure its got a BIG room with underpinned supports for displaying trophies!! :)
you must be joking you have won nothing in the past 20 years , oh i am sorry you won last weekend.
:):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):)

Bit serious aren't you?

Man Utd fan maybe?
[quote][p][bold]JC42[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alex[/bold] wrote: Yes get it built - and make sure its got a BIG room with underpinned supports for displaying trophies!! :)[/p][/quote]you must be joking you have won nothing in the past 20 years , oh i am sorry you won last weekend.[/p][/quote]:):):):):):):):):):) :):):):):) Bit serious aren't you? Man Utd fan maybe? Sir Alex
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Thu 17 May 12

PhilipInYork says...

Brickyard wrote:
tommyinyork wrote:
Brickyard wrote:
You would need to have a lot more capacity for other events, It's, and I repeat, a sprat to catch a mackerel. If it goes ahead, our city centre will be devastated.
Was our city devastated when clifton moor was built or monks cross or desinger outlet. No it wasn't. Shut up you nimby !
Nimby's are usually, proved right, you idiot.
You're the idiot here fella. Your latest posts prove it.

Did you even gain an education??
[quote][p][bold]Brickyard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tommyinyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brickyard[/bold] wrote: You would need to have a lot more capacity for other events, It's, and I repeat, a sprat to catch a mackerel. If it goes ahead, our city centre will be devastated.[/p][/quote]Was our city devastated when clifton moor was built or monks cross or desinger outlet. No it wasn't. Shut up you nimby ![/p][/quote]Nimby's are usually, proved right, you idiot.[/p][/quote]You're the idiot here fella. Your latest posts prove it. Did you even gain an education?? PhilipInYork
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Thu 17 May 12

magic cat says...

If Cllr Ayre has a conflict of interests, then doesn't Cllr Watson as a member of York City Knights??
If Cllr Ayre has a conflict of interests, then doesn't Cllr Watson as a member of York City Knights?? magic cat
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Thu 17 May 12

Brickyard says...

Whatever happens regarding the plans, The councillors who vote in favour will be as usual feathering there own nests, if it is passed.
Whatever happens regarding the plans, The councillors who vote in favour will be as usual feathering there own nests, if it is passed. Brickyard
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Thu 17 May 12

Paul2012 says...

eventually if these plans go ahead this will kill the city centre trades like good shops like Barnitts.

But apparently they have to go ahead or YCFC will die!!

small price to pay when not even 1% of Yorks population support them..
eventually if these plans go ahead this will kill the city centre trades like good shops like Barnitts. But apparently they have to go ahead or YCFC will die!! small price to pay when not even 1% of Yorks population support them.. Paul2012
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Thu 17 May 12

tommyinyork says...

Barnitts will not die you muppit, god seriously what is it with these clowns on here !!!!
Barnitts will not die you muppit, god seriously what is it with these clowns on here !!!! tommyinyork
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Thu 17 May 12

Brickyard says...

And a final word regarding Jim Alexander, the pro Oakgate leader of the Labour party, has just stumbled from one bad decision to the next, since he was elected leader of the Labour group, his performance so far, hardly encourages me to agree with his point of view. Over and out.
And a final word regarding Jim Alexander, the pro Oakgate leader of the Labour party, has just stumbled from one bad decision to the next, since he was elected leader of the Labour group, his performance so far, hardly encourages me to agree with his point of view. Over and out. Brickyard
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Thu 17 May 12

Torycouncil2015 says...

magic cat wrote:
If Cllr Ayre has a conflict of interests, then doesn't Cllr Watson as a member of York City Knights??
I'd agree. Seems the best course of action was to steer clear. Unless Cllr Watsons plan is to give the opposers grounds for reviewing the decision?
[quote][p][bold]magic cat[/bold] wrote: If Cllr Ayre has a conflict of interests, then doesn't Cllr Watson as a member of York City Knights??[/p][/quote]I'd agree. Seems the best course of action was to steer clear. Unless Cllr Watsons plan is to give the opposers grounds for reviewing the decision? Torycouncil2015
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Thu 17 May 12

Jazzper says...

Paul2012 wrote:
eventually if these plans go ahead this will kill the city centre trades like good shops like Barnitts.

But apparently they have to go ahead or YCFC will die!!

small price to pay when not even 1% of Yorks population support them..
Can you answer 2 questions for me, What is so 'good' about Barnitts, and what difference would building JL at Monks Cross make ??
[quote][p][bold]Paul2012[/bold] wrote: eventually if these plans go ahead this will kill the city centre trades like good shops like Barnitts. But apparently they have to go ahead or YCFC will die!! small price to pay when not even 1% of Yorks population support them..[/p][/quote]Can you answer 2 questions for me, What is so 'good' about Barnitts, and what difference would building JL at Monks Cross make ?? Jazzper
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Thu 17 May 12

cornishclot says...

No barnitts will never die, apparently the staff kindly gave up their bonuses to keep the shop afloat
No barnitts will never die, apparently the staff kindly gave up their bonuses to keep the shop afloat cornishclot
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

No answers to this yet, so I'll ask again:-

Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ?

Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m.

I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant !

Do City fans or the McGills know the answer ?
They should !
No answers to this yet, so I'll ask again:- Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ? Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m. I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant ! Do City fans or the McGills know the answer ? They should ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Thu 17 May 12

cornishclot says...

No barnitts will never die, apparently the staff kindly gave up their bonuses to keep the shop afloat
No barnitts will never die, apparently the staff kindly gave up their bonuses to keep the shop afloat cornishclot
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Thu 17 May 12

You're Fired says...

Paul2012 wrote:
eventually if these plans go ahead this will kill the city centre trades like good shops like Barnitts.

But apparently they have to go ahead or YCFC will die!!

small price to pay when not even 1% of Yorks population support them..
Obviously not even 1% of the City's population shop in Barnitts or you and they wouldn't be so concerned by it's potential demise...oh no, where will I buy pots and pans from if Barnitts closes....give me a break.
[quote][p][bold]Paul2012[/bold] wrote: eventually if these plans go ahead this will kill the city centre trades like good shops like Barnitts. But apparently they have to go ahead or YCFC will die!! small price to pay when not even 1% of Yorks population support them..[/p][/quote]Obviously not even 1% of the City's population shop in Barnitts or you and they wouldn't be so concerned by it's potential demise...oh no, where will I buy pots and pans from if Barnitts closes....give me a break. You're Fired
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Thu 17 May 12

roskoboskovic says...

will the councillors try and remember who they are supposedly representing.NOT the developers,NOT the likes of sinclair and cronies and NOT the sports clubs.you represent us,the citizens of york and if a poll was taken you would see that the majority of us want the new development.so what is your excuse.i see that the press stillrefuses to run its own poll.
will the councillors try and remember who they are supposedly representing.NOT the developers,NOT the likes of sinclair and cronies and NOT the sports clubs.you represent us,the citizens of york and if a poll was taken you would see that the majority of us want the new development.so what is your excuse.i see that the press stillrefuses to run its own poll. roskoboskovic
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Thu 17 May 12

Paul2012 says...

There will always be pro and anti people for this development.

It just seems that the only pro one are York City fans!!
There will always be pro and anti people for this development. It just seems that the only pro one are York City fans!! Paul2012
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
No answers to this yet, so I'll ask again:- Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ? Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m. I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant ! Do City fans or the McGills know the answer ? They should !
Is this the elephant in the room ?
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: No answers to this yet, so I'll ask again:- Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ? Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m. I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant ! Do City fans or the McGills know the answer ? They should ![/p][/quote]Is this the elephant in the room ? Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Thu 17 May 12

#TheRealObama says...

"York's city centre will be devastated if this goes ahead.. :D

comedy at its best
"York's city centre will be devastated if this goes ahead.. :D comedy at its best #TheRealObama
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Thu 17 May 12

bpk68 says...

I'm missing something about this whole debacle and have been for some time.

Perhaps some people on this forum (preferably without going off on one) can help me understand: How will creating 2 shops, whatever their size, somehow cripple the city centre in one fell swoop?

Now I'm all up for a reasonable debate so here's my logic thus far:
- there are only 2 shops being proposed are there not? M+S and John Lewis? We've already got some M+S stores in York, and I can't see one more suddenly creating an inescapable black hole that drags everyone away from the city centre in search of over-priced goods; I don't think the addition of a John Lewis will alter things much either.
- aren't people forgetting about context here? The centre of York offers a wide range of shops and experiences and other attractions; think delis, the gallery (art, not the chav fight club), resaurants and the shear beauty of the city itself. Both M+S and JL offer a lot of pretentious folk with more money than sense the opportunity to buy normal items at exaggerated prices because 'this isn't just balsamic vinegar, it's hand-pressed, triple filtered balsamic vinegar, brewed in the mountain regions of Italy by 3 trained spiders'...In short, it's not really a comparable experience is it?
- I'm also not sure about what the parking argument has to do with anything. Again it's about trying to compare essentially non-comparable entities. For example, if I had the choice between going to two cinemas that were pretty much of a muchness, however one had free parking and one charged me then yes, it might sway my decision; to suggest that I might not head into the city centre because I can park for free at JL would only make a difference if JL had the same thing on offer that prompted the reason for the city centre outing in the first place.


The whole thing seems like a classic case of 'fearing the unknown'......
I'm missing something about this whole debacle and have been for some time. Perhaps some people on this forum (preferably without going off on one) can help me understand: How will creating 2 shops, whatever their size, somehow cripple the city centre in one fell swoop? Now I'm all up for a reasonable debate so here's my logic thus far: - there are only 2 shops being proposed are there not? M+S and John Lewis? We've already got some M+S stores in York, and I can't see one more suddenly creating an inescapable black hole that drags everyone away from the city centre in search of over-priced goods; I don't think the addition of a John Lewis will alter things much either. - aren't people forgetting about context here? The centre of York offers a wide range of shops and experiences and other attractions; think delis, the gallery (art, not the chav fight club), resaurants and the shear beauty of the city itself. Both M+S and JL offer a lot of pretentious folk with more money than sense the opportunity to buy normal items at exaggerated prices because 'this isn't just balsamic vinegar, it's hand-pressed, triple filtered balsamic vinegar, brewed in the mountain regions of Italy by 3 trained spiders'...In short, it's not really a comparable experience is it? - I'm also not sure about what the parking argument has to do with anything. Again it's about trying to compare essentially non-comparable entities. For example, if I had the choice between going to two cinemas that were pretty much of a muchness, however one had free parking and one charged me then yes, it might sway my decision; to suggest that I might not head into the city centre because I can park for free at JL would only make a difference if JL had the same thing on offer that prompted the reason for the city centre outing in the first place. The whole thing seems like a classic case of 'fearing the unknown'...... bpk68
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Thu 17 May 12

Whitetornado says...

I support a community stadium provided that it is managed correctly. It needs to have facilities that will attract usage on a 365 day a year basis (conferences, meetings, concerts, craft fayres, wedding receptions etc.) and not simply 23 saturday and 15 sunday afternoons. To be attractive the costs have to be affordable to those who choose to use it.

As for the shopping, those who's life is spent shopping will shop wherever the shops are be it in town or out of town. Those who choose not to shop will avoid it like the plague, as they do now.

Transport and infrastructure will be the key to its success or failure, as the case may be.

Will it attract visitors from further afield? Once at least, but at the end of the day, M&S is M&S no matter where it is located.
I support a community stadium provided that it is managed correctly. It needs to have facilities that will attract usage on a 365 day a year basis (conferences, meetings, concerts, craft fayres, wedding receptions etc.) and not simply 23 saturday and 15 sunday afternoons. To be attractive the costs have to be affordable to those who choose to use it. As for the shopping, those who's life is spent shopping will shop wherever the shops are be it in town or out of town. Those who choose not to shop will avoid it like the plague, as they do now. Transport and infrastructure will be the key to its success or failure, as the case may be. Will it attract visitors from further afield? Once at least, but at the end of the day, M&S is M&S no matter where it is located. Whitetornado
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
No answers to this yet, so I'll ask again:- Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ? Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m. I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant ! Do City fans or the McGills know the answer ? They should !
Is this the elephant in the room ?
Nope - this is you boring the pants off with the same question you ask daily... Ever wonder why we're all ignoring you?
FWIW I think that there will be some backhand deal which will give a fair value for BC. No I haven't read the "affordable housing policy", which I am sure will be next off your lips, nor do I really care.
Oh. By the way. Thanks for brightening up my afternoon.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: No answers to this yet, so I'll ask again:- Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ? Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m. I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant ! Do City fans or the McGills know the answer ? They should ![/p][/quote]Is this the elephant in the room ?[/p][/quote]Nope - this is you boring the pants off with the same question you ask daily... Ever wonder why we're all ignoring you? FWIW I think that there will be some backhand deal which will give a fair value for BC. No I haven't read the "affordable housing policy", which I am sure will be next off your lips, nor do I really care. Oh. By the way. Thanks for brightening up my afternoon. speaks99
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Thu 17 May 12

cynic3 says...

Tel1969 wrote:
I've been a resident of York, now for 14 years and in my time here I have witnessed time and time again some very baffling decisions from the council in relation to expanding and enhancing this beautiful city. The Barbican, Terry's quite quickly spring to mind of course! We all know that this city is built on an ancient heritage. But let's not have our thinking that way too! Let us combine the ancient and modern and turn York into a city for our future generations. Build it, I say!
Off topic but talk about baffling decisions have you seen the scale of the building on Hull Road where Northern Dairies were? The use of the site is fair enough but teh scale a bit much!
[quote][p][bold]Tel1969[/bold] wrote: I've been a resident of York, now for 14 years and in my time here I have witnessed time and time again some very baffling decisions from the council in relation to expanding and enhancing this beautiful city. The Barbican, Terry's quite quickly spring to mind of course! We all know that this city is built on an ancient heritage. But let's not have our thinking that way too! Let us combine the ancient and modern and turn York into a city for our future generations. Build it, I say![/p][/quote]Off topic but talk about baffling decisions have you seen the scale of the building on Hull Road where Northern Dairies were? The use of the site is fair enough but teh scale a bit much! cynic3
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Thu 17 May 12

#TheRealObama says...

Paul2012 wrote:
There will always be pro and anti people for this development.

It just seems that the only pro one are York City fans!!
Im a Sheffield United fan living in York and i approve the plans for the stadium. York's got a great football club that deserves to move with the times. the fact people are using traffic congestion as an excuse is laughable. Starbucks/Nero's/Cos
ta etc are whats killing the city centre. Smaller shops are getting driven out and the only people that can afford to rent them are huge American owned companies, but this is acceptable? All york is good for these days is large chain stores.
[quote][p][bold]Paul2012[/bold] wrote: There will always be pro and anti people for this development. It just seems that the only pro one are York City fans!![/p][/quote]Im a Sheffield United fan living in York and i approve the plans for the stadium. York's got a great football club that deserves to move with the times. the fact people are using traffic congestion as an excuse is laughable. Starbucks/Nero's/Cos ta etc are whats killing the city centre. Smaller shops are getting driven out and the only people that can afford to rent them are huge American owned companies, but this is acceptable? All york is good for these days is large chain stores. #TheRealObama
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Thu 17 May 12

Yorkie37 says...

I live in Haxby, I use the shops at Clifton Moor & Monks X as I can park close buy and get most of what I wany quickly. Its the age we live in i'm afraid. I still use the city centre but unless i've missed something, I really can't see how having a further M & S & a John Lewis is going to "kill the city centre". The tourists will still come and spend there money but alot of the locals use the out of town shopping areas. I'm proud of my City & have two young children whom I want to grow up been proud of their city as well. A city the size of York should have a community staduim & sports centre so the next generation or "Yorkies" can enjoy it.
I live in Haxby, I use the shops at Clifton Moor & Monks X as I can park close buy and get most of what I wany quickly. Its the age we live in i'm afraid. I still use the city centre but unless i've missed something, I really can't see how having a further M & S & a John Lewis is going to "kill the city centre". The tourists will still come and spend there money but alot of the locals use the out of town shopping areas. I'm proud of my City & have two young children whom I want to grow up been proud of their city as well. A city the size of York should have a community staduim & sports centre so the next generation or "Yorkies" can enjoy it. Yorkie37
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

JC42, Brickyard and Paul2012.

Are you Sports fans by any chance ? Get a life. Don't panic about the City Centre. They'll be fine. Nobody will go out of business if their product is good. Let the forward thinkers get on with the Stadium development and let the City of York (and surrounding areas) sports lovers enjoy their passion so jobs can be created to build something we can all be proud of.
JC42, Brickyard and Paul2012. Are you Sports fans by any chance ? Get a life. Don't panic about the City Centre. They'll be fine. Nobody will go out of business if their product is good. Let the forward thinkers get on with the Stadium development and let the City of York (and surrounding areas) sports lovers enjoy their passion so jobs can be created to build something we can all be proud of. walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

JC42, Brickyard and Paul2012.

Are you Sports fans by any chance ? Get a life. Don't panic about the City Centre. They'll be fine. Nobody will go out of business if their product is good. Let the forward thinkers get on with the Stadium development and let the City of York (and surrounding areas) sports lovers enjoy their passion so jobs can be created to build something we can all be proud of.
JC42, Brickyard and Paul2012. Are you Sports fans by any chance ? Get a life. Don't panic about the City Centre. They'll be fine. Nobody will go out of business if their product is good. Let the forward thinkers get on with the Stadium development and let the City of York (and surrounding areas) sports lovers enjoy their passion so jobs can be created to build something we can all be proud of. walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Anderson says...

You're Fired wrote:
Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.
Not exactly a regular attendance now is it!
[quote][p][bold]You're Fired[/bold] wrote: Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.[/p][/quote]Not exactly a regular attendance now is it! Mr Anderson
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Paul2012 wrote:
You're Fired wrote:
Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.
York citys Average attendance was 3,000 last year so it will be a half empty stadium.

Won't be playing playoffs every week.

oh dear haven't done your research!
Think the clue is in the word 'average', Paul. Tell me how you get an average of 3000, think about your answer and then post some sense. Lets make it a little easier for you; if a restaurant had an 'average' of 50 customers a night, what would happen to that figure if it became the maximum? Get it now?
Besides, YCFC have spent most of their life in the league and may be back there by Monday. Our last average attendance in league two was about 4000, in a season we were RELEGATED!
As for council tax, most of the money is from private business and don't forget RENT will be paid by the two professional clubs. Research indeed - and common sense!
[quote][p][bold]Paul2012[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You're Fired[/bold] wrote: Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.[/p][/quote]York citys Average attendance was 3,000 last year so it will be a half empty stadium. Won't be playing playoffs every week. oh dear haven't done your research![/p][/quote]Think the clue is in the word 'average', Paul. Tell me how you get an average of 3000, think about your answer and then post some sense. Lets make it a little easier for you; if a restaurant had an 'average' of 50 customers a night, what would happen to that figure if it became the maximum? Get it now? Besides, YCFC have spent most of their life in the league and may be back there by Monday. Our last average attendance in league two was about 4000, in a season we were RELEGATED! As for council tax, most of the money is from private business and don't forget RENT will be paid by the two professional clubs. Research indeed - and common sense! Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

Paul2012 wrote:
There will always be pro and anti people for this development.

It just seems that the only pro one are York City fans!!
That's like me saying the only people who oppose this are city centre traders. Neither statement is true.
YEs you have got a large proportion of York fans who have an understanding of the complexities of this proposal - because the future of YCFC is tied up with it. You've also got to remember that most York fans are also residents, and want to have a say in how their city is run. Not for the good of the city centre shop keepers, or for the benefit of the YCFC chairman, but for themselves. I support this application because I haven't seen any credible evidence to suggest it would have the impact the campaign for York tell us it will have. The city centre hasn't moved on since I was a child. Now if you tell me we are not allowed to develop out of town, and we are unable to develop in town. What is the future of the city that I love?
[quote][p][bold]Paul2012[/bold] wrote: There will always be pro and anti people for this development. It just seems that the only pro one are York City fans!![/p][/quote]That's like me saying the only people who oppose this are city centre traders. Neither statement is true. YEs you have got a large proportion of York fans who have an understanding of the complexities of this proposal - because the future of YCFC is tied up with it. You've also got to remember that most York fans are also residents, and want to have a say in how their city is run. Not for the good of the city centre shop keepers, or for the benefit of the YCFC chairman, but for themselves. I support this application because I haven't seen any credible evidence to suggest it would have the impact the campaign for York tell us it will have. The city centre hasn't moved on since I was a child. Now if you tell me we are not allowed to develop out of town, and we are unable to develop in town. What is the future of the city that I love? speaks99
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Thu 17 May 12

Paul2012 says...

I do panic about the city centre as it's the thing that makes York to me.

Knowhere else like it hence any risk that there is I am against!

And I am a sports fan, a York fan at that!
I do panic about the city centre as it's the thing that makes York to me. Knowhere else like it hence any risk that there is I am against! And I am a sports fan, a York fan at that! Paul2012
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

Paul2012 wrote:
I do panic about the city centre as it's the thing that makes York to me.

Knowhere else like it hence any risk that there is I am against!

And I am a sports fan, a York fan at that!
I understand that. I love York. I also see the need for it to be developed in a sustainable way. Lets get things in perspective. Its 3 shops (discounting the mezzanines proposal). They will not suck the life out of the city centre which has been over trading for years (with documented evidence). Theres no evidence that it will have the effect that C4Y will tell you it has.
[quote][p][bold]Paul2012[/bold] wrote: I do panic about the city centre as it's the thing that makes York to me. Knowhere else like it hence any risk that there is I am against! And I am a sports fan, a York fan at that![/p][/quote]I understand that. I love York. I also see the need for it to be developed in a sustainable way. Lets get things in perspective. Its 3 shops (discounting the mezzanines proposal). They will not suck the life out of the city centre which has been over trading for years (with documented evidence). Theres no evidence that it will have the effect that C4Y will tell you it has. speaks99
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Mr Anderson wrote:
You're Fired wrote:
Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.
Not exactly a regular attendance now is it!
See my answer to Paul. Or do you need another example? A cinema gets an average of 200 people a night, that means on some nights there were 300, some 100 etc. Its an AVERAGE!!
What you don't do is rip out all the seats save 200 (your thinking and Pauls) as this would probably see your average plummet.
YCFC as a reasonably successful L2 club would get around 4500. That warrants a stadium of at least 6000/7000. Some would say more, I'd say its sensible to build for now with the option for more; exactly what is being proposed.
When has a ground EVER been built to cater for an average gate? Its madness. How would rent be paid when we could never get a gate above 3100?
[quote][p][bold]Mr Anderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You're Fired[/bold] wrote: Football club not big enough to warrant a 6000 seater stadium....our last game at Bootham Crescent; ATT = 6057.....oh dear you haven't done your research.[/p][/quote]Not exactly a regular attendance now is it![/p][/quote]See my answer to Paul. Or do you need another example? A cinema gets an average of 200 people a night, that means on some nights there were 300, some 100 etc. Its an AVERAGE!! What you don't do is rip out all the seats save 200 (your thinking and Pauls) as this would probably see your average plummet. YCFC as a reasonably successful L2 club would get around 4500. That warrants a stadium of at least 6000/7000. Some would say more, I'd say its sensible to build for now with the option for more; exactly what is being proposed. When has a ground EVER been built to cater for an average gate? Its madness. How would rent be paid when we could never get a gate above 3100? Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Thu 17 May 12

Paul2012 says...

2,967 letters supporting the Oakgate application.

3000 avg gate at BC does this show only the city fans want this bar me!
2,967 letters supporting the Oakgate application. 3000 avg gate at BC does this show only the city fans want this bar me! Paul2012
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Paul2012

You've just confirmed to me that you are indeed an idiot ! Every York City fan who cares passionately about the club should be behind this proposal. End of matter.
Paul2012 You've just confirmed to me that you are indeed an idiot ! Every York City fan who cares passionately about the club should be behind this proposal. End of matter. walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Thu 17 May 12

TerryYork says...

This is about to get a YES!!

Utter fail on the CFY part on the letter writing. Hilarious.
This is about to get a YES!! Utter fail on the CFY part on the letter writing. Hilarious. TerryYork
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Thu 17 May 12

upthecity says...

in response to the Former councillor Roger Pierce's reported comment - the new stadium would have very limited impact upon the success of the team, but it would mean that the club still EXISTS
in response to the Former councillor Roger Pierce's reported comment - the new stadium would have very limited impact upon the success of the team, but it would mean that the club still EXISTS upthecity
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Thu 17 May 12

TerryYork says...

"1.10pm - Former councillor Roger Pierce speaks in opposition to the Oakgate proposal, and says York City's FA Trophy success (the trophy is here on show), demonstrates that on-pitch success is not dependent on the stadium."

Christ! How did this moron get elected (not that he is any more). What a pathetic and stupid comment.
"1.10pm - Former councillor Roger Pierce speaks in opposition to the Oakgate proposal, and says York City's FA Trophy success (the trophy is here on show), demonstrates that on-pitch success is not dependent on the stadium." Christ! How did this moron get elected (not that he is any more). What a pathetic and stupid comment. TerryYork
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: No answers to this yet, so I'll ask again:- Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ? Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m. I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant ! Do City fans or the McGills know the answer ? They should !
Is this the elephant in the room ?
Nope - this is you boring the pants off with the same question you ask daily... Ever wonder why we're all ignoring you? FWIW I think that there will be some backhand deal which will give a fair value for BC. No I haven't read the "affordable housing policy", which I am sure will be next off your lips, nor do I really care. Oh. By the way. Thanks for brightening up my afternoon.
Let's see how boring it is when the truth comes out......

'Oh my god, we had no idea that land values had fallen so much ?'

'If only we had known, before the Council had spent £19m on the new stadium'

There will be no excuses for remarks like these, because you/they were told, and some like Bill Woolley knew anyway.

Yes, it's as boring as the propaganda that you have regurgitated ad nauseum on your many posts.

Pot calling the kettle grimey a*se ? I think so !
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: No answers to this yet, so I'll ask again:- Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ? Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m. I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant ! Do City fans or the McGills know the answer ? They should ![/p][/quote]Is this the elephant in the room ?[/p][/quote]Nope - this is you boring the pants off with the same question you ask daily... Ever wonder why we're all ignoring you? FWIW I think that there will be some backhand deal which will give a fair value for BC. No I haven't read the "affordable housing policy", which I am sure will be next off your lips, nor do I really care. Oh. By the way. Thanks for brightening up my afternoon.[/p][/quote]Let's see how boring it is when the truth comes out...... 'Oh my god, we had no idea that land values had fallen so much ?' 'If only we had known, before the Council had spent £19m on the new stadium' There will be no excuses for remarks like these, because you/they were told, and some like Bill Woolley knew anyway. Yes, it's as boring as the propaganda that you have regurgitated ad nauseum on your many posts. Pot calling the kettle grimey a*se ? I think so ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Thu 17 May 12

yorkiemum says...

Paul2012 wrote:
There will always be pro and anti people for this development.

It just seems that the only pro one are York City fans!!
I don't support YCFC but I support the scheme!!
[quote][p][bold]Paul2012[/bold] wrote: There will always be pro and anti people for this development. It just seems that the only pro one are York City fans!![/p][/quote]I don't support YCFC but I support the scheme!! yorkiemum
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Thu 17 May 12

bar_wench says...

2 extra shops are not going to make a difference to the city centre the outer shopping areas cater more for locals than the tourists. The stadium appears to be the bigger issue and frankly I don't know why BC can't have a facelift and be used (might save a hell of a lot of money).

Btw all this slagging each other off is childish.
2 extra shops are not going to make a difference to the city centre the outer shopping areas cater more for locals than the tourists. The stadium appears to be the bigger issue and frankly I don't know why BC can't have a facelift and be used (might save a hell of a lot of money). Btw all this slagging each other off is childish. bar_wench
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Thu 17 May 12

Paul2012 says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Paul2012

You've just confirmed to me that you are indeed an idiot ! Every York City fan who cares passionately about the club should be behind this proposal. End of matter.
Unfortunately there is life beyond York City and i'm not convinced it will work for the club ie darlo!

Just because i'm a city fan doesn't mean that comes with a auto Yes to this scheme!

Thinks outside the box and don't let JMP do the thinking for you.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Paul2012 You've just confirmed to me that you are indeed an idiot ! Every York City fan who cares passionately about the club should be behind this proposal. End of matter.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately there is life beyond York City and i'm not convinced it will work for the club ie darlo! Just because i'm a city fan doesn't mean that comes with a auto Yes to this scheme! Thinks outside the box and don't let JMP do the thinking for you. Paul2012
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Council are actually only spending £1.8 on a new stadium. £2.2 on athletics provision (which they were going to do anyway) and of-course, £43m on new Council offices. The latter passed with a **** site less fuss than this!
The AH issue with BC is very much a sideshow. The club are putting little into the plan, as we always knew, and I'm guessing the McGills will wait to get their money back until land values rise again. I'm not being personal here, Mr C., but honestly mate - this issue is about so much more than affordable housing policy!
Council are actually only spending £1.8 on a new stadium. £2.2 on athletics provision (which they were going to do anyway) and of-course, £43m on new Council offices. The latter passed with a **** site less fuss than this! The AH issue with BC is very much a sideshow. The club are putting little into the plan, as we always knew, and I'm guessing the McGills will wait to get their money back until land values rise again. I'm not being personal here, Mr C., but honestly mate - this issue is about so much more than affordable housing policy! Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Thu 17 May 12

Yorkie37 says...

Just another angle on this, i'm sure somelse has thought/commented on this but please forgive me as I am late joining this debate.
How many more people will visit York from the surrounding area because we will have a John Lewis? All these people wont just stay at Monks Cross, some will visit other local businesses & some will utilise the park & ride and visit the coty centre.
How many more people will visit York for sporting events because the city has a modern stadium that can be accessed easily from the dual carriageway & has plenty of parking right out side the door? How many of these people will use other local businesses & visit the centre of York. If you have modern facilities to be proud of, it will attract more people to come & visit. This seems to be a real opportunity to build something the city can be proud of. Yes, i'm a sports fan, but don't go to see YCFC as I can't get parked & the facilities are very poor when taking my young son. I'm trying to look at it from all angles & ask the question, what will make my City better ?
Just another angle on this, i'm sure somelse has thought/commented on this but please forgive me as I am late joining this debate. How many more people will visit York from the surrounding area because we will have a John Lewis? All these people wont just stay at Monks Cross, some will visit other local businesses & some will utilise the park & ride and visit the coty centre. How many more people will visit York for sporting events because the city has a modern stadium that can be accessed easily from the dual carriageway & has plenty of parking right out side the door? How many of these people will use other local businesses & visit the centre of York. If you have modern facilities to be proud of, it will attract more people to come & visit. This seems to be a real opportunity to build something the city can be proud of. Yes, i'm a sports fan, but don't go to see YCFC as I can't get parked & the facilities are very poor when taking my young son. I'm trying to look at it from all angles & ask the question, what will make my City better ? Yorkie37
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Thu 17 May 12

PhilipInYork says...

Roger Pierce, seriously? That's why they had stocks in the old days, so the village idiot could be taught a lesson.
Roger Pierce, seriously? That's why they had stocks in the old days, so the village idiot could be taught a lesson. PhilipInYork
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Thu 17 May 12

KAT1965 says...

Notice Philip Crowe seems to be getting plenty of air-time???
Notice Philip Crowe seems to be getting plenty of air-time??? KAT1965
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: No answers to this yet, so I'll ask again:- Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ? Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m. I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant ! Do City fans or the McGills know the answer ? They should !
Is this the elephant in the room ?
Nope - this is you boring the pants off with the same question you ask daily... Ever wonder why we're all ignoring you? FWIW I think that there will be some backhand deal which will give a fair value for BC. No I haven't read the "affordable housing policy", which I am sure will be next off your lips, nor do I really care. Oh. By the way. Thanks for brightening up my afternoon.
Ah, another 'backhand deal'..... surely you are not suggesting the council will rig that too ?

How will they do that ?

Give Persimmon a planning concession on the Barbican site for student accommodation, and/or a concession on affordable housing on Germany Beck - in return for an inflated offer for BC ?

The deal is probably already done, brokered by Woolley before he retires ? !!!
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: No answers to this yet, so I'll ask again:- Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ? Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m. I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant ! Do City fans or the McGills know the answer ? They should ![/p][/quote]Is this the elephant in the room ?[/p][/quote]Nope - this is you boring the pants off with the same question you ask daily... Ever wonder why we're all ignoring you? FWIW I think that there will be some backhand deal which will give a fair value for BC. No I haven't read the "affordable housing policy", which I am sure will be next off your lips, nor do I really care. Oh. By the way. Thanks for brightening up my afternoon.[/p][/quote]Ah, another 'backhand deal'..... surely you are not suggesting the council will rig that too ? How will they do that ? Give Persimmon a planning concession on the Barbican site for student accommodation, and/or a concession on affordable housing on Germany Beck - in return for an inflated offer for BC ? The deal is probably already done, brokered by Woolley before he retires ? !!! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Thu 17 May 12

KAT1965 says...

Watching some of the recent lower league football made me realise how bad BC looks nowadays.
Watching some of the recent lower league football made me realise how bad BC looks nowadays. KAT1965
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Thu 17 May 12

chickpea says...

I love shopping at Barnitts but they are overpriced and it took them years to decide to open on Sunday's. If their business is failing it's more to do with being behind in the times than out of town shopping.
I love shopping at Barnitts but they are overpriced and it took them years to decide to open on Sunday's. If their business is failing it's more to do with being behind in the times than out of town shopping. chickpea
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Paul2012 wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote:
Paul2012

You've just confirmed to me that you are indeed an idiot ! Every York City fan who cares passionately about the club should be behind this proposal. End of matter.
Unfortunately there is life beyond York City and i'm not convinced it will work for the club ie darlo!

Just because i'm a city fan doesn't mean that comes with a auto Yes to this scheme!

Thinks outside the box and don't let JMP do the thinking for you.
Why do people keep quoting Darlington? A local (colourful) character, who was a convicted safe-breaker and absolute loon decided on building a 25,000, that's 25,000 seater stadium for a club with traditional support of about 2,500. He named it after himself like some kind of despot builds himself palaces in a third world tyranny. It failed. Obviously.

Meanwhile - around the UK we have literally dozens and dozens of out of town stadia that have been successful - Doncaster, Huddersfield, Burton, Morecambe, Shrewsbury, Middlesborough, Scunthorpe and lots, lots more. The average increase in gate at new stadia is about 30%.

Not sure who is doing your thinking for you Paul, but what with this Darlington example and your concept of averages, I think you need to have a quiet word with them!
[quote][p][bold]Paul2012[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Paul2012 You've just confirmed to me that you are indeed an idiot ! Every York City fan who cares passionately about the club should be behind this proposal. End of matter.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately there is life beyond York City and i'm not convinced it will work for the club ie darlo! Just because i'm a city fan doesn't mean that comes with a auto Yes to this scheme! Thinks outside the box and don't let JMP do the thinking for you.[/p][/quote]Why do people keep quoting Darlington? A local (colourful) character, who was a convicted safe-breaker and absolute loon decided on building a 25,000, that's 25,000 seater stadium for a club with traditional support of about 2,500. He named it after himself like some kind of despot builds himself palaces in a third world tyranny. It failed. Obviously. Meanwhile - around the UK we have literally dozens and dozens of out of town stadia that have been successful - Doncaster, Huddersfield, Burton, Morecambe, Shrewsbury, Middlesborough, Scunthorpe and lots, lots more. The average increase in gate at new stadia is about 30%. Not sure who is doing your thinking for you Paul, but what with this Darlington example and your concept of averages, I think you need to have a quiet word with them! Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Thu 17 May 12

PhilipInYork says...

We should rename CFY as Traitors for York. Disgusting lack of education and are self serving traitors.
We should rename CFY as Traitors for York. Disgusting lack of education and are self serving traitors. PhilipInYork
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Thu 17 May 12

onlooker says...

"modern stadium that can be accessed easily from the dual carriageway".
But it's not. Have you never used Hopgrove during rush hour or on holiday weekends?
And why should YCFC be gifted a new stadium for a minority of the local population? The majority of us couldn't care less for football and I dare say there are many local sports clubs who would love to have facilities thrown at them. The stadium is nothing more than a bribe and should be removed from the equation so that the main issue can be rationally debated and a decision taken. If YCFC cannot stand on their own two feet, then tough. Perhaps their supporters should cough-up a bit more and not the rest of us Council Tax payers?
"modern stadium that can be accessed easily from the dual carriageway". But it's not. Have you never used Hopgrove during rush hour or on holiday weekends? And why should YCFC be gifted a new stadium for a minority of the local population? The majority of us couldn't care less for football and I dare say there are many local sports clubs who would love to have facilities thrown at them. The stadium is nothing more than a bribe and should be removed from the equation so that the main issue can be rationally debated and a decision taken. If YCFC cannot stand on their own two feet, then tough. Perhaps their supporters should cough-up a bit more and not the rest of us Council Tax payers? onlooker
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Good grief; how stupid is Richard Lane?

Everyone trying to get into the centre of York will cause much more pollution and congestion. These fools really don't help themselves at times.
Good grief; how stupid is Richard Lane? Everyone trying to get into the centre of York will cause much more pollution and congestion. These fools really don't help themselves at times. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Thu 17 May 12

marcus.cassidy1 says...

thepman wrote:
Jazzper wrote:
Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !!
Yes that's right, the developers, M&S, John Lewis etc are all small owner managed local businesses with no vested interests for themselves or their international shareholders. Then again ignorance is bliss.

As a lifelong York season ticket holder and resident I'd rather see us go part time than sell out to this.
why would you want us to go part time?! we wouldn't get anywhere near the calibre of player's we'd get if we stayed full time!
[quote][p][bold]thepman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !![/p][/quote]Yes that's right, the developers, M&S, John Lewis etc are all small owner managed local businesses with no vested interests for themselves or their international shareholders. Then again ignorance is bliss. As a lifelong York season ticket holder and resident I'd rather see us go part time than sell out to this.[/p][/quote]why would you want us to go part time?! we wouldn't get anywhere near the calibre of player's we'd get if we stayed full time! marcus.cassidy1
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Thu 17 May 12

KAT1965 says...

Yorkie37 wrote:
I live in Haxby, I use the shops at Clifton Moor & Monks X as I can park close buy and get most of what I wany quickly. Its the age we live in i'm afraid. I still use the city centre but unless i've missed something, I really can't see how having a further M & S & a John Lewis is going to "kill the city centre". The tourists will still come and spend there money but alot of the locals use the out of town shopping areas. I'm proud of my City & have two young children whom I want to grow up been proud of their city as well. A city the size of York should have a community staduim & sports centre so the next generation or "Yorkies" can enjoy it.
All the people (tourists, call them what you will) don't come to York because we have an M&S or a John Lewis. They come for the heritage, they come for the culture, they come for the niche shops and eateries, they come because its a **** site better place to be (even on a wet Saturday) than where they come from. They have their own M&S's and JL's but they come to York because York is York. York is so much better than 25-30 years ago and still has much to offer - even with an expanding Monks Cross.

Yes the traffic around Monks Cross will get worse but at the end of the day, the Outer Ring Road has not been fit for purpose for over 20 years and this may be the catalyst that finally gets someone to actually take their head out of the sand to sort it out.
[quote][p][bold]Yorkie37[/bold] wrote: I live in Haxby, I use the shops at Clifton Moor & Monks X as I can park close buy and get most of what I wany quickly. Its the age we live in i'm afraid. I still use the city centre but unless i've missed something, I really can't see how having a further M & S & a John Lewis is going to "kill the city centre". The tourists will still come and spend there money but alot of the locals use the out of town shopping areas. I'm proud of my City & have two young children whom I want to grow up been proud of their city as well. A city the size of York should have a community staduim & sports centre so the next generation or "Yorkies" can enjoy it.[/p][/quote]All the people (tourists, call them what you will) don't come to York because we have an M&S or a John Lewis. They come for the heritage, they come for the culture, they come for the niche shops and eateries, they come because its a **** site better place to be (even on a wet Saturday) than where they come from. They have their own M&S's and JL's but they come to York because York is York. York is so much better than 25-30 years ago and still has much to offer - even with an expanding Monks Cross. Yes the traffic around Monks Cross will get worse but at the end of the day, the Outer Ring Road has not been fit for purpose for over 20 years and this may be the catalyst that finally gets someone to actually take their head out of the sand to sort it out. KAT1965
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

marcus.cassidy1 wrote:
thepman wrote:
Jazzper wrote:
Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !!
Yes that's right, the developers, M&S, John Lewis etc are all small owner managed local businesses with no vested interests for themselves or their international shareholders. Then again ignorance is bliss.

As a lifelong York season ticket holder and resident I'd rather see us go part time than sell out to this.
why would you want us to go part time?! we wouldn't get anywhere near the calibre of player's we'd get if we stayed full time!
Its because he is a very poor troll. No doubt one of the Campaign for Castelford trying to muddy the waters.
[quote][p][bold]marcus.cassidy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thepman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: Let's hope they listen to the people of York and surrounding areas, and not the few rich business men with vested interests....get it built !![/p][/quote]Yes that's right, the developers, M&S, John Lewis etc are all small owner managed local businesses with no vested interests for themselves or their international shareholders. Then again ignorance is bliss. As a lifelong York season ticket holder and resident I'd rather see us go part time than sell out to this.[/p][/quote]why would you want us to go part time?! we wouldn't get anywhere near the calibre of player's we'd get if we stayed full time![/p][/quote]Its because he is a very poor troll. No doubt one of the Campaign for Castelford trying to muddy the waters. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Paul2012

JMP do not do the thinking for me. I represent a Branch of the Supporters Club who passionately care about York City FC. The view from most supporters is get the Stadium built. You're totally clueless about the Darlington situation. Most of your facts are way out. Start posting when you know the full facts and if you were a proper fan, you'd reallise that Part Time football is not the way forward.
Paul2012 JMP do not do the thinking for me. I represent a Branch of the Supporters Club who passionately care about York City FC. The view from most supporters is get the Stadium built. You're totally clueless about the Darlington situation. Most of your facts are way out. Start posting when you know the full facts and if you were a proper fan, you'd reallise that Part Time football is not the way forward. walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Thu 17 May 12

KAT1965 says...

KAT1965 wrote:
Yorkie37 wrote:
I live in Haxby, I use the shops at Clifton Moor & Monks X as I can park close buy and get most of what I wany quickly. Its the age we live in i'm afraid. I still use the city centre but unless i've missed something, I really can't see how having a further M & S & a John Lewis is going to "kill the city centre". The tourists will still come and spend there money but alot of the locals use the out of town shopping areas. I'm proud of my City & have two young children whom I want to grow up been proud of their city as well. A city the size of York should have a community staduim & sports centre so the next generation or "Yorkies" can enjoy it.
All the people (tourists, call them what you will) don't come to York because we have an M&S or a John Lewis. They come for the heritage, they come for the culture, they come for the niche shops and eateries, they come because its a **** site better place to be (even on a wet Saturday) than where they come from. They have their own M&S's and JL's but they come to York because York is York. York is so much better than 25-30 years ago and still has much to offer - even with an expanding Monks Cross.

Yes the traffic around Monks Cross will get worse but at the end of the day, the Outer Ring Road has not been fit for purpose for over 20 years and this may be the catalyst that finally gets someone to actually take their head out of the sand to sort it out.
Can't believe the IT trolls edited out the word beginning with D and ending with N, with A and M in the middle. What a set of @£$%^&*
[quote][p][bold]KAT1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkie37[/bold] wrote: I live in Haxby, I use the shops at Clifton Moor & Monks X as I can park close buy and get most of what I wany quickly. Its the age we live in i'm afraid. I still use the city centre but unless i've missed something, I really can't see how having a further M & S & a John Lewis is going to "kill the city centre". The tourists will still come and spend there money but alot of the locals use the out of town shopping areas. I'm proud of my City & have two young children whom I want to grow up been proud of their city as well. A city the size of York should have a community staduim & sports centre so the next generation or "Yorkies" can enjoy it.[/p][/quote]All the people (tourists, call them what you will) don't come to York because we have an M&S or a John Lewis. They come for the heritage, they come for the culture, they come for the niche shops and eateries, they come because its a **** site better place to be (even on a wet Saturday) than where they come from. They have their own M&S's and JL's but they come to York because York is York. York is so much better than 25-30 years ago and still has much to offer - even with an expanding Monks Cross. Yes the traffic around Monks Cross will get worse but at the end of the day, the Outer Ring Road has not been fit for purpose for over 20 years and this may be the catalyst that finally gets someone to actually take their head out of the sand to sort it out.[/p][/quote]Can't believe the IT trolls edited out the word beginning with D and ending with N, with A and M in the middle. What a set of @£$%^&* KAT1965
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Thu 17 May 12

You're Fired says...

onlooker wrote:
"modern stadium that can be accessed easily from the dual carriageway".
But it's not. Have you never used Hopgrove during rush hour or on holiday weekends?
And why should YCFC be gifted a new stadium for a minority of the local population? The majority of us couldn't care less for football and I dare say there are many local sports clubs who would love to have facilities thrown at them. The stadium is nothing more than a bribe and should be removed from the equation so that the main issue can be rationally debated and a decision taken. If YCFC cannot stand on their own two feet, then tough. Perhaps their supporters should cough-up a bit more and not the rest of us Council Tax payers?
It's being built as a community stadium, for the use of the COMMUNITY! I'm sure at some stage there will be an event of some sort you might want to go to, or maybe not.
[quote][p][bold]onlooker[/bold] wrote: "modern stadium that can be accessed easily from the dual carriageway". But it's not. Have you never used Hopgrove during rush hour or on holiday weekends? And why should YCFC be gifted a new stadium for a minority of the local population? The majority of us couldn't care less for football and I dare say there are many local sports clubs who would love to have facilities thrown at them. The stadium is nothing more than a bribe and should be removed from the equation so that the main issue can be rationally debated and a decision taken. If YCFC cannot stand on their own two feet, then tough. Perhaps their supporters should cough-up a bit more and not the rest of us Council Tax payers?[/p][/quote]It's being built as a community stadium, for the use of the COMMUNITY! I'm sure at some stage there will be an event of some sort you might want to go to, or maybe not. You're Fired
  • Score: 0

2:10pm Thu 17 May 12

ycfcsupporter says...

Paul2012 wrote:
eventually if these plans go ahead this will kill the city centre trades like good shops like Barnitts.

But apparently they have to go ahead or YCFC will die!!

small price to pay when not even 1% of Yorks population support them..
If your talking about YCFC having such low attendances, then why are you so bothered about them moving to MX. Surely it would make no difference to the City Centre.
The M&S in the City Centre will be staying open and a JL won't make much of a difference to the amount of people who shop in the City Centre.
[quote][p][bold]Paul2012[/bold] wrote: eventually if these plans go ahead this will kill the city centre trades like good shops like Barnitts. But apparently they have to go ahead or YCFC will die!! small price to pay when not even 1% of Yorks population support them..[/p][/quote]If your talking about YCFC having such low attendances, then why are you so bothered about them moving to MX. Surely it would make no difference to the City Centre. The M&S in the City Centre will be staying open and a JL won't make much of a difference to the amount of people who shop in the City Centre. ycfcsupporter
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: No answers to this yet, so I'll ask again:- Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ? Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m. I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant ! Do City fans or the McGills know the answer ? They should !
Is this the elephant in the room ?
Nope - this is you boring the pants off with the same question you ask daily... Ever wonder why we're all ignoring you? FWIW I think that there will be some backhand deal which will give a fair value for BC. No I haven't read the "affordable housing policy", which I am sure will be next off your lips, nor do I really care. Oh. By the way. Thanks for brightening up my afternoon.
If you care about your club, and it's main asset - BC - you should care about the damaging effects that the AH policy has done to BC's value !

YCFC are not being endowed with a new ground, they are becoming a tenant. They can't pay their rent, if they haven't got a pot to p*ss in, and when Jason gets his loan money back, what happens then ?
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: No answers to this yet, so I'll ask again:- Will YCFC go bust if the proceeds from the sale of BC are no where near what they expect/hope ? Based on land values used in the Council's AHVS, it will be worth less than £1m. I think this needs to be answered, before they build a stadium that may be minus it's anchor tenant ! Do City fans or the McGills know the answer ? They should ![/p][/quote]Is this the elephant in the room ?[/p][/quote]Nope - this is you boring the pants off with the same question you ask daily... Ever wonder why we're all ignoring you? FWIW I think that there will be some backhand deal which will give a fair value for BC. No I haven't read the "affordable housing policy", which I am sure will be next off your lips, nor do I really care. Oh. By the way. Thanks for brightening up my afternoon.[/p][/quote]If you care about your club, and it's main asset - BC - you should care about the damaging effects that the AH policy has done to BC's value ! YCFC are not being endowed with a new ground, they are becoming a tenant. They can't pay their rent, if they haven't got a pot to p*ss in, and when Jason gets his loan money back, what happens then ? Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Thu 17 May 12

#TheRealObama says...

If people are so against it why didn't they make the effort to be there instead of voicing opinions which make no difference to the outcome anyway...
If people are so against it why didn't they make the effort to be there instead of voicing opinions which make no difference to the outcome anyway... #TheRealObama
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Thu 17 May 12

onlooker says...

ycfcsupporter wrote:
Paul2012 wrote: eventually if these plans go ahead this will kill the city centre trades like good shops like Barnitts. But apparently they have to go ahead or YCFC will die!! small price to pay when not even 1% of Yorks population support them..
If your talking about YCFC having such low attendances, then why are you so bothered about them moving to MX. Surely it would make no difference to the City Centre. The M&S in the City Centre will be staying open and a JL won't make much of a difference to the amount of people who shop in the City Centre.
Wrong. At least one of the M&S in the City Centre will close.
Can somebody answer a simple question?
If YCFC will go bust without this stadium, what would have happened had this proposal not come along? What plans did the Club have to secure its future? Or were they simply sleepwalking over the cliff?
I do not believe this is all or nothing for YCFC.
[quote][p][bold]ycfcsupporter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paul2012[/bold] wrote: eventually if these plans go ahead this will kill the city centre trades like good shops like Barnitts. But apparently they have to go ahead or YCFC will die!! small price to pay when not even 1% of Yorks population support them..[/p][/quote]If your talking about YCFC having such low attendances, then why are you so bothered about them moving to MX. Surely it would make no difference to the City Centre. The M&S in the City Centre will be staying open and a JL won't make much of a difference to the amount of people who shop in the City Centre.[/p][/quote]Wrong. At least one of the M&S in the City Centre will close. Can somebody answer a simple question? If YCFC will go bust without this stadium, what would have happened had this proposal not come along? What plans did the Club have to secure its future? Or were they simply sleepwalking over the cliff? I do not believe this is all or nothing for YCFC. onlooker
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Thu 17 May 12

lemmo says...

This is a community stadium, it will be great for ycfc & Knights, but also the community. A city the size of York should have a large community facility. Also, what else does York do that gets over 1000 local residents together on a regular basis, I can't think of any, but lots of effort & money is put in, to bring tourists into the city centre to spend their money & fill up the B & Bs
This is a community stadium, it will be great for ycfc & Knights, but also the community. A city the size of York should have a large community facility. Also, what else does York do that gets over 1000 local residents together on a regular basis, I can't think of any, but lots of effort & money is put in, to bring tourists into the city centre to spend their money & fill up the B & Bs lemmo
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

#TheRealObama wrote:
If people are so against it why didn't they make the effort to be there instead of voicing opinions which make no difference to the outcome anyway...
As if 'being there' would make a difference to the outcome ?

The outcome was decided before today..... James Alexander and Bill Woolley saw to that !
[quote][p][bold]#TheRealObama[/bold] wrote: If people are so against it why didn't they make the effort to be there instead of voicing opinions which make no difference to the outcome anyway...[/p][/quote]As if 'being there' would make a difference to the outcome ? The outcome was decided before today..... James Alexander and Bill Woolley saw to that ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Mr Crabtree

Are you obsessed with Bill Woolley ?
Mr Crabtree Are you obsessed with Bill Woolley ? walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Thu 17 May 12

TerryYork says...

Here we go. "Loud cheers" to the Yes speeches. The people of York (not outsiders moving here for gift shops) are now speaking!!
Here we go. "Loud cheers" to the Yes speeches. The people of York (not outsiders moving here for gift shops) are now speaking!! TerryYork
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Thu 17 May 12

Sir Alex says...

Jason McGill's comments are mint!
Nice one Jason!
Thanks to Frank as well for putting important views forward.

This will go through!
Jason McGill's comments are mint! Nice one Jason! Thanks to Frank as well for putting important views forward. This will go through! Sir Alex
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Thu 17 May 12

PhilipInYork says...

Great run of Yes vote speeches!

Very clever to get the fools out of the way. Here comes the true voice of York.
Great run of Yes vote speeches! Very clever to get the fools out of the way. Here comes the true voice of York. PhilipInYork
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Thu 17 May 12

DanielBeal+ says...

I'll be studying Business Information Technology @ York St John University in September.

One aspect of York, which I've been attracted to, is it's ability to innovate and adapt to change. York has acquired a number of finance and IT businesses, which is suited towards a modern and adaptable/dynamic local economy.

I personally support the application, as it's balanced and fair.

Benefits:
Community Stadium (Largely Funded By Private Business)

Drawbacks:
3 New Stores (John Lewis, M&S + 1 Unnamed Store)

It's clear that the 3 new stores will result in decreased revenue in the City Centre of York. However, this is marginal at best.

It's vital, that York is seen by investors as welcoming.

By approving the application, additional investors may consider inputting further investment to enhance York.
I'll be studying Business Information Technology @ York St John University in September. One aspect of York, which I've been attracted to, is it's ability to innovate and adapt to change. York has acquired a number of finance and IT businesses, which is suited towards a modern and adaptable/dynamic local economy. I personally support the application, as it's balanced and fair. Benefits: Community Stadium (Largely Funded By Private Business) Drawbacks: 3 New Stores (John Lewis, M&S + 1 Unnamed Store) It's clear that the 3 new stores will result in decreased revenue in the City Centre of York. However, this is marginal at best. It's vital, that York is seen by investors as welcoming. By approving the application, additional investors may consider inputting further investment to enhance York. DanielBeal+
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Mr Crabtree Are you obsessed with Bill Woolley ?
I'm certainly not impressed by him, his achievements (or lack of), the half-truths and misleading reports he allows his officers to use to influence councillors, or the way policies under his watch have caused more economic damage to York than 20 new John Lewis's would make up for.

Obsessed ? NO..... just unimpressed and annoyed at Mr Reality Check's 'strategies'.

If he's so committed, why is he taking early retirement this summer ? Surely he should stay and see the fruits of his labours/policies ? Bill's legacy has yet to be seen, but, I suspect that he is leaving a sinking ship the HMS LDF - sunk without trace, because of this debacle.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Mr Crabtree Are you obsessed with Bill Woolley ?[/p][/quote]I'm certainly not impressed by him, his achievements (or lack of), the half-truths and misleading reports he allows his officers to use to influence councillors, or the way policies under his watch have caused more economic damage to York than 20 new John Lewis's would make up for. Obsessed ? NO..... just unimpressed and annoyed at Mr Reality Check's 'strategies'. If he's so committed, why is he taking early retirement this summer ? Surely he should stay and see the fruits of his labours/policies ? Bill's legacy has yet to be seen, but, I suspect that he is leaving a sinking ship the HMS LDF - sunk without trace, because of this debacle. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Thu 17 May 12

TerryYork says...

Here come the big guns. Showing the no vote is against the city, against investment, against jobs and against sport.

This has to be a yes at the end of the meeting.
Here come the big guns. Showing the no vote is against the city, against investment, against jobs and against sport. This has to be a yes at the end of the meeting. TerryYork
  • Score: 0

2:49pm Thu 17 May 12

Kevin Turvey says...

I quite like the idea of having a stadium on the outskirts of York so we can have some decent bands playing in the area without having to go to Manchester/Sheffield etc for the night!
I am not bothered about the future of a football team underperforming or not though!

It would be stupid for me to be supporting it for the other events reason if I lived close to the proposed site, but as I don’t I am not a NIMBY. But I am duplicitous enough to support it to impact on someone else for my benefit!

Selfish?

Discuss….
I quite like the idea of having a stadium on the outskirts of York so we can have some decent bands playing in the area without having to go to Manchester/Sheffield etc for the night! I am not bothered about the future of a football team underperforming or not though! It would be stupid for me to be supporting it for the other events reason if I lived close to the proposed site, but as I don’t I am not a NIMBY. But I am duplicitous enough to support it to impact on someone else for my benefit! Selfish? Discuss…. Kevin Turvey
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Thu 17 May 12

PhilTopping says...

The tide has turned - I expect the "yes" vote will win by three or four votes. Should be comfortable, and the more "yes" votes the stronger the case when it sits infront of the Secretary of State.
The tide has turned - I expect the "yes" vote will win by three or four votes. Should be comfortable, and the more "yes" votes the stronger the case when it sits infront of the Secretary of State. PhilTopping
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Thu 17 May 12

Jazzper says...

As I said in my first post...lets hope the common sense posted here by real York residents, is also listened to by our Councillors, who after all are our elected representatives. Hear our cry....vote YES !
As I said in my first post...lets hope the common sense posted here by real York residents, is also listened to by our Councillors, who after all are our elected representatives. Hear our cry....vote YES ! Jazzper
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

PhilipInYork wrote:
Great run of Yes vote speeches! Very clever to get the fools out of the way. Here comes the true voice of York.
The Oakgate and YCFC PR machine comes into it's own..... a triumph of self-serving bluster from vested interests, which brushes aside valid concerns and ignores the rules that are being broken with impunity - business and big bucks shouts loudest it seems ? !!!!
[quote][p][bold]PhilipInYork[/bold] wrote: Great run of Yes vote speeches! Very clever to get the fools out of the way. Here comes the true voice of York.[/p][/quote]The Oakgate and YCFC PR machine comes into it's own..... a triumph of self-serving bluster from vested interests, which brushes aside valid concerns and ignores the rules that are being broken with impunity - business and big bucks shouts loudest it seems ? !!!! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Mr Crabtree

Are you obsessed with Bill Woolley ?
Oh God, don't open a dialogue with him. I made that mistake and now he keeps quoting the one post I made because everyone else is ignoring his boring ramble...
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Mr Crabtree Are you obsessed with Bill Woolley ?[/p][/quote]Oh God, don't open a dialogue with him. I made that mistake and now he keeps quoting the one post I made because everyone else is ignoring his boring ramble... speaks99
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

speaks99

Yes, he is a bit of a bore !
speaks99 Yes, he is a bit of a bore ! walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

The difference between the yes and no arguments are there for all to see. On the one hand (against) you have vested interest protectionism, on the other (for) you have community and moving the city forward. Thank goodness the sham of the 'its not community, its all YCFC' brigade have been blasted out of the water once and for all. I've seen community stadia all of the UK and the d&mn well work!
The difference between the yes and no arguments are there for all to see. On the one hand (against) you have vested interest protectionism, on the other (for) you have community and moving the city forward. Thank goodness the sham of the 'its not community, its all YCFC' brigade have been blasted out of the water once and for all. I've seen community stadia all of the UK and the d&mn well work! Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Thu 17 May 12

Jazzper says...

Mr Crabtree....crabby by name, and no doubt by nature !
Mr Crabtree....crabby by name, and no doubt by nature ! Jazzper
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
PhilipInYork wrote:
Great run of Yes vote speeches! Very clever to get the fools out of the way. Here comes the true voice of York.
The Oakgate and YCFC PR machine comes into it's own..... a triumph of self-serving bluster from vested interests, which brushes aside valid concerns and ignores the rules that are being broken with impunity - business and big bucks shouts loudest it seems ? !!!!
York hospital and Active York are vested interests? Ditto Creepy Crawlies and physio facilities?
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PhilipInYork[/bold] wrote: Great run of Yes vote speeches! Very clever to get the fools out of the way. Here comes the true voice of York.[/p][/quote]The Oakgate and YCFC PR machine comes into it's own..... a triumph of self-serving bluster from vested interests, which brushes aside valid concerns and ignores the rules that are being broken with impunity - business and big bucks shouts loudest it seems ? !!!![/p][/quote]York hospital and Active York are vested interests? Ditto Creepy Crawlies and physio facilities? Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Mr Crabtree

If i were on a desert island with you, i'd have to throw you to the sharks ! Thats if i hadn't thrown myself first. You really can talk a glass eye to sleep !
Mr Crabtree If i were on a desert island with you, i'd have to throw you to the sharks ! Thats if i hadn't thrown myself first. You really can talk a glass eye to sleep ! walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Thu 17 May 12

KAT1965 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
PhilipInYork wrote:
Great run of Yes vote speeches! Very clever to get the fools out of the way. Here comes the true voice of York.
The Oakgate and YCFC PR machine comes into it's own..... a triumph of self-serving bluster from vested interests, which brushes aside valid concerns and ignores the rules that are being broken with impunity - business and big bucks shouts loudest it seems ? !!!!
And people like Mr Eggleton don't have a vested interest??

Everyone in one way or another has some degree of vested interest - it all comes down to one thing - is it right for the City of York. In my opinion it is. My vested interest is that I would like to watch my local team in a brand spanking new stadium. But I am also happy for it to be there for others to use (i.e rugby, i.e. concerts, etc).
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PhilipInYork[/bold] wrote: Great run of Yes vote speeches! Very clever to get the fools out of the way. Here comes the true voice of York.[/p][/quote]The Oakgate and YCFC PR machine comes into it's own..... a triumph of self-serving bluster from vested interests, which brushes aside valid concerns and ignores the rules that are being broken with impunity - business and big bucks shouts loudest it seems ? !!!![/p][/quote]And people like Mr Eggleton don't have a vested interest?? Everyone in one way or another has some degree of vested interest - it all comes down to one thing - is it right for the City of York. In my opinion it is. My vested interest is that I would like to watch my local team in a brand spanking new stadium. But I am also happy for it to be there for others to use (i.e rugby, i.e. concerts, etc). KAT1965
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Thu 17 May 12

Yorkie37 says...

Yes I know the Hopgrove roundabout is busy & the A1237 is rubbish, everybody in York knows that, I was simply stating it is close to a dual carriageway (1.5 or so miles away). Are we saying it shouldn't be built at Monks Cross due to traffic? Therefore should we close Bootham Crescent as the traffic on Wiggington Road & Bootham is bad at the best of times. It doesn't matter where it is built, when you have a shopping centre & a stadium there is going to be congestion. New stadiums anywhere have similar issues but have built without any major problems. The location in my view is about right, outskirts of town, close to a dual carriageway, already established park & ride link to city centre.
Yes I know the Hopgrove roundabout is busy & the A1237 is rubbish, everybody in York knows that, I was simply stating it is close to a dual carriageway (1.5 or so miles away). Are we saying it shouldn't be built at Monks Cross due to traffic? Therefore should we close Bootham Crescent as the traffic on Wiggington Road & Bootham is bad at the best of times. It doesn't matter where it is built, when you have a shopping centre & a stadium there is going to be congestion. New stadiums anywhere have similar issues but have built without any major problems. The location in my view is about right, outskirts of town, close to a dual carriageway, already established park & ride link to city centre. Yorkie37
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Thu 17 May 12

yorkonafork says...

Even AndyD wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
PhilipInYork wrote:
Great run of Yes vote speeches! Very clever to get the fools out of the way. Here comes the true voice of York.
The Oakgate and YCFC PR machine comes into it's own..... a triumph of self-serving bluster from vested interests, which brushes aside valid concerns and ignores the rules that are being broken with impunity - business and big bucks shouts loudest it seems ? !!!!
York hospital and Active York are vested interests? Ditto Creepy Crawlies and physio facilities?
Was just going to say.

The anti mobs faced must have dropped when the vast amount of people all from different backgrounds came up to speak so well.

Not quite just the vested interests of Oakgate and YCFC now, is it? :)
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PhilipInYork[/bold] wrote: Great run of Yes vote speeches! Very clever to get the fools out of the way. Here comes the true voice of York.[/p][/quote]The Oakgate and YCFC PR machine comes into it's own..... a triumph of self-serving bluster from vested interests, which brushes aside valid concerns and ignores the rules that are being broken with impunity - business and big bucks shouts loudest it seems ? !!!![/p][/quote]York hospital and Active York are vested interests? Ditto Creepy Crawlies and physio facilities?[/p][/quote]Was just going to say. The anti mobs faced must have dropped when the vast amount of people all from different backgrounds came up to speak so well. Not quite just the vested interests of Oakgate and YCFC now, is it? :) yorkonafork
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Nice one, Gavin, by the way. Like his style of presentation on this feed.
Nice one, Gavin, by the way. Like his style of presentation on this feed. Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

PhilTopping wrote:
The tide has turned - I expect the "yes" vote will win by three or four votes. Should be comfortable, and the more "yes" votes the stronger the case when it sits infront of the Secretary of State.
Sorry, but, it isn't in accordance with the LDF or the NPPF, so is lkely be thrown out at appeal or public inquiry.

Officers and some councillors will realise this.

The fans think it's all over, and in the bag, but, sadly the own-goals will come in injury time, when star striker, Bill Woolley has been substituted, and the opposition bring on bruiser Eric Pickles to score the winner !
[quote][p][bold]PhilTopping[/bold] wrote: The tide has turned - I expect the "yes" vote will win by three or four votes. Should be comfortable, and the more "yes" votes the stronger the case when it sits infront of the Secretary of State.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but, it isn't in accordance with the LDF or the NPPF, so is lkely be thrown out at appeal or public inquiry. Officers and some councillors will realise this. The fans think it's all over, and in the bag, but, sadly the own-goals will come in injury time, when star striker, Bill Woolley has been substituted, and the opposition bring on bruiser Eric Pickles to score the winner ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Thu 17 May 12

PhilipInYork says...

Jazzper wrote:
Mr Crabtree....crabby by name, and no doubt by nature !
Crabtree clearly isn't York born and bred. Probably moved here from some dump of a Birmingham suburb and is upset that York isn't the tourist park of a town he hoped he was moving into.
[quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: Mr Crabtree....crabby by name, and no doubt by nature ![/p][/quote]Crabtree clearly isn't York born and bred. Probably moved here from some dump of a Birmingham suburb and is upset that York isn't the tourist park of a town he hoped he was moving into. PhilipInYork
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
PhilTopping wrote:
The tide has turned - I expect the "yes" vote will win by three or four votes. Should be comfortable, and the more "yes" votes the stronger the case when it sits infront of the Secretary of State.
Sorry, but, it isn't in accordance with the LDF or the NPPF, so is lkely be thrown out at appeal or public inquiry.

Officers and some councillors will realise this.

The fans think it's all over, and in the bag, but, sadly the own-goals will come in injury time, when star striker, Bill Woolley has been substituted, and the opposition bring on bruiser Eric Pickles to score the winner !
Oh God. I'm making a mistake by replying to you again, but here goes:

The governments own OVERIDING objective is for sustainable growth. This trumps your LDF and NPPF and what other acronyms you can think of. As long as it brings through the bacon, it doesn't matter one hoot whether its against current planning policies. England is open for business, and so is York!

*awaiting several quoted responses about Bill Woolley and the Affordable housing policy with trepidation...
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PhilTopping[/bold] wrote: The tide has turned - I expect the "yes" vote will win by three or four votes. Should be comfortable, and the more "yes" votes the stronger the case when it sits infront of the Secretary of State.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but, it isn't in accordance with the LDF or the NPPF, so is lkely be thrown out at appeal or public inquiry. Officers and some councillors will realise this. The fans think it's all over, and in the bag, but, sadly the own-goals will come in injury time, when star striker, Bill Woolley has been substituted, and the opposition bring on bruiser Eric Pickles to score the winner ![/p][/quote]Oh God. I'm making a mistake by replying to you again, but here goes: The governments own OVERIDING objective is for sustainable growth. This trumps your LDF and NPPF and what other acronyms you can think of. As long as it brings through the bacon, it doesn't matter one hoot whether its against current planning policies. England is open for business, and so is York! *awaiting several quoted responses about Bill Woolley and the Affordable housing policy with trepidation... speaks99
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Thu 17 May 12

roskoboskovic says...

taylor and d agorne you don t care about traffic issues on your own doorstep so why the concern about them outside the city.can our councillors really be so small minded and old fashioned and do they really want to be stranded in the 20th century.get a grip and get the thing passed.
taylor and d agorne you don t care about traffic issues on your own doorstep so why the concern about them outside the city.can our councillors really be so small minded and old fashioned and do they really want to be stranded in the 20th century.get a grip and get the thing passed. roskoboskovic
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Thu 17 May 12

Sir Alex says...

Congestion?

Ever been to a Bolton Wanderers evening ko game? (Out of town stadium next to retail).

Its all relative but I am sure our traffic issues are minor in comparison. The ring road to Hopgrove could do to be dualled in due course, but it needs that anyway with existing traffic.

Bring on the investment as the country needs growth, there's not much around. Grab it while u can. Thank you M&S and John Lewis!
Congestion? Ever been to a Bolton Wanderers evening ko game? (Out of town stadium next to retail). Its all relative but I am sure our traffic issues are minor in comparison. The ring road to Hopgrove could do to be dualled in due course, but it needs that anyway with existing traffic. Bring on the investment as the country needs growth, there's not much around. Grab it while u can. Thank you M&S and John Lewis! Sir Alex
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Thu 17 May 12

yellow91 says...

Shopping wise: it's not a case of Monks Cross v York City Centre. It's a case of York v other cities. The number of people going away from York to do their shopping is quite staggering. For a city like York to not have a John Lewis is also quite surprising. Whether there is an alternative location in the city centre, I don't know - I can't think of one off the top of my head.
The stadium is vital for the future of both YCFC and YCK as well as the athletics club. If these clubs were to fall out of existence, then the footfall to the city would decrease anyway, don't overlook the importance of travelling fans coming to the city - although small at the moment - if YCFC get promoted, then there are some big clubs in League Two (e.g. Bradford) who would bring around 1000+ fans. With the right kind of transport links, they would spend money in bars/shops etc in the city centre before travelling out to the new stadium.
Shopping wise: it's not a case of Monks Cross v York City Centre. It's a case of York v other cities. The number of people going away from York to do their shopping is quite staggering. For a city like York to not have a John Lewis is also quite surprising. Whether there is an alternative location in the city centre, I don't know - I can't think of one off the top of my head. The stadium is vital for the future of both YCFC and YCK as well as the athletics club. If these clubs were to fall out of existence, then the footfall to the city would decrease anyway, don't overlook the importance of travelling fans coming to the city - although small at the moment - if YCFC get promoted, then there are some big clubs in League Two (e.g. Bradford) who would bring around 1000+ fans. With the right kind of transport links, they would spend money in bars/shops etc in the city centre before travelling out to the new stadium. yellow91
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Thu 17 May 12

Rubber Lips says...

Kevin Turvey says...
2:49pm Thu 17 May 12

I quite like the idea of having a stadium on the outskirts of York so we can have some decent bands playing in the area without having to go to Manchester/Sheffield etc for the night!
I am not bothered about the future of a football team underperforming or not though!

It would be stupid for me to be supporting it for the other events reason if I lived close to the proposed site, but as I don’t I am not a NIMBY. But I am duplicitous enough to support it to impact on someone else for my benefit!

Selfish?

Discuss….


I think we have other things to discuss today
Kevin Turvey says... 2:49pm Thu 17 May 12 I quite like the idea of having a stadium on the outskirts of York so we can have some decent bands playing in the area without having to go to Manchester/Sheffield etc for the night! I am not bothered about the future of a football team underperforming or not though! It would be stupid for me to be supporting it for the other events reason if I lived close to the proposed site, but as I don’t I am not a NIMBY. But I am duplicitous enough to support it to impact on someone else for my benefit! Selfish? Discuss…. I think we have other things to discuss today Rubber Lips
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: Mr Crabtree Are you obsessed with Bill Woolley ?
Oh God, don't open a dialogue with him. I made that mistake and now he keeps quoting the one post I made because everyone else is ignoring his boring ramble...
Says 'speaks99' who has made, how many posts ? on the stadium threads and had even more dialogue with every man and his dog ?

Takes one, to know one !
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Mr Crabtree Are you obsessed with Bill Woolley ?[/p][/quote]Oh God, don't open a dialogue with him. I made that mistake and now he keeps quoting the one post I made because everyone else is ignoring his boring ramble...[/p][/quote]Says 'speaks99' who has made, how many posts ? on the stadium threads and had even more dialogue with every man and his dog ? Takes one, to know one ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Mr Crabtree If i were on a desert island with you, i'd have to throw you to the sharks ! Thats if i hadn't thrown myself first. You really can talk a glass eye to sleep !
Really ?

You could ignore me, but, you know that I am making strong points, so, rather than debate you chose to insult me. Most do, because they haven't the wit to take me on !
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Mr Crabtree If i were on a desert island with you, i'd have to throw you to the sharks ! Thats if i hadn't thrown myself first. You really can talk a glass eye to sleep ![/p][/quote]Really ? You could ignore me, but, you know that I am making strong points, so, rather than debate you chose to insult me. Most do, because they haven't the wit to take me on ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Thu 17 May 12

gmsgop says...

Thanks to Gavin of the press for giving us a running update- perhaps next time when there is such a major decision to be made the council could gear up for the twenty first century and webinar the whole process- this is quite normal in many countries now- meanwhile Gavin, thanks a poor second best but much appreciated. PS it would be very refreshing if folks posting on this site refrained from personal abuse- it really does devalue the discussion and must give a very poor impression of the city for nonresidents who look at the threads. Please shape up!
Thanks to Gavin of the press for giving us a running update- perhaps next time when there is such a major decision to be made the council could gear up for the twenty first century and webinar the whole process- this is quite normal in many countries now- meanwhile Gavin, thanks a poor second best but much appreciated. PS it would be very refreshing if folks posting on this site refrained from personal abuse- it really does devalue the discussion and must give a very poor impression of the city for nonresidents who look at the threads. Please shape up! gmsgop
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Thu 17 May 12

TheTruthHurts says...

Even AndyD wrote:
Nice one, Gavin, by the way. Like his style of presentation on this feed.
Agreed, It has an air of the BBC's live text for sports events. Its good it hasnt been too delayed, good effort Gav
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Nice one, Gavin, by the way. Like his style of presentation on this feed.[/p][/quote]Agreed, It has an air of the BBC's live text for sports events. Its good it hasnt been too delayed, good effort Gav TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Mr Crabtree

I thought that was quite witty ! We don't want to take you on mate. We know sod all about Bill Woolley !
Mr Crabtree I thought that was quite witty ! We don't want to take you on mate. We know sod all about Bill Woolley ! walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Thu 17 May 12

bolero says...

Interesting to see the comments of the `greens`,greys, blacks and Sinclairs. Totally negative in everything they have to say. Can't face the future and can't face competition. Understandable when you see the exorbitant prices they charge. They have no real interest in York or it's future, only in making money. Ignore them, because the people of York will if they get their own selfish way.
Interesting to see the comments of the `greens`,greys, blacks and Sinclairs. Totally negative in everything they have to say. Can't face the future and can't face competition. Understandable when you see the exorbitant prices they charge. They have no real interest in York or it's future, only in making money. Ignore them, because the people of York will if they get their own selfish way. bolero
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Mr Crabtree

I thought that was quite witty ! We don't want to take you on mate. We know sod all about Bill Woolley !
He should go on Mastermind.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Mr Crabtree I thought that was quite witty ! We don't want to take you on mate. We know sod all about Bill Woolley ![/p][/quote]He should go on Mastermind. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

gmsgop

Its not insulting mate. Its the same repetitive rubbish we're getting fed up of.

Mr Crabtree

How would you like to see the new Stadium developed ? Lets say without the funding from JL and M & S. You want a JL and a Stadium. What is your proposal then ?
gmsgop Its not insulting mate. Its the same repetitive rubbish we're getting fed up of. Mr Crabtree How would you like to see the new Stadium developed ? Lets say without the funding from JL and M & S. You want a JL and a Stadium. What is your proposal then ? walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: Mr Crabtree Are you obsessed with Bill Woolley ?
Oh God, don't open a dialogue with him. I made that mistake and now he keeps quoting the one post I made because everyone else is ignoring his boring ramble...
Says 'speaks99' who has made, how many posts ? on the stadium threads and had even more dialogue with every man and his dog ?

Takes one, to know one !
It was more the fact that you quoted the same post from me three times I believe... And you only ever have one point regardless of who or what you are quoting. Somehow it always goes back to that pesky affordable housing policy. If I didn't know better, I would say you have an axe to grind!!!
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Mr Crabtree Are you obsessed with Bill Woolley ?[/p][/quote]Oh God, don't open a dialogue with him. I made that mistake and now he keeps quoting the one post I made because everyone else is ignoring his boring ramble...[/p][/quote]Says 'speaks99' who has made, how many posts ? on the stadium threads and had even more dialogue with every man and his dog ? Takes one, to know one ![/p][/quote]It was more the fact that you quoted the same post from me three times I believe... And you only ever have one point regardless of who or what you are quoting. Somehow it always goes back to that pesky affordable housing policy. If I didn't know better, I would say you have an axe to grind!!! speaks99
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
PhilTopping wrote: The tide has turned - I expect the "yes" vote will win by three or four votes. Should be comfortable, and the more "yes" votes the stronger the case when it sits infront of the Secretary of State.
Sorry, but, it isn't in accordance with the LDF or the NPPF, so is lkely be thrown out at appeal or public inquiry. Officers and some councillors will realise this. The fans think it's all over, and in the bag, but, sadly the own-goals will come in injury time, when star striker, Bill Woolley has been substituted, and the opposition bring on bruiser Eric Pickles to score the winner !
Oh God. I'm making a mistake by replying to you again, but here goes: The governments own OVERIDING objective is for sustainable growth. This trumps your LDF and NPPF and what other acronyms you can think of. As long as it brings through the bacon, it doesn't matter one hoot whether its against current planning policies. England is open for business, and so is York! *awaiting several quoted responses about Bill Woolley and the Affordable housing policy with trepidation...
Sorry, you are wrong.

MX is not a sustainable location, and fails the sequential test.....

Page 174; item 3.105 of the Planning Officers report says,

'There is no evidence to suggest that Castle Piccadilly is not suitable for both the middle unit and the proposed John Lewis store subject to some
flexibility which is required as set out within the NPPF. For this reason, it is considered that the application fails the sequential test.'
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PhilTopping[/bold] wrote: The tide has turned - I expect the "yes" vote will win by three or four votes. Should be comfortable, and the more "yes" votes the stronger the case when it sits infront of the Secretary of State.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but, it isn't in accordance with the LDF or the NPPF, so is lkely be thrown out at appeal or public inquiry. Officers and some councillors will realise this. The fans think it's all over, and in the bag, but, sadly the own-goals will come in injury time, when star striker, Bill Woolley has been substituted, and the opposition bring on bruiser Eric Pickles to score the winner ![/p][/quote]Oh God. I'm making a mistake by replying to you again, but here goes: The governments own OVERIDING objective is for sustainable growth. This trumps your LDF and NPPF and what other acronyms you can think of. As long as it brings through the bacon, it doesn't matter one hoot whether its against current planning policies. England is open for business, and so is York! *awaiting several quoted responses about Bill Woolley and the Affordable housing policy with trepidation...[/p][/quote]Sorry, you are wrong. MX is not a sustainable location, and fails the sequential test..... Page 174; item 3.105 of the Planning Officers report says, 'There is no evidence to suggest that Castle Piccadilly is not suitable for both the middle unit and the proposed John Lewis store subject to some flexibility which is required as set out within the NPPF. For this reason, it is considered that the application fails the sequential test.' Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?
Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ? walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Angryandfrustrated

Living up to your name there ! Thought you might be pleased that the Football Club is moving away from where you live. More space to park etc on matchday.
Angryandfrustrated Living up to your name there ! Thought you might be pleased that the Football Club is moving away from where you live. More space to park etc on matchday. walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Adam Sinclair flip-floping again.
Adam Sinclair flip-floping again. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Mr Sinclair saying his previous objection to Coppergate II was based on it potential impact to Cliffords Tower!! No - what he said was this:-

17th May 2002 - Coppergate will put York's specialist shops out of business..
Adam Sinclair, Chairman of York Chamber of Trade, claimed that established retailers elsewhere in York would not be able to compete on a level playing field with the £60 million Coppergate development. He said that there was a "frightening and intimidating" threat to the viability of other parts of the city centre, he also pointed out that demand for retail space in the city was already so poor that units at Stonegate Walk had not been let after a year on the market.

Is it just be, or was that blatant lying?
Mr Sinclair saying his previous objection to Coppergate II was based on it potential impact to Cliffords Tower!! No - what he said was this:- 17th May 2002 - Coppergate will put York's specialist shops out of business.. Adam Sinclair, Chairman of York Chamber of Trade, claimed that established retailers elsewhere in York would not be able to compete on a level playing field with the £60 million Coppergate development. He said that there was a "frightening and intimidating" threat to the viability of other parts of the city centre, he also pointed out that demand for retail space in the city was already so poor that units at Stonegate Walk had not been let after a year on the market. Is it just be, or was that blatant lying? Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Thu 17 May 12

JC42 says...

roskoboskovic wrote:
taylor and d agorne you don t care about traffic issues on your own doorstep so why the concern about them outside the city.can our councillors really be so small minded and old fashioned and do they really want to be stranded in the 20th century.get a grip and get the thing passed.
they dont care about it ??? you want to see the mess the pair of them have created uo in fulford cross they dont want residents to park there cars in the street but its ok to dump your cars on the double yellow lines that are near the school . They are a total waste of space so dont bank on there support
[quote][p][bold]roskoboskovic[/bold] wrote: taylor and d agorne you don t care about traffic issues on your own doorstep so why the concern about them outside the city.can our councillors really be so small minded and old fashioned and do they really want to be stranded in the 20th century.get a grip and get the thing passed.[/p][/quote]they dont care about it ??? you want to see the mess the pair of them have created uo in fulford cross they dont want residents to park there cars in the street but its ok to dump your cars on the double yellow lines that are near the school . They are a total waste of space so dont bank on there support JC42
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

onlooker

I think you should phone the Samaritans !
onlooker I think you should phone the Samaritans ! walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?
John Lewis would fund their store, with a developer, just like they are doing with Oakgate. Ideally the stadium should be privately funded.

I know it bores you and others, but, BC's value is being sidestepped, and this must be an important and critical issue that affects the viability of YCFC. If the sale proceeds fail to repay the club's debts, isn't the club bankrupt ? It is not good enough to assume that a backhanded deal will be done to nullify the diminution of value caused by the abominable affordable housing policy. The truth needs to be known about this, before the council ends up with a £19m 'asset' with no tenant - in other words a white elephant !
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?[/p][/quote]John Lewis would fund their store, with a developer, just like they are doing with Oakgate. Ideally the stadium should be privately funded. I know it bores you and others, but, BC's value is being sidestepped, and this must be an important and critical issue that affects the viability of YCFC. If the sale proceeds fail to repay the club's debts, isn't the club bankrupt ? It is not good enough to assume that a backhanded deal will be done to nullify the diminution of value caused by the abominable affordable housing policy. The truth needs to be known about this, before the council ends up with a £19m 'asset' with no tenant - in other words a white elephant ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Thu 17 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?
John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get.

As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so.

As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium.

Simples
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?[/p][/quote]John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples AngryandFrustrated
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Thu 17 May 12

Stupidyorkpeople says...

get it passed ! Come on , too much talk - more action needed
get it passed ! Come on , too much talk - more action needed Stupidyorkpeople
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Adam Sinclair is one big hypocrite. His Father must be cringing every time he opens his mouth !
Adam Sinclair is one big hypocrite. His Father must be cringing every time he opens his mouth ! walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Thu 17 May 12

scooby30pigs says...

Get it built i don't go into town much due to the cost of parking its ridiculous. Also the bus service costs too much too. I say get it built we need something like this its great having an out of town shopping centre, you are not going to take anything away from york city centre as its a tourist trap and there are plenty of local people that still go into the centre. Don't stop it you boring people let something good happen for once in York!!!!!!!
Get it built i don't go into town much due to the cost of parking its ridiculous. Also the bus service costs too much too. I say get it built we need something like this its great having an out of town shopping centre, you are not going to take anything away from york city centre as its a tourist trap and there are plenty of local people that still go into the centre. Don't stop it you boring people let something good happen for once in York!!!!!!! scooby30pigs
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote:
Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?
John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get.

As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so.

As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium.

Simples
No private company is being given anything. YCFC and YCK will pay RENT to use the new stadium.

Why do you ignore that simple premiss? If you owned a business, you may well rent somewhere to house it.

The truth is we get a stadium on the (very) cheap which has multiple uses, many of them community orientated, and the two private companies using it regularly PAY RENT.
Does that now make you less angry and frustrated? :-)
[quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?[/p][/quote]John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples[/p][/quote]No private company is being given anything. YCFC and YCK will pay RENT to use the new stadium. Why do you ignore that simple premiss? If you owned a business, you may well rent somewhere to house it. The truth is we get a stadium on the (very) cheap which has multiple uses, many of them community orientated, and the two private companies using it regularly PAY RENT. Does that now make you less angry and frustrated? :-) Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Mr Crabtree

You are talking **** ! You deserve the crap you're getting on here. Do you read the newspapers, do you listen to the radio. Do you look at the York City website. You will be quite happy to see YOUR local Football Club go Part Time and eventually fold will you ? The annual costs to maintain BC will be far greater than the rent on a new stadium. You're pathetic man !
Mr Crabtree You are talking **** ! You deserve the crap you're getting on here. Do you read the newspapers, do you listen to the radio. Do you look at the York City website. You will be quite happy to see YOUR local Football Club go Part Time and eventually fold will you ? The annual costs to maintain BC will be far greater than the rent on a new stadium. You're pathetic man ! walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Thu 17 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Angryandfrustrated Living up to your name there ! Thought you might be pleased that the Football Club is moving away from where you live. More space to park etc on matchday.
You really are an odious little troll. I don't need more space to park as I rent a garage. I have absolutely no problem with parking on match days because (and I question if you have ever been to BC) the area I live in is covered by the RESPARK scheme, as it a lot of the area around the ground.

And by the way, I agree Walwyn was a YCFC god having watched him play over many years in the 1980s. I was also there when he suffered appaulling abuse from the Liverpool fans at Anfield during the FA Cup 5th round replay. Please don't tarnish his good name and reputation by being an internet troll - he'd be turning in his grave at your snide comments to everyone.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Angryandfrustrated Living up to your name there ! Thought you might be pleased that the Football Club is moving away from where you live. More space to park etc on matchday.[/p][/quote]You really are an odious little troll. I don't need more space to park as I rent a garage. I have absolutely no problem with parking on match days because (and I question if you have ever been to BC) the area I live in is covered by the RESPARK scheme, as it a lot of the area around the ground. And by the way, I agree Walwyn was a YCFC god having watched him play over many years in the 1980s. I was also there when he suffered appaulling abuse from the Liverpool fans at Anfield during the FA Cup 5th round replay. Please don't tarnish his good name and reputation by being an internet troll - he'd be turning in his grave at your snide comments to everyone. AngryandFrustrated
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Hearing reports that the Anti-York brigade are trying to intimidate those speaking for the scheme.

The campaign for castleford should hang their heads in shame.
Hearing reports that the Anti-York brigade are trying to intimidate those speaking for the scheme. The campaign for castleford should hang their heads in shame. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Thu 17 May 12

onlooker says...

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?
John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples
I ask again.......
If YCFC will go bust without this stadium, what would have happened had this proposal not come along? What plans did the Club have to secure its future? Or were they simply sleepwalking over the cliff?
I do not believe this is all or nothing for YCFC. Can anyone explain?
[quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?[/p][/quote]John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples[/p][/quote]I ask again....... If YCFC will go bust without this stadium, what would have happened had this proposal not come along? What plans did the Club have to secure its future? Or were they simply sleepwalking over the cliff? I do not believe this is all or nothing for YCFC. Can anyone explain? onlooker
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Sorry to all the decent posters on here about my last comment. Some people on here are clueless.

Mr Crabtree

Stick to what you know you're talking about. John Lewis and M&S are funding the scheme. YCFC and YCK are paying rent.
Sorry to all the decent posters on here about my last comment. Some people on here are clueless. Mr Crabtree Stick to what you know you're talking about. John Lewis and M&S are funding the scheme. YCFC and YCK are paying rent. walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Thu 17 May 12

Ichabod76 says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Mr Crabtree

You are talking **** ! You deserve the crap you're getting on here. Do you read the newspapers, do you listen to the radio. Do you look at the York City website. You will be quite happy to see YOUR local Football Club go Part Time and eventually fold will you ? The annual costs to maintain BC will be far greater than the rent on a new stadium. You're pathetic man !
You do realise this is not all about the football club don't you ?
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Mr Crabtree You are talking **** ! You deserve the crap you're getting on here. Do you read the newspapers, do you listen to the radio. Do you look at the York City website. You will be quite happy to see YOUR local Football Club go Part Time and eventually fold will you ? The annual costs to maintain BC will be far greater than the rent on a new stadium. You're pathetic man ![/p][/quote]You do realise this is not all about the football club don't you ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Thu 17 May 12

Stupidyorkpeople says...

York could also do with a large music / concert arena - like MEN in Manchester . Get one built - get Madonna , JLS , Strictly come Dancing etc - and lets start to enjoy ourselves and party !!!
Too many miserable old gits in York !
York could also do with a large music / concert arena - like MEN in Manchester . Get one built - get Madonna , JLS , Strictly come Dancing etc - and lets start to enjoy ourselves and party !!! Too many miserable old gits in York ! Stupidyorkpeople
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Thu 17 May 12

Ichabod76 says...

onlooker wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?
John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples
I ask again.......
If YCFC will go bust without this stadium, what would have happened had this proposal not come along? What plans did the Club have to secure its future? Or were they simply sleepwalking over the cliff?
I do not believe this is all or nothing for YCFC. Can anyone explain?
If YCFC go bust with this stadium
who will pay the rent ?

Taxpayer ?
[quote][p][bold]onlooker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?[/p][/quote]John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples[/p][/quote]I ask again....... If YCFC will go bust without this stadium, what would have happened had this proposal not come along? What plans did the Club have to secure its future? Or were they simply sleepwalking over the cliff? I do not believe this is all or nothing for YCFC. Can anyone explain?[/p][/quote]If YCFC go bust with this stadium who will pay the rent ? Taxpayer ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
Even AndyD wrote: Nice one, Gavin, by the way. Like his style of presentation on this feed.
Agreed, It has an air of the BBC's live text for sports events. Its good it hasnt been too delayed, good effort Gav
Totally agree..... you've done an excellent job, Gavin. Nice one, mate !
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Nice one, Gavin, by the way. Like his style of presentation on this feed.[/p][/quote]Agreed, It has an air of the BBC's live text for sports events. Its good it hasnt been too delayed, good effort Gav[/p][/quote]Totally agree..... you've done an excellent job, Gavin. Nice one, mate ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Thu 17 May 12

Ichabod76 says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Sorry to all the decent posters on here about my last comment. Some people on here are clueless.

Mr Crabtree

Stick to what you know you're talking about. John Lewis and M&S are funding the scheme. YCFC and YCK are paying rent.
If YCFC go bust with this stadium
who will pay the rent ?

Taxpayer ?
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Sorry to all the decent posters on here about my last comment. Some people on here are clueless. Mr Crabtree Stick to what you know you're talking about. John Lewis and M&S are funding the scheme. YCFC and YCK are paying rent.[/p][/quote]If YCFC go bust with this stadium who will pay the rent ? Taxpayer ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Thu 17 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

Even AndyD wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?
John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples
No private company is being given anything. YCFC and YCK will pay RENT to use the new stadium. Why do you ignore that simple premiss? If you owned a business, you may well rent somewhere to house it. The truth is we get a stadium on the (very) cheap which has multiple uses, many of them community orientated, and the two private companies using it regularly PAY RENT. Does that now make you less angry and frustrated? :-)
The truth is that CofYC have already committed to ploughing tax payers money into the scheme along with Oakgate et al. I absolutely get that rent will be paid - that is of course on the premise (note the spelling) that both YCFC and the Knights remain in business. The Knights have teetered ever since moving to Monks Cross and there is nothing to suggest that YCFC won't go the same way. If they do, just who do you think will want to rent a sports staduim?
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?[/p][/quote]John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples[/p][/quote]No private company is being given anything. YCFC and YCK will pay RENT to use the new stadium. Why do you ignore that simple premiss? If you owned a business, you may well rent somewhere to house it. The truth is we get a stadium on the (very) cheap which has multiple uses, many of them community orientated, and the two private companies using it regularly PAY RENT. Does that now make you less angry and frustrated? :-)[/p][/quote]The truth is that CofYC have already committed to ploughing tax payers money into the scheme along with Oakgate et al. I absolutely get that rent will be paid - that is of course on the premise (note the spelling) that both YCFC and the Knights remain in business. The Knights have teetered ever since moving to Monks Cross and there is nothing to suggest that YCFC won't go the same way. If they do, just who do you think will want to rent a sports staduim? AngryandFrustrated
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated.

First of all, i am not little. I'm large and overweight ! I probably know Bootham Crescent quite well having not missed a Home game since August 1978. Keith Walwyn was every York fans hero. He did get abuse by the Liverpool Supporters (probably the last time you went to a game !). Keith would have supported the move to the new stadium, as his 2 sons are very sports minded people. I think i've touched a nerve and you've reacted.
AngryandFrustrated. First of all, i am not little. I'm large and overweight ! I probably know Bootham Crescent quite well having not missed a Home game since August 1978. Keith Walwyn was every York fans hero. He did get abuse by the Liverpool Supporters (probably the last time you went to a game !). Keith would have supported the move to the new stadium, as his 2 sons are very sports minded people. I think i've touched a nerve and you've reacted. walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
TheTruthHurts wrote:
Even AndyD wrote: Nice one, Gavin, by the way. Like his style of presentation on this feed.
Agreed, It has an air of the BBC's live text for sports events. Its good it hasnt been too delayed, good effort Gav
Totally agree..... you've done an excellent job, Gavin. Nice one, mate !
Ha ha! We agree at last!! Well done both Mr C and Gavin!
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Nice one, Gavin, by the way. Like his style of presentation on this feed.[/p][/quote]Agreed, It has an air of the BBC's live text for sports events. Its good it hasnt been too delayed, good effort Gav[/p][/quote]Totally agree..... you've done an excellent job, Gavin. Nice one, mate ![/p][/quote]Ha ha! We agree at last!! Well done both Mr C and Gavin! speaks99
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

onlooker wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?
John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples
I ask again.......
If YCFC will go bust without this stadium, what would have happened had this proposal not come along? What plans did the Club have to secure its future? Or were they simply sleepwalking over the cliff?
I do not believe this is all or nothing for YCFC. Can anyone explain?
When Douglas Craig sold the ground from under the club, we had to buy it back. This necessitated a huge plan. The FF loan which we used could only be a grant if we moved. Hence all this was born.
You can say if, if, if but the club have been in York since 1922 continuously, if this is passed, I see no reason why the should not have another 90yrs. You can say 'if' about anything can't you and nothing would get built.

But you have a rent paying club who have had a decent size following for the last 90yrs. In today's world, that is a decent enough bet imho.
[quote][p][bold]onlooker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?[/p][/quote]John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples[/p][/quote]I ask again....... If YCFC will go bust without this stadium, what would have happened had this proposal not come along? What plans did the Club have to secure its future? Or were they simply sleepwalking over the cliff? I do not believe this is all or nothing for YCFC. Can anyone explain?[/p][/quote]When Douglas Craig sold the ground from under the club, we had to buy it back. This necessitated a huge plan. The FF loan which we used could only be a grant if we moved. Hence all this was born. You can say if, if, if but the club have been in York since 1922 continuously, if this is passed, I see no reason why the should not have another 90yrs. You can say 'if' about anything can't you and nothing would get built. But you have a rent paying club who have had a decent size following for the last 90yrs. In today's world, that is a decent enough bet imho. Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

4:57pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

And this plan didn't 'come along', Onlooker, it was born out of necessity and actively sought. After the Craig deed in 2002ish, it was the only viable option left. Go civic and rent.
And this plan didn't 'come along', Onlooker, it was born out of necessity and actively sought. After the Craig deed in 2002ish, it was the only viable option left. Go civic and rent. Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

Even AndyD wrote:
onlooker wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?
John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples
I ask again.......
If YCFC will go bust without this stadium, what would have happened had this proposal not come along? What plans did the Club have to secure its future? Or were they simply sleepwalking over the cliff?
I do not believe this is all or nothing for YCFC. Can anyone explain?
When Douglas Craig sold the ground from under the club, we had to buy it back. This necessitated a huge plan. The FF loan which we used could only be a grant if we moved. Hence all this was born.
You can say if, if, if but the club have been in York since 1922 continuously, if this is passed, I see no reason why the should not have another 90yrs. You can say 'if' about anything can't you and nothing would get built.

But you have a rent paying club who have had a decent size following for the last 90yrs. In today's world, that is a decent enough bet imho.
Of course we'd still be in the same mess even if Douglas Craig hadn't come along... I mean, have you heard of the affordable housing policy?
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]onlooker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?[/p][/quote]John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples[/p][/quote]I ask again....... If YCFC will go bust without this stadium, what would have happened had this proposal not come along? What plans did the Club have to secure its future? Or were they simply sleepwalking over the cliff? I do not believe this is all or nothing for YCFC. Can anyone explain?[/p][/quote]When Douglas Craig sold the ground from under the club, we had to buy it back. This necessitated a huge plan. The FF loan which we used could only be a grant if we moved. Hence all this was born. You can say if, if, if but the club have been in York since 1922 continuously, if this is passed, I see no reason why the should not have another 90yrs. You can say 'if' about anything can't you and nothing would get built. But you have a rent paying club who have had a decent size following for the last 90yrs. In today's world, that is a decent enough bet imho.[/p][/quote]Of course we'd still be in the same mess even if Douglas Craig hadn't come along... I mean, have you heard of the affordable housing policy? speaks99
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Thu 17 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Anyway, before anyone reacts again. This is not just about the Football and other sporting clubs. Its about Job creation and improving facilities for the people of York. Enough said for me. Mr Crabtree and AngryandFrustrated have your opinion, but don't claim to be YCFC fans because you're clearly not. Otherwise, you'd be 100% behind the proposal.
Anyway, before anyone reacts again. This is not just about the Football and other sporting clubs. Its about Job creation and improving facilities for the people of York. Enough said for me. Mr Crabtree and AngryandFrustrated have your opinion, but don't claim to be YCFC fans because you're clearly not. Otherwise, you'd be 100% behind the proposal. walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Mr Crabtree You are talking **** ! You deserve the crap you're getting on here. Do you read the newspapers, do you listen to the radio. Do you look at the York City website. You will be quite happy to see YOUR local Football Club go Part Time and eventually fold will you ? The annual costs to maintain BC will be far greater than the rent on a new stadium. You're pathetic man !
Sorry, not my problem, not CoYC's problem either.

It's McGill's club, and his responsibility.

I deal in facts, not emotional blackmail, threats and insults. You have lost the argument, so stop blaming everyone else for your club's mismanagement of it's business.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Mr Crabtree You are talking **** ! You deserve the crap you're getting on here. Do you read the newspapers, do you listen to the radio. Do you look at the York City website. You will be quite happy to see YOUR local Football Club go Part Time and eventually fold will you ? The annual costs to maintain BC will be far greater than the rent on a new stadium. You're pathetic man ![/p][/quote]Sorry, not my problem, not CoYC's problem either. It's McGill's club, and his responsibility. I deal in facts, not emotional blackmail, threats and insults. You have lost the argument, so stop blaming everyone else for your club's mismanagement of it's business. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Thu 17 May 12

Paul2012 says...

"4.26pm - Sophie Hicks from York City FC is asked to clarify what the impact would be on the club's community activities if the plan was refused today. She is very emotional as she extols the virtues of the club's community work, and says that if the plan were refused, the club would have to cut its budget and would have no choice but to reduce the community and youth programmes. She said earlier than players were role models and had attended 70 events this season."

Really going that low,dear dear!!
"4.26pm - Sophie Hicks from York City FC is asked to clarify what the impact would be on the club's community activities if the plan was refused today. She is very emotional as she extols the virtues of the club's community work, and says that if the plan were refused, the club would have to cut its budget and would have no choice but to reduce the community and youth programmes. She said earlier than players were role models and had attended 70 events this season." Really going that low,dear dear!! Paul2012
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?
John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples
No private company is being given anything. YCFC and YCK will pay RENT to use the new stadium. Why do you ignore that simple premiss? If you owned a business, you may well rent somewhere to house it. The truth is we get a stadium on the (very) cheap which has multiple uses, many of them community orientated, and the two private companies using it regularly PAY RENT. Does that now make you less angry and frustrated? :-)
The truth is that CofYC have already committed to ploughing tax payers money into the scheme along with Oakgate et al. I absolutely get that rent will be paid - that is of course on the premise (note the spelling) that both YCFC and the Knights remain in business. The Knights have teetered ever since moving to Monks Cross and there is nothing to suggest that YCFC won't go the same way. If they do, just who do you think will want to rent a sports staduim?
You know someone is being petty when they go down the spelling-correction route. If you go on-line however, you will find both premise and premiss are correct.

Meanwhile, the Wasps went bust for many reasons and had problems prior to the move, which is precisely why Clarence St had to be sold. The other issue with the Wasps was the franchising of rugby league which had a negative impact on the credibility of the sport from a spectators point of view.

I'm not having a dig here, just correcting the facts as I see them.
[quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?[/p][/quote]John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples[/p][/quote]No private company is being given anything. YCFC and YCK will pay RENT to use the new stadium. Why do you ignore that simple premiss? If you owned a business, you may well rent somewhere to house it. The truth is we get a stadium on the (very) cheap which has multiple uses, many of them community orientated, and the two private companies using it regularly PAY RENT. Does that now make you less angry and frustrated? :-)[/p][/quote]The truth is that CofYC have already committed to ploughing tax payers money into the scheme along with Oakgate et al. I absolutely get that rent will be paid - that is of course on the premise (note the spelling) that both YCFC and the Knights remain in business. The Knights have teetered ever since moving to Monks Cross and there is nothing to suggest that YCFC won't go the same way. If they do, just who do you think will want to rent a sports staduim?[/p][/quote]You know someone is being petty when they go down the spelling-correction route. If you go on-line however, you will find both premise and premiss are correct. Meanwhile, the Wasps went bust for many reasons and had problems prior to the move, which is precisely why Clarence St had to be sold. The other issue with the Wasps was the franchising of rugby league which had a negative impact on the credibility of the sport from a spectators point of view. I'm not having a dig here, just correcting the facts as I see them. Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Thu 17 May 12

gmsgop says...

Gavin, thanks for uploading the photo of the committee room in the park inn. We should aim for all committees to be laid out so that the public see the debate and the discussion, rather than the usual which is to be stuck along the edge of a room staring at committee members backs- this approach today is so much more inclusive- the council should aim to have a c or u-shape of committee members debating with the public looking on- also it should be clear who the members are who make the decisions and those who are officers just advising- if the council wants genuine engagement and transparency, they should address these simple abc's of good governance. Nice to see at least it was done today.
Gavin, thanks for uploading the photo of the committee room in the park inn. We should aim for all committees to be laid out so that the public see the debate and the discussion, rather than the usual which is to be stuck along the edge of a room staring at committee members backs- this approach today is so much more inclusive- the council should aim to have a c or u-shape of committee members debating with the public looking on- also it should be clear who the members are who make the decisions and those who are officers just advising- if the council wants genuine engagement and transparency, they should address these simple abc's of good governance. Nice to see at least it was done today. gmsgop
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

Paul2012 wrote:
"4.26pm - Sophie Hicks from York City FC is asked to clarify what the impact would be on the club's community activities if the plan was refused today. She is very emotional as she extols the virtues of the club's community work, and says that if the plan were refused, the club would have to cut its budget and would have no choice but to reduce the community and youth programmes. She said earlier than players were role models and had attended 70 events this season."

Really going that low,dear dear!!
Part time players can't be expected to drop what they are doing to go visit a school, hospital, childrens centre. Full time professional players can.

Simple as that really...
[quote][p][bold]Paul2012[/bold] wrote: "4.26pm - Sophie Hicks from York City FC is asked to clarify what the impact would be on the club's community activities if the plan was refused today. She is very emotional as she extols the virtues of the club's community work, and says that if the plan were refused, the club would have to cut its budget and would have no choice but to reduce the community and youth programmes. She said earlier than players were role models and had attended 70 events this season." Really going that low,dear dear!![/p][/quote]Part time players can't be expected to drop what they are doing to go visit a school, hospital, childrens centre. Full time professional players can. Simple as that really... speaks99
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Thu 17 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated. First of all, i am not little. I'm large and overweight ! I probably know Bootham Crescent quite well having not missed a Home game since August 1978. Keith Walwyn was every York fans hero. He did get abuse by the Liverpool Supporters (probably the last time you went to a game !). Keith would have supported the move to the new stadium, as his 2 sons are very sports minded people. I think i've touched a nerve and you've reacted.
There you go again, you odious overweight troll! You know nothing about me, and trust me, you haven't hit a nerve. I have, however, reacted to your trolling, abuse and generally shi**y comments to everyone who does not agree with your views.

As for your comment about Keith, the one thing I knew about him was that he wouldn't support the move, if he thought it could put the club at risk. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and on this scheme, it is available - I repeat my comments about the devestating effect moving to Huntington had on the old Rugby League team - attendances plummeted, money ran out and over the years, they have lurched from one financial crisis to another. Also look at the Darlington model - some of the arguments here are the exact same arguments that were used for their planning application - didn't do them any good and now there is talk of ripping the stadium down.

Be very careful what you wish for.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated. First of all, i am not little. I'm large and overweight ! I probably know Bootham Crescent quite well having not missed a Home game since August 1978. Keith Walwyn was every York fans hero. He did get abuse by the Liverpool Supporters (probably the last time you went to a game !). Keith would have supported the move to the new stadium, as his 2 sons are very sports minded people. I think i've touched a nerve and you've reacted.[/p][/quote]There you go again, you odious overweight troll! You know nothing about me, and trust me, you haven't hit a nerve. I have, however, reacted to your trolling, abuse and generally shi**y comments to everyone who does not agree with your views. As for your comment about Keith, the one thing I knew about him was that he wouldn't support the move, if he thought it could put the club at risk. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and on this scheme, it is available - I repeat my comments about the devestating effect moving to Huntington had on the old Rugby League team - attendances plummeted, money ran out and over the years, they have lurched from one financial crisis to another. Also look at the Darlington model - some of the arguments here are the exact same arguments that were used for their planning application - didn't do them any good and now there is talk of ripping the stadium down. Be very careful what you wish for. AngryandFrustrated
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

I refer the angry gentleman to my previous reply as to why Darlington is not a apposite example. And for every Darlington there is a Burton, Huddersfield, Shrewsbury, Scunthorpe, Chesterfield, Doncaster, etc etc.
I refer the angry gentleman to my previous reply as to why Darlington is not a apposite example. And for every Darlington there is a Burton, Huddersfield, Shrewsbury, Scunthorpe, Chesterfield, Doncaster, etc etc. Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Thu 17 May 12

Sir Alex says...

City centre footfall benefitting from weak £ which means more UK and foreign visitors to weigh against the arguments the city centre folk are making.
Good point councillor.
City centre footfall benefitting from weak £ which means more UK and foreign visitors to weigh against the arguments the city centre folk are making. Good point councillor. Sir Alex
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99

Thanks for mentioning that horrible AH policy, mate.

Get with the programme, campaign against it, and get a better deal for BC and the club.

Tell Woolley that he may have got you a new ground to rent, but, that HIS policy may bankrupt the club before they get the keys.

BC + AH = BANKRUPTCY = NO CLUB = NO RENT !

You know it makes sense ;-).
speaks99 Thanks for mentioning that horrible AH policy, mate. Get with the programme, campaign against it, and get a better deal for BC and the club. Tell Woolley that he may have got you a new ground to rent, but, that HIS policy may bankrupt the club before they get the keys. BC + AH = BANKRUPTCY = NO CLUB = NO RENT ! You know it makes sense ;-). Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Thu 17 May 12

Brickyard says...

Very interesting comments in this public debate today, can I make a suggestion to the Y.P. could you put the latest post or comment at the start of the debate, scrolling through all this is a pain, when you want to make a comment. I see, Radio York, Minster FM this publication, and the York council and it's employees are doing a great job, pulling the wool over peoples eyes, oh I forgot please include the half dozen YCFC supporters. Over and out.
Very interesting comments in this public debate today, can I make a suggestion to the Y.P. could you put the latest post or comment at the start of the debate, scrolling through all this is a pain, when you want to make a comment. I see, Radio York, Minster FM this publication, and the York council and it's employees are doing a great job, pulling the wool over peoples eyes, oh I forgot please include the half dozen YCFC supporters. Over and out. Brickyard
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Thu 17 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

Even AndyD wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?
John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples
No private company is being given anything. YCFC and YCK will pay RENT to use the new stadium. Why do you ignore that simple premiss? If you owned a business, you may well rent somewhere to house it. The truth is we get a stadium on the (very) cheap which has multiple uses, many of them community orientated, and the two private companies using it regularly PAY RENT. Does that now make you less angry and frustrated? :-)
The truth is that CofYC have already committed to ploughing tax payers money into the scheme along with Oakgate et al. I absolutely get that rent will be paid - that is of course on the premise (note the spelling) that both YCFC and the Knights remain in business. The Knights have teetered ever since moving to Monks Cross and there is nothing to suggest that YCFC won't go the same way. If they do, just who do you think will want to rent a sports staduim?
You know someone is being petty when they go down the spelling-correction route. If you go on-line however, you will find both premise and premiss are correct. Meanwhile, the Wasps went bust for many reasons and had problems prior to the move, which is precisely why Clarence St had to be sold. The other issue with the Wasps was the franchising of rugby league which had a negative impact on the credibility of the sport from a spectators point of view. I'm not having a dig here, just correcting the facts as I see them.
Touche - petty I was regarding the spelling!

I would, however, be very careful about dismissing the old Rugby League experience when considering the future of YCFC - if they were completely financially viable, they wouldn't need this sort of move and they wouldn't be talking about cuts if it doesn't get the go-ahead. A shiny new stadium may generate a little more cash to start with and may even be cheaper to rent than to run BC but that will soon wear off - I go back to the Darlington model.

As for those that think it will be used for concerts etc - when exactly do you think it will be available for activities like that? The football and rugby seasons take up the vast majority of the year and therefore they would not be able to allow 1000's of people/tonnes of equipment onto the playing surface during this time.
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Anyway, Mr Crabtree. How would you fund the new John Lewis and Stadium ?[/p][/quote]John Lewis, a privately owned company, can do what other companies do and FUND THE BUILDING OF THE PREMISES THEMSELVES! If I wanted to open a business, that's the response I and every other potential business owner would get. As for YCFC - they can fund the stadium themselves - they are a privately owned company and if the team are so brilliant and good, the money will come flooding in. Not so long ago, LUFC (still some way above York in the League) wanted posh new premises near the M1 - they couldn't afford to build them so THEY STAYED AT ELLAND ROAD - that's what York should do - stay at BC and spend money on improvements as and when they have the funds to do so. As for the community part, I would have no objection to CofYC investing the money in the existing stadium. Simples[/p][/quote]No private company is being given anything. YCFC and YCK will pay RENT to use the new stadium. Why do you ignore that simple premiss? If you owned a business, you may well rent somewhere to house it. The truth is we get a stadium on the (very) cheap which has multiple uses, many of them community orientated, and the two private companies using it regularly PAY RENT. Does that now make you less angry and frustrated? :-)[/p][/quote]The truth is that CofYC have already committed to ploughing tax payers money into the scheme along with Oakgate et al. I absolutely get that rent will be paid - that is of course on the premise (note the spelling) that both YCFC and the Knights remain in business. The Knights have teetered ever since moving to Monks Cross and there is nothing to suggest that YCFC won't go the same way. If they do, just who do you think will want to rent a sports staduim?[/p][/quote]You know someone is being petty when they go down the spelling-correction route. If you go on-line however, you will find both premise and premiss are correct. Meanwhile, the Wasps went bust for many reasons and had problems prior to the move, which is precisely why Clarence St had to be sold. The other issue with the Wasps was the franchising of rugby league which had a negative impact on the credibility of the sport from a spectators point of view. I'm not having a dig here, just correcting the facts as I see them.[/p][/quote]Touche - petty I was regarding the spelling! I would, however, be very careful about dismissing the old Rugby League experience when considering the future of YCFC - if they were completely financially viable, they wouldn't need this sort of move and they wouldn't be talking about cuts if it doesn't get the go-ahead. A shiny new stadium may generate a little more cash to start with and may even be cheaper to rent than to run BC but that will soon wear off - I go back to the Darlington model. As for those that think it will be used for concerts etc - when exactly do you think it will be available for activities like that? The football and rugby seasons take up the vast majority of the year and therefore they would not be able to allow 1000's of people/tonnes of equipment onto the playing surface during this time. AngryandFrustrated
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Okay, lets assume your AH obsession has relevance to this debate, just for a moment.
JM is owed about £1.4m by the club. He also owns the club.
Are you saying, that should we get planning permission, he'll call in the loan, bankrupt the club? Even though the club itself have no/little assets? Even though he owns the club and has paid for shares?
Won't he just sit on the land, or hold his 'money' in the form of land as many do? Until either policy changes, or the housing market recovers, or both? As a lifelong fan, why would he bankrupt the club and force the sale of a land asset at totally the wrong time?
The only person talking about affordable housing, is you, Mr Crabtree. There is a reason for that, its because its a side issue on this, not the key component. Do you not think the anti-brigade would have leapt on it had it been vital?
And don't insult or threaten me! I'm not Andy D'Argone, Bill Woolley, Hugh Bayley or any of your other 'targets' - I'm just someone trying to debate how he sees it!
Okay, lets assume your AH obsession has relevance to this debate, just for a moment. JM is owed about £1.4m by the club. He also owns the club. Are you saying, that should we get planning permission, he'll call in the loan, bankrupt the club? Even though the club itself have no/little assets? Even though he owns the club and has paid for shares? Won't he just sit on the land, or hold his 'money' in the form of land as many do? Until either policy changes, or the housing market recovers, or both? As a lifelong fan, why would he bankrupt the club and force the sale of a land asset at totally the wrong time? The only person talking about affordable housing, is you, Mr Crabtree. There is a reason for that, its because its a side issue on this, not the key component. Do you not think the anti-brigade would have leapt on it had it been vital? And don't insult or threaten me! I'm not Andy D'Argone, Bill Woolley, Hugh Bayley or any of your other 'targets' - I'm just someone trying to debate how he sees it! Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Thu 17 May 12

Sir Alex says...

6-2
6-2 Sir Alex
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Even AndyD wrote:
Okay, lets assume your AH obsession has relevance to this debate, just for a moment. JM is owed about £1.4m by the club. He also owns the club. Are you saying, that should we get planning permission, he'll call in the loan, bankrupt the club? Even though the club itself have no/little assets? Even though he owns the club and has paid for shares? Won't he just sit on the land, or hold his 'money' in the form of land as many do? Until either policy changes, or the housing market recovers, or both? As a lifelong fan, why would he bankrupt the club and force the sale of a land asset at totally the wrong time? The only person talking about affordable housing, is you, Mr Crabtree. There is a reason for that, its because its a side issue on this, not the key component. Do you not think the anti-brigade would have leapt on it had it been vital? And don't insult or threaten me! I'm not Andy D'Argone, Bill Woolley, Hugh Bayley or any of your other 'targets' - I'm just someone trying to debate how he sees it!
Give it a rest, and stop dragging up irrelelevant issues, to try and discredit me or dilute the argument.

I was under the impression that BC had to be sold to produce the £350,000 - £800,000 YCFC have pledged as their contribution to the stadium. Are you now saying that it doesn't need to be sold, and JM will 'sit on it' till land values recover ? That's not what Sophie Hicks (Nee McGill) or Bill Woolley were saying in the press on 17-Oct-08....

"The sale of Bootham Crescent is a key plank of the whole stadium project and Mr Woolley believes it could be spring 2010 before the slumping market starts to revive."
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Okay, lets assume your AH obsession has relevance to this debate, just for a moment. JM is owed about £1.4m by the club. He also owns the club. Are you saying, that should we get planning permission, he'll call in the loan, bankrupt the club? Even though the club itself have no/little assets? Even though he owns the club and has paid for shares? Won't he just sit on the land, or hold his 'money' in the form of land as many do? Until either policy changes, or the housing market recovers, or both? As a lifelong fan, why would he bankrupt the club and force the sale of a land asset at totally the wrong time? The only person talking about affordable housing, is you, Mr Crabtree. There is a reason for that, its because its a side issue on this, not the key component. Do you not think the anti-brigade would have leapt on it had it been vital? And don't insult or threaten me! I'm not Andy D'Argone, Bill Woolley, Hugh Bayley or any of your other 'targets' - I'm just someone trying to debate how he sees it![/p][/quote]Give it a rest, and stop dragging up irrelelevant issues, to try and discredit me or dilute the argument. I was under the impression that BC had to be sold to produce the £350,000 - £800,000 YCFC have pledged as their contribution to the stadium. Are you now saying that it doesn't need to be sold, and JM will 'sit on it' till land values recover ? That's not what Sophie Hicks (Nee McGill) or Bill Woolley were saying in the press on 17-Oct-08.... [quote] "The sale of Bootham Crescent is a key plank of the whole stadium project and Mr Woolley believes it could be spring 2010 before the slumping market starts to revive." [/quote] Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Thu 17 May 12

Paul2012 says...

A complete travesty!!
A complete travesty!! Paul2012
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
Okay, lets assume your AH obsession has relevance to this debate, just for a moment. JM is owed about £1.4m by the club. He also owns the club. Are you saying, that should we get planning permission, he'll call in the loan, bankrupt the club? Even though the club itself have no/little assets? Even though he owns the club and has paid for shares? Won't he just sit on the land, or hold his 'money' in the form of land as many do? Until either policy changes, or the housing market recovers, or both? As a lifelong fan, why would he bankrupt the club and force the sale of a land asset at totally the wrong time? The only person talking about affordable housing, is you, Mr Crabtree. There is a reason for that, its because its a side issue on this, not the key component. Do you not think the anti-brigade would have leapt on it had it been vital? And don't insult or threaten me! I'm not Andy D'Argone, Bill Woolley, Hugh Bayley or any of your other 'targets' - I'm just someone trying to debate how he sees it!
Give it a rest, and stop dragging up irrelelevant issues, to try and discredit me or dilute the argument.

I was under the impression that BC had to be sold to produce the £350,000 - £800,000 YCFC have pledged as their contribution to the stadium. Are you now saying that it doesn't need to be sold, and JM will 'sit on it' till land values recover ? That's not what Sophie Hicks (Nee McGill) or Bill Woolley were saying in the press on 17-Oct-08....

"The sale of Bootham Crescent is a key plank of the whole stadium project and Mr Woolley believes it could be spring 2010 before the slumping market starts to revive."
Agree to disagree on this Mr C. as we could talk round in circles. Suffice to say, I recall one Council costing as having a nil contribution from YCFC. This was when all the comparisons with other sites were done about a year or so ago.
At the end of the day though, this is multi-million pound project, maybe there will be £350k or more from the sale of BC, maybe not. It depends on lots of things. But given the amounts involved, £20m for the stadium alone, £200m for the whole project; in that context, I don't think BC value will be a deal breaker, with or without affordable housing. That is as much as I know, take it or leave it.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Okay, lets assume your AH obsession has relevance to this debate, just for a moment. JM is owed about £1.4m by the club. He also owns the club. Are you saying, that should we get planning permission, he'll call in the loan, bankrupt the club? Even though the club itself have no/little assets? Even though he owns the club and has paid for shares? Won't he just sit on the land, or hold his 'money' in the form of land as many do? Until either policy changes, or the housing market recovers, or both? As a lifelong fan, why would he bankrupt the club and force the sale of a land asset at totally the wrong time? The only person talking about affordable housing, is you, Mr Crabtree. There is a reason for that, its because its a side issue on this, not the key component. Do you not think the anti-brigade would have leapt on it had it been vital? And don't insult or threaten me! I'm not Andy D'Argone, Bill Woolley, Hugh Bayley or any of your other 'targets' - I'm just someone trying to debate how he sees it![/p][/quote]Give it a rest, and stop dragging up irrelelevant issues, to try and discredit me or dilute the argument. I was under the impression that BC had to be sold to produce the £350,000 - £800,000 YCFC have pledged as their contribution to the stadium. Are you now saying that it doesn't need to be sold, and JM will 'sit on it' till land values recover ? That's not what Sophie Hicks (Nee McGill) or Bill Woolley were saying in the press on 17-Oct-08.... [quote] "The sale of Bootham Crescent is a key plank of the whole stadium project and Mr Woolley believes it could be spring 2010 before the slumping market starts to revive." [/quote][/p][/quote]Agree to disagree on this Mr C. as we could talk round in circles. Suffice to say, I recall one Council costing as having a nil contribution from YCFC. This was when all the comparisons with other sites were done about a year or so ago. At the end of the day though, this is multi-million pound project, maybe there will be £350k or more from the sale of BC, maybe not. It depends on lots of things. But given the amounts involved, £20m for the stadium alone, £200m for the whole project; in that context, I don't think BC value will be a deal breaker, with or without affordable housing. That is as much as I know, take it or leave it. Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Tracey Simpson-Laing (Lab, Acomb) speaks in favour. These are indications, rather than votes, but the two usually correlate. So far, it's 6-2 in favour, with 7 left to speak. Cllr Simpson-Laing says she is worried that York could be left trailing by new developments in Leeds, and says the benefits of Oakgate's plan outweigh the disadvantages.


What a hypocrit this woman is !

York trailed Leeds from 2005 when her beloved 50% AH policy put housing completions into decline, while Leeds continued to peak for another four years ! Now she say's she is concerned after the damage she and her policy caused to the city's economy.

What about the LDF, which will fial if this gets the go ahead ? She predicted it would be found sound and she is now making sure it isn't. Is this so she can blame this decision, and not the fact that it was flawed already ?

Shame on this councillor. She is a traitor and a disgrace !
[quote] Tracey Simpson-Laing (Lab, Acomb) speaks in favour. These are indications, rather than votes, but the two usually correlate. So far, it's 6-2 in favour, with 7 left to speak. Cllr Simpson-Laing says she is worried that York could be left trailing by new developments in Leeds, and says the benefits of Oakgate's plan outweigh the disadvantages. [/quote] What a hypocrit this woman is ! York trailed Leeds from 2005 when her beloved 50% AH policy put housing completions into decline, while Leeds continued to peak for another four years ! Now she say's she is concerned after the damage she and her policy caused to the city's economy. What about the LDF, which will fial if this gets the go ahead ? She predicted it would be found sound and she is now making sure it isn't. Is this so she can blame this decision, and not the fact that it was flawed already ? Shame on this councillor. She is a traitor and a disgrace ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Thu 17 May 12

Sir Alex says...

With the new govt announcement on rates then the obvious home for the extra windfall money York will get would be to make the other side stand the same as the main. In other words an 8,000 seater!! Thank you very much Vince!!
With the new govt announcement on rates then the obvious home for the extra windfall money York will get would be to make the other side stand the same as the main. In other words an 8,000 seater!! Thank you very much Vince!! Sir Alex
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Honesty, integrity and realism from Coun's Galvin and Watt. Respect to them for having the courage to be forthright.
Honesty, integrity and realism from Coun's Galvin and Watt. Respect to them for having the courage to be forthright. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Good for York. Good for investment, jobs, sport, shopping, community facilities. All largely paid for out of private money. Marvellous - at last something for residents to get excited about. Unless Pickles ruins it all of-course.
Good for York. Good for investment, jobs, sport, shopping, community facilities. All largely paid for out of private money. Marvellous - at last something for residents to get excited about. Unless Pickles ruins it all of-course. Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Thu 17 May 12

TerryYork says...

VICTORY!!!
VICTORY!!! TerryYork
  • Score: 0

6:33pm Thu 17 May 12

PhilipInYork says...

ANOTHER WIN FOR YORK!

APPROVAL!

Stick that in your crappy goods and smoke it, Barnitts.
ANOTHER WIN FOR YORK! APPROVAL! Stick that in your crappy goods and smoke it, Barnitts. PhilipInYork
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

APPROVAL!

A victory for the people of York.
APPROVAL! A victory for the people of York. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

6:36pm Thu 17 May 12

bjb says...

APPROVED!!! Great news for common sense and the ALL York's citizens.
APPROVED!!! Great news for common sense and the ALL York's citizens. bjb
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Thu 17 May 12

Dr Brian says...

So far the Yes people have won the battle but not the war yet - the scheme will be called in
So far the Yes people have won the battle but not the war yet - the scheme will be called in Dr Brian
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Thu 17 May 12

CityBoy says...

A victory for progress over protectionism. Great news!
A victory for progress over protectionism. Great news! CityBoy
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Dr Brian wrote:
So far the Yes people have won the battle but not the war yet - the scheme will be called in
11-4. It won't be called in.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: So far the Yes people have won the battle but not the war yet - the scheme will be called in[/p][/quote]11-4. It won't be called in. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

I'm really, really pleased. I love my city and my football club and want both to move forward.
Sadly, I think there is still a way to go, but well done all those who've strived for this. Too often we have been a city which says no to anything for residents.
Over and out from me - thanks Gavin for the service - superb.
I'm really, really pleased. I love my city and my football club and want both to move forward. Sadly, I think there is still a way to go, but well done all those who've strived for this. Too often we have been a city which says no to anything for residents. Over and out from me - thanks Gavin for the service - superb. Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Thu 17 May 12

duffy says...

Time for everyone to get on board now and lets move on and make sure this is as good as it can be.
Time for everyone to get on board now and lets move on and make sure this is as good as it can be. duffy
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

For anyone mentioning the Darlington "model" again:
1) The George Reynolds Stadium is a 25k seater stadium with 25k seater costs.
2) The stadium and football club failed, despite it NOT being OOT. Edge of town maybe, but that suggests the failure was for reasons other than being OOT.
3) For every Darlington example there are dozens of success stories.

Can Darlington now be put to bed?

Thnk you
For anyone mentioning the Darlington "model" again: 1) The George Reynolds Stadium is a 25k seater stadium with 25k seater costs. 2) The stadium and football club failed, despite it NOT being OOT. Edge of town maybe, but that suggests the failure was for reasons other than being OOT. 3) For every Darlington example there are dozens of success stories. Can Darlington now be put to bed? Thnk you speaks99
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Thu 17 May 12

sukitot says...

Well well at last something for the people of york and not for the people who come to york.York has always had a great sporting history and hopefully this will kick start our teams off again.Too long this council seemed to consider the tourists rather then the resident this time i believe they have got it right.Now all we want is the people of York to get behind our teams again.
Well well at last something for the people of york and not for the people who come to york.York has always had a great sporting history and hopefully this will kick start our teams off again.Too long this council seemed to consider the tourists rather then the resident this time i believe they have got it right.Now all we want is the people of York to get behind our teams again. sukitot
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Shame on Labour and Lib-Dem councillors - trying to buy votes through a decision that makes a mockery of the whole system.
Shame on Labour and Lib-Dem councillors - trying to buy votes through a decision that makes a mockery of the whole system. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Thu 17 May 12

Woody Mellor says...

Pretty exciting really if all the Yay sayers are right!

Pretty scary really if all the Nay sayers are right.
Pretty exciting really if all the Yay sayers are right! Pretty scary really if all the Nay sayers are right. Woody Mellor
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Thu 17 May 12

Sarah York says...

Fantastic news for the people and city of York.

A bit of local pride resorted as the nimbys and out of towners are rightly ignored.

Not even a close call. Brilliant news.
Fantastic news for the people and city of York. A bit of local pride resorted as the nimbys and out of towners are rightly ignored. Not even a close call. Brilliant news. Sarah York
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Thu 17 May 12

Ichabod76 says...

It's funny that people think this is a done deal
; )
It's funny that people think this is a done deal ; ) Ichabod76
  • Score: 0

6:52pm Thu 17 May 12

TerryYork says...

Finally something for the people of York. This is a good day.

As far as an appeal. Get over it Green Party. 11-4 is a landslide.
Finally something for the people of York. This is a good day. As far as an appeal. Get over it Green Party. 11-4 is a landslide. TerryYork
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Thu 17 May 12

Jazzper says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Shame on Labour and Lib-Dem councillors - trying to buy votes through a decision that makes a mockery of the whole system.
Shame on you 'Crabby' for not supporting the people of York, who are far more important than your 'well feathered friends', Sinclair and Co.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: Shame on Labour and Lib-Dem councillors - trying to buy votes through a decision that makes a mockery of the whole system.[/p][/quote]Shame on you 'Crabby' for not supporting the people of York, who are far more important than your 'well feathered friends', Sinclair and Co. Jazzper
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Thu 17 May 12

CityBoy says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Shame on Labour and Lib-Dem councillors - trying to buy votes through a decision that makes a mockery of the whole system.
Hey Crabby, the apples on your tree are all rotten and leave a disgusting taste in the mouth.

The "whole system" must be in a right state if this ever had a chance of this failing. Its called progress. if you can't site a development like this within a mile of the ring road on an existing retail park then there really would be nowhere in York for it to go. Looking forward to some nice new retail and sporting facilities.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: Shame on Labour and Lib-Dem councillors - trying to buy votes through a decision that makes a mockery of the whole system.[/p][/quote]Hey Crabby, the apples on your tree are all rotten and leave a disgusting taste in the mouth. The "whole system" must be in a right state if this ever had a chance of this failing. Its called progress. if you can't site a development like this within a mile of the ring road on an existing retail park then there really would be nowhere in York for it to go. Looking forward to some nice new retail and sporting facilities. CityBoy
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Thu 17 May 12

bjb says...

The people have spoken in spite of the propaganda by a few with a vested interest in holding York back from any form of future development.

I wonder if those who claim to be patriotic towards York and are the C4Y will add to the millions of pounds pointless objections and spurious claims against Derwenthorpe cost us by protracted delaying tactics with no chance of success.
The people have spoken in spite of the propaganda by a few with a vested interest in holding York back from any form of future development. I wonder if those who claim to be patriotic towards York and are the C4Y will add to the millions of pounds pointless objections and spurious claims against Derwenthorpe cost us by protracted delaying tactics with no chance of success. bjb
  • Score: 0

7:04pm Thu 17 May 12

duffy says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
It's funny that people think this is a done deal
; )
Another unhappy bunny ?
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: It's funny that people think this is a done deal ; )[/p][/quote]Another unhappy bunny ? duffy
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Thu 17 May 12

TheTruthHurts says...

It's good news but I think crabby might have a point, it is only just beginning. And shame on some of the councillors some are so transparent that they really do believe we are all thick! But it is a good result for York and for the record I will never set foot in barnits again!!

Come on city all we need is league football now!
It's good news but I think crabby might have a point, it is only just beginning. And shame on some of the councillors some are so transparent that they really do believe we are all thick! But it is a good result for York and for the record I will never set foot in barnits again!! Come on city all we need is league football now! TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Thu 17 May 12

bjb says...

If it was not for Bonmarche and Boyes (must have them at Monks Cross soon) I would never patronise any of the city centre shops again also, particularly those displaying the lying propaganda leaflets.
If it was not for Bonmarche and Boyes (must have them at Monks Cross soon) I would never patronise any of the city centre shops again also, particularly those displaying the lying propaganda leaflets. bjb
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Thu 17 May 12

Jazzper says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
It's good news but I think crabby might have a point, it is only just beginning. And shame on some of the councillors some are so transparent that they really do believe we are all thick! But it is a good result for York and for the record I will never set foot in barnits again!!

Come on city all we need is league football now!
I agree with your comment on Barnitts...NO chance of me entering that shop again, even if they gave stuff away, and that not likely to happen....unless they have a 'fire-sale' !
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: It's good news but I think crabby might have a point, it is only just beginning. And shame on some of the councillors some are so transparent that they really do believe we are all thick! But it is a good result for York and for the record I will never set foot in barnits again!! Come on city all we need is league football now![/p][/quote]I agree with your comment on Barnitts...NO chance of me entering that shop again, even if they gave stuff away, and that not likely to happen....unless they have a 'fire-sale' ! Jazzper
  • Score: 0

7:17pm Thu 17 May 12

Sarah York says...

duffy wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
It's funny that people think this is a done deal
; )
Another unhappy bunny ?
With an 11-4 count and no recommendation either way beforehand, it's as much of a done deal as you would want. Plus today's news from the south helping the case even more than it didn't really even need.

Some will try to convince themselves that this isn't over in the next few days but it very much is.
[quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: It's funny that people think this is a done deal ; )[/p][/quote]Another unhappy bunny ?[/p][/quote]With an 11-4 count and no recommendation either way beforehand, it's as much of a done deal as you would want. Plus today's news from the south helping the case even more than it didn't really even need. Some will try to convince themselves that this isn't over in the next few days but it very much is. Sarah York
  • Score: 0

7:19pm Thu 17 May 12

Sawday2 says...

YES!!!!!!
YES!!!!!! Sawday2
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Thu 17 May 12

Jennie C says...

Sense prevails. I currently buy on line from John Lewis in preference to going in to the city to buy from the shops in York. My money will be able to be spent here, helping York people into employment.
Sense prevails. I currently buy on line from John Lewis in preference to going in to the city to buy from the shops in York. My money will be able to be spent here, helping York people into employment. Jennie C
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Thu 17 May 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Woody Mellor wrote:
Pretty exciting really if all the Yay sayers are right! Pretty scary really if all the Nay sayers are right.
:D
Good one!
[quote][p][bold]Woody Mellor[/bold] wrote: Pretty exciting really if all the Yay sayers are right! Pretty scary really if all the Nay sayers are right.[/p][/quote]:D Good one! Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

7:42pm Thu 17 May 12

Ichabod76 says...

Sarah York wrote:
duffy wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
It's funny that people think this is a done deal
; )
Another unhappy bunny ?
With an 11-4 count and no recommendation either way beforehand, it's as much of a done deal as you would want. Plus today's news from the south helping the case even more than it didn't really even need.

Some will try to convince themselves that this isn't over in the next few days but it very much is.
Not at all
I employ 32 people in York and I spend a large amount of money sponsoring YCFC

I just find it funny that people think its a done deal

It could have been 15-0 and there still could be an appeal
or secretary of state may step in

today's news from the south didn't help at all, but it would have helped with a resubmission

believe me there are many more hurdles before anything gets built, and anyone of them could be disaster for a stadium
[quote][p][bold]Sarah York[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: It's funny that people think this is a done deal ; )[/p][/quote]Another unhappy bunny ?[/p][/quote]With an 11-4 count and no recommendation either way beforehand, it's as much of a done deal as you would want. Plus today's news from the south helping the case even more than it didn't really even need. Some will try to convince themselves that this isn't over in the next few days but it very much is.[/p][/quote]Not at all I employ 32 people in York and I spend a large amount of money sponsoring YCFC I just find it funny that people think its a done deal It could have been 15-0 and there still could be an appeal or secretary of state may step in today's news from the south didn't help at all, but it would have helped with a resubmission believe me there are many more hurdles before anything gets built, and anyone of them could be disaster for a stadium Ichabod76
  • Score: 0

7:43pm Thu 17 May 12

Von_Dutch says...

Hallelujah! A victory for York residents. Stick that in your pipe n smoke it those who'd stifle competition to protect their own margins (& have the cheek to claim they were campaigning 'for York' - Well you weren't campaigning in my name). I'm very pleased this evening.
Hallelujah! A victory for York residents. Stick that in your pipe n smoke it those who'd stifle competition to protect their own margins (& have the cheek to claim they were campaigning 'for York' - Well you weren't campaigning in my name). I'm very pleased this evening. Von_Dutch
  • Score: 0

7:58pm Thu 17 May 12

bertieb says...

Absolutely fantastic news, especially for York City. I am delighted that the unholy alliance betweeen the Tories and the Greens was easily defeated in the final vote.
Absolutely fantastic news, especially for York City. I am delighted that the unholy alliance betweeen the Tories and the Greens was easily defeated in the final vote. bertieb
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Thu 17 May 12

rawcliffeyorkieboy says...

FA Trophy won,
Stadium given YES vote!,
Play off final??
This would surely be one of the best ever hat tricks in City's history!! come on city.
FA Trophy won, Stadium given YES vote!, Play off final?? This would surely be one of the best ever hat tricks in City's history!! come on city. rawcliffeyorkieboy
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Thu 17 May 12

malc of york says...

In my book an 11-4 vote is pretty convincing and demonstrates democracy at work. Perhaps Crabby and his mates will now accept the futility of their argument, bearing in mind that the government are committed to an easing of planning restrictions.
In my book an 11-4 vote is pretty convincing and demonstrates democracy at work. Perhaps Crabby and his mates will now accept the futility of their argument, bearing in mind that the government are committed to an easing of planning restrictions. malc of york
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Thu 17 May 12

Mark Brayshaw says...

@Angryandfrustrated

They regularly hold major concerts at the KC stadium in Hull and that ground hosts both Championship football and Super League Rugby so it clearly is possible for other events to happen
@Angryandfrustrated They regularly hold major concerts at the KC stadium in Hull and that ground hosts both Championship football and Super League Rugby so it clearly is possible for other events to happen Mark Brayshaw
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Thu 17 May 12

strensall red says...

I have always shopped in barnitts in the past especially for tools,but since they have been supporting the no to monks cross two plans i have shopped elsewere at least now i can get all my spanners from john lewis and help put barnitts out of busines (because john lewis and m&s are well known diy/tool sellers arnt they)
I have always shopped in barnitts in the past especially for tools,but since they have been supporting the no to monks cross two plans i have shopped elsewere at least now i can get all my spanners from john lewis and help put barnitts out of busines (because john lewis and m&s are well known diy/tool sellers arnt they) strensall red
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Thu 17 May 12

bjb says...

strensall red wrote:
I have always shopped in barnitts in the past especially for tools,but since they have been supporting the no to monks cross two plans i have shopped elsewere at least now i can get all my spanners from john lewis and help put barnitts out of busines (because john lewis and m&s are well known diy/tool sellers arnt they)
B&Q and Wickes on Clifton Moor are, so no need to go into York.
[quote][p][bold]strensall red[/bold] wrote: I have always shopped in barnitts in the past especially for tools,but since they have been supporting the no to monks cross two plans i have shopped elsewere at least now i can get all my spanners from john lewis and help put barnitts out of busines (because john lewis and m&s are well known diy/tool sellers arnt they)[/p][/quote]B&Q and Wickes on Clifton Moor are, so no need to go into York. bjb
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Thu 17 May 12

sunnysteve says...

Good for footy and good for York citizens.At last we are going to get a proper shopping centre and a modern sports stadium.The likes of Mulberry Hall and Barnetts will always prosper in the city centre.
Now all we need is for York to win at the weekend and we will all be happy bunnies.
Good for footy and good for York citizens.At last we are going to get a proper shopping centre and a modern sports stadium.The likes of Mulberry Hall and Barnetts will always prosper in the city centre. Now all we need is for York to win at the weekend and we will all be happy bunnies. sunnysteve
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Thu 17 May 12

monkeyhanger says...

Please build a big enough venue to cater for the non league/fourth division footy team.no less than 5000 capacity for the big games.
Please build a big enough venue to cater for the non league/fourth division footy team.no less than 5000 capacity for the big games. monkeyhanger
  • Score: 0

9:34pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

CityBoy wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Shame on Labour and Lib-Dem councillors - trying to buy votes through a decision that makes a mockery of the whole system.
Hey Crabby, the apples on your tree are all rotten and leave a disgusting taste in the mouth.

The "whole system" must be in a right state if this ever had a chance of this failing. Its called progress. if you can't site a development like this within a mile of the ring road on an existing retail park then there really would be nowhere in York for it to go. Looking forward to some nice new retail and sporting facilities.
Strange way to describe breaking the rules ?

In football terms, it's the equivalent of Maradona's hand of god goal - a victory gained illegally.

The only bad taste is the one left by the rule-breaking council, it's officers and Labour/Lib-Dem councillors. They will never be able to claim again, that their hands are tied and they must abide by the rules. Money talks and this council have been bought...... they have sold their integrity and sacrificed their reputations. It's a disgrace.
[quote][p][bold]CityBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: Shame on Labour and Lib-Dem councillors - trying to buy votes through a decision that makes a mockery of the whole system.[/p][/quote]Hey Crabby, the apples on your tree are all rotten and leave a disgusting taste in the mouth. The "whole system" must be in a right state if this ever had a chance of this failing. Its called progress. if you can't site a development like this within a mile of the ring road on an existing retail park then there really would be nowhere in York for it to go. Looking forward to some nice new retail and sporting facilities.[/p][/quote]Strange way to describe breaking the rules ? In football terms, it's the equivalent of Maradona's hand of god goal - a victory gained illegally. The only bad taste is the one left by the rule-breaking council, it's officers and Labour/Lib-Dem councillors. They will never be able to claim again, that their hands are tied and they must abide by the rules. Money talks and this council have been bought...... they have sold their integrity and sacrificed their reputations. It's a disgrace. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Thu 17 May 12

PKH says...

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated. First of all, i am not little. I'm large and overweight ! I probably know Bootham Crescent quite well having not missed a Home game since August 1978. Keith Walwyn was every York fans hero. He did get abuse by the Liverpool Supporters (probably the last time you went to a game !). Keith would have supported the move to the new stadium, as his 2 sons are very sports minded people. I think i've touched a nerve and you've reacted.
There you go again, you odious overweight troll! You know nothing about me, and trust me, you haven't hit a nerve. I have, however, reacted to your trolling, abuse and generally shi**y comments to everyone who does not agree with your views.

As for your comment about Keith, the one thing I knew about him was that he wouldn't support the move, if he thought it could put the club at risk. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and on this scheme, it is available - I repeat my comments about the devestating effect moving to Huntington had on the old Rugby League team - attendances plummeted, money ran out and over the years, they have lurched from one financial crisis to another. Also look at the Darlington model - some of the arguments here are the exact same arguments that were used for their planning application - didn't do them any good and now there is talk of ripping the stadium down.

Be very careful what you wish for.
Moving to Huntington SAVED the Rugby League Club as they could not afford the necessary safety work required at their Clarence St ground and therefore would have become homeless. The Ryedale Stadium as it was then called being provided via Ryedale District Council
[quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated. First of all, i am not little. I'm large and overweight ! I probably know Bootham Crescent quite well having not missed a Home game since August 1978. Keith Walwyn was every York fans hero. He did get abuse by the Liverpool Supporters (probably the last time you went to a game !). Keith would have supported the move to the new stadium, as his 2 sons are very sports minded people. I think i've touched a nerve and you've reacted.[/p][/quote]There you go again, you odious overweight troll! You know nothing about me, and trust me, you haven't hit a nerve. I have, however, reacted to your trolling, abuse and generally shi**y comments to everyone who does not agree with your views. As for your comment about Keith, the one thing I knew about him was that he wouldn't support the move, if he thought it could put the club at risk. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and on this scheme, it is available - I repeat my comments about the devestating effect moving to Huntington had on the old Rugby League team - attendances plummeted, money ran out and over the years, they have lurched from one financial crisis to another. Also look at the Darlington model - some of the arguments here are the exact same arguments that were used for their planning application - didn't do them any good and now there is talk of ripping the stadium down. Be very careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]Moving to Huntington SAVED the Rugby League Club as they could not afford the necessary safety work required at their Clarence St ground and therefore would have become homeless. The Ryedale Stadium as it was then called being provided via Ryedale District Council PKH
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Thu 17 May 12

long distance depressive says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote:
Mr Crabtree If i were on a desert island with you, i'd have to throw you to the sharks ! Thats if i hadn't thrown myself first. You really can talk a glass eye to sleep !
Really ?

You could ignore me, but, you know that I am making strong points, so, rather than debate you chose to insult me. Most do, because they haven't the wit to take me on !
Actually they probably think its unfair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man!
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Mr Crabtree If i were on a desert island with you, i'd have to throw you to the sharks ! Thats if i hadn't thrown myself first. You really can talk a glass eye to sleep ![/p][/quote]Really ? You could ignore me, but, you know that I am making strong points, so, rather than debate you chose to insult me. Most do, because they haven't the wit to take me on ![/p][/quote]Actually they probably think its unfair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man! long distance depressive
  • Score: 0

9:53pm Thu 17 May 12

haxbyreds says...

First time in years people of York have been put first,normally only care about students and tourists,having young kids it's brilliant to get good sporting facilities for the people of York,think it's a no brainer jobs,expansion,bigge
r population sports ground,new athletic pitch do not understand the green party total waist of space maybe if they don't want the city to grow they should leave and go and live in malton
First time in years people of York have been put first,normally only care about students and tourists,having young kids it's brilliant to get good sporting facilities for the people of York,think it's a no brainer jobs,expansion,bigge r population sports ground,new athletic pitch do not understand the green party total waist of space maybe if they don't want the city to grow they should leave and go and live in malton haxbyreds
  • Score: 0

9:55pm Thu 17 May 12

cornishclot says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
It's good news but I think crabby might have a point, it is only just beginning. And shame on some of the councillors some are so transparent that they really do believe we are all thick! But it is a good result for York and for the record I will never set foot in barnits again!! Come on city all we need is league football now!
Ever since my good lady wife heard about our town dwelling grinch we haven't stepped foot in there either, I feel sorry for the staff but hard times have given them little choice, maybe john Lewis can recruit them, after all they know everything about anything and our dog always got a treat when he went in.......strange how he has lost weight.....

Brilliant news for our fair city AND its surrounding amenities... Bring on Sunday!
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: It's good news but I think crabby might have a point, it is only just beginning. And shame on some of the councillors some are so transparent that they really do believe we are all thick! But it is a good result for York and for the record I will never set foot in barnits again!! Come on city all we need is league football now![/p][/quote]Ever since my good lady wife heard about our town dwelling grinch we haven't stepped foot in there either, I feel sorry for the staff but hard times have given them little choice, maybe john Lewis can recruit them, after all they know everything about anything and our dog always got a treat when he went in.......strange how he has lost weight..... Brilliant news for our fair city AND its surrounding amenities... Bring on Sunday! cornishclot
  • Score: 0

10:02pm Thu 17 May 12

long distance depressive says...

And I may never set foot in Mulberry Hall again! unless of course it's raining which is when I only ever do. Must admit though if I ever I wanted to buy a 'tasteful ' item for Elton Johns boudoir then that would be the place to go.
And I may never set foot in Mulberry Hall again! unless of course it's raining which is when I only ever do. Must admit though if I ever I wanted to buy a 'tasteful ' item for Elton Johns boudoir then that would be the place to go. long distance depressive
  • Score: 0

10:09pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

malc of york wrote:
In my book an 11-4 vote is pretty convincing and demonstrates democracy at work. Perhaps Crabby and his mates will now accept the futility of their argument, bearing in mind that the government are committed to an easing of planning restrictions.
I'm sorry, but like the majority of posters who are demonising and ridiculing me on this thread, you are ignorant and have failed to understand my argument.

I am not anti-York, and am not against a stadium or John Lewis, but, I do not support the breaking of the rules.

The council have ignored the rules that they are bound by, and broken their own policies. On planning grounds this application should have been refused, and it is a disgrace that no recommendation was made by Michael Slater, who has clearly been manipulated and compromised by political interference. It flies in the face of both the LDF and the NPPF.

Councillors who have voted for this should be ashamed, not for wanting the benefits that this brings to York, but, for the devious, underhanded way they have brought it about. Their consciences should not be clear and there is no excuse.
[quote][p][bold]malc of york[/bold] wrote: In my book an 11-4 vote is pretty convincing and demonstrates democracy at work. Perhaps Crabby and his mates will now accept the futility of their argument, bearing in mind that the government are committed to an easing of planning restrictions.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but like the majority of posters who are demonising and ridiculing me on this thread, you are ignorant and have failed to understand my argument. I am not anti-York, and am not against a stadium or John Lewis, but, I do not support the breaking of the rules. The council have ignored the rules that they are bound by, and broken their own policies. On planning grounds this application should have been refused, and it is a disgrace that no recommendation was made by Michael Slater, who has clearly been manipulated and compromised by political interference. It flies in the face of both the LDF and the NPPF. Councillors who have voted for this should be ashamed, not for wanting the benefits that this brings to York, but, for the devious, underhanded way they have brought it about. Their consciences should not be clear and there is no excuse. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

10:09pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

malc of york wrote:
In my book an 11-4 vote is pretty convincing and demonstrates democracy at work. Perhaps Crabby and his mates will now accept the futility of their argument, bearing in mind that the government are committed to an easing of planning restrictions.
I'm sorry, but like the majority of posters who are demonising and ridiculing me on this thread, you are ignorant and have failed to understand my argument.

I am not anti-York, and am not against a stadium or John Lewis, but, I do not support the breaking of the rules.

The council have ignored the rules that they are bound by, and broken their own policies. On planning grounds this application should have been refused, and it is a disgrace that no recommendation was made by Michael Slater, who has clearly been manipulated and compromised by political interference. It flies in the face of both the LDF and the NPPF.

Councillors who have voted for this should be ashamed, not for wanting the benefits that this brings to York, but, for the devious, underhanded way they have brought it about. Their consciences should not be clear and there is no excuse.
[quote][p][bold]malc of york[/bold] wrote: In my book an 11-4 vote is pretty convincing and demonstrates democracy at work. Perhaps Crabby and his mates will now accept the futility of their argument, bearing in mind that the government are committed to an easing of planning restrictions.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but like the majority of posters who are demonising and ridiculing me on this thread, you are ignorant and have failed to understand my argument. I am not anti-York, and am not against a stadium or John Lewis, but, I do not support the breaking of the rules. The council have ignored the rules that they are bound by, and broken their own policies. On planning grounds this application should have been refused, and it is a disgrace that no recommendation was made by Michael Slater, who has clearly been manipulated and compromised by political interference. It flies in the face of both the LDF and the NPPF. Councillors who have voted for this should be ashamed, not for wanting the benefits that this brings to York, but, for the devious, underhanded way they have brought it about. Their consciences should not be clear and there is no excuse. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

10:10pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

I'm sorry, but like the majority of posters who are demonising and ridiculing me on this thread, you are ignorant and have failed to understand my argument.

I am not anti-York, and am not against a stadium or John Lewis, but, I do not support the breaking of the rules.

The council have ignored the rules that they are bound by, and broken their own policies. On planning grounds this application should have been refused, and it is a disgrace that no recommendation was made by Michael Slater, who has clearly been manipulated and compromised by political interference. It flies in the face of both the LDF and the NPPF.

Councillors who have voted for this should be ashamed, not for wanting the benefits that this brings to York, but, for the devious, underhanded way they have brought it about. Their consciences should not be clear and there is no excuse.
I'm sorry, but like the majority of posters who are demonising and ridiculing me on this thread, you are ignorant and have failed to understand my argument. I am not anti-York, and am not against a stadium or John Lewis, but, I do not support the breaking of the rules. The council have ignored the rules that they are bound by, and broken their own policies. On planning grounds this application should have been refused, and it is a disgrace that no recommendation was made by Michael Slater, who has clearly been manipulated and compromised by political interference. It flies in the face of both the LDF and the NPPF. Councillors who have voted for this should be ashamed, not for wanting the benefits that this brings to York, but, for the devious, underhanded way they have brought it about. Their consciences should not be clear and there is no excuse. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

10:17pm Thu 17 May 12

cornishclot says...

PhilipInYork wrote:
ANOTHER WIN FOR YORK! APPROVAL! Stick that in your crappy goods and smoke it, Barnitts.
Nearly sprayed my wife with tea when I read that one! Laughter is always the best medicine
[quote][p][bold]PhilipInYork[/bold] wrote: ANOTHER WIN FOR YORK! APPROVAL! Stick that in your crappy goods and smoke it, Barnitts.[/p][/quote]Nearly sprayed my wife with tea when I read that one! Laughter is always the best medicine cornishclot
  • Score: 0

11:43pm Thu 17 May 12

cornishclot says...

Indeed, thanks for coming all who made this possible, perhaps we can move on and enjoy the good times to come.

I may even invest in a season ticket for the new stadium, and then go buy some new furniture for my dungeon... ( Ooops! Sorry bedroom! ) from good old john Lewis.

Let's all raise a glass for York
Indeed, thanks for coming all who made this possible, perhaps we can move on and enjoy the good times to come. I may even invest in a season ticket for the new stadium, and then go buy some new furniture for my dungeon... ( Ooops! Sorry bedroom! ) from good old john Lewis. Let's all raise a glass for York cornishclot
  • Score: 0

12:04am Fri 18 May 12

Tug job says...

Just got home from an evening shift rescuing train from Donny - what fantastic news for future generations of sports fans, for local patients, for residents of the district who will benefit from greater choice of shopping and for all those who understand that this proposal (inevitable appeal notwithstanding!) will enhance the quality of life for local people. CYC are to be congratulated on their brave decision and, for once, having put the interests of local residents first. The hypocracy of the Sinclairs, et al, who weren't at all concerned about the impact on the City centre when they opened their outlet at MacArthurGlen is staggering; the deceit and scaremongering of a small self-seving coterie of local traders is breath-taking; the attitude of York Conservative Association (which counts a certain Douglas Craig among its amlumni) shows it is as out of touch with popular sentiment as ever. A victory for the whole district and a victory for common sense!!!
Just got home from an evening shift rescuing train from Donny - what fantastic news for future generations of sports fans, for local patients, for residents of the district who will benefit from greater choice of shopping and for all those who understand that this proposal (inevitable appeal notwithstanding!) will enhance the quality of life for local people. CYC are to be congratulated on their brave decision and, for once, having put the interests of local residents first. The hypocracy of the Sinclairs, et al, who weren't at all concerned about the impact on the City centre when they opened their outlet at MacArthurGlen is staggering; the deceit and scaremongering of a small self-seving coterie of local traders is breath-taking; the attitude of York Conservative Association (which counts a certain Douglas Craig among its amlumni) shows it is as out of touch with popular sentiment as ever. A victory for the whole district and a victory for common sense!!! Tug job
  • Score: 0

1:31am Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Tug job wrote:
Just got home from an evening shift rescuing train from Donny - what fantastic news for future generations of sports fans, for local patients, for residents of the district who will benefit from greater choice of shopping and for all those who understand that this proposal (inevitable appeal notwithstanding!) will enhance the quality of life for local people. CYC are to be congratulated on their brave decision and, for once, having put the interests of local residents first. The hypocracy of the Sinclairs, et al, who weren't at all concerned about the impact on the City centre when they opened their outlet at MacArthurGlen is staggering; the deceit and scaremongering of a small self-seving coterie of local traders is breath-taking; the attitude of York Conservative Association (which counts a certain Douglas Craig among its amlumni) shows it is as out of touch with popular sentiment as ever. A victory for the whole district and a victory for common sense!!!
Popular sentiment = 2,405 letters of objection.

Enhancement of the quality of life of local people = Traffic chaos in Huntington area.

Deceit = Labour's political interference stopping the chief planning officer from making a recommendation.

Hypocrisy = Labour Councillors who purport to support the LDF then vote against it's requirements.

Attitude of York Conservative Association = Respect for the rules and acting with integrity.

A victory won by cheating the system ? !!!
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: Just got home from an evening shift rescuing train from Donny - what fantastic news for future generations of sports fans, for local patients, for residents of the district who will benefit from greater choice of shopping and for all those who understand that this proposal (inevitable appeal notwithstanding!) will enhance the quality of life for local people. CYC are to be congratulated on their brave decision and, for once, having put the interests of local residents first. The hypocracy of the Sinclairs, et al, who weren't at all concerned about the impact on the City centre when they opened their outlet at MacArthurGlen is staggering; the deceit and scaremongering of a small self-seving coterie of local traders is breath-taking; the attitude of York Conservative Association (which counts a certain Douglas Craig among its amlumni) shows it is as out of touch with popular sentiment as ever. A victory for the whole district and a victory for common sense!!![/p][/quote]Popular sentiment = 2,405 letters of objection. Enhancement of the quality of life of local people = Traffic chaos in Huntington area. Deceit = Labour's political interference stopping the chief planning officer from making a recommendation. Hypocrisy = Labour Councillors who purport to support the LDF then vote against it's requirements. Attitude of York Conservative Association = Respect for the rules and acting with integrity. A victory won by cheating the system ? !!! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

1:51am Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Jazzper wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: Shame on Labour and Lib-Dem councillors - trying to buy votes through a decision that makes a mockery of the whole system.
Shame on you 'Crabby' for not supporting the people of York, who are far more important than your 'well feathered friends', Sinclair and Co.
Not supporting the people of York ?

Who were the 2,405 writers of objection letters supporting ? Are they not people of York ?

I will not support anything that has been achieved through the blatant disregard and breaking, of the rules. It is wrong, and if you condone it, you set a dangerous precedent. The councillors without conscience will use the same ploy whenever by adhering to the rules, they cannot get their way. This blurring of the boundaries of acceptable behaviour is wrong, and ignorance is no excuse.

I condemn the council for their actions in respect of this decision. It is a disgrace !
[quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: Shame on Labour and Lib-Dem councillors - trying to buy votes through a decision that makes a mockery of the whole system.[/p][/quote]Shame on you 'Crabby' for not supporting the people of York, who are far more important than your 'well feathered friends', Sinclair and Co.[/p][/quote]Not supporting the people of York ? Who were the 2,405 writers of objection letters supporting ? Are they not people of York ? I will not support anything that has been achieved through the blatant disregard and breaking, of the rules. It is wrong, and if you condone it, you set a dangerous precedent. The councillors without conscience will use the same ploy whenever by adhering to the rules, they cannot get their way. This blurring of the boundaries of acceptable behaviour is wrong, and ignorance is no excuse. I condemn the council for their actions in respect of this decision. It is a disgrace ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

4:20am Fri 18 May 12

Magicman! says...

299 comments! (well, 300 with this one)... this must be the comment record, beating Car/Cycle debates for sure!

Get the thing built now, and do whatever is possible to block attempts to block it....
299 comments! (well, 300 with this one)... this must be the comment record, beating Car/Cycle debates for sure! Get the thing built now, and do whatever is possible to block attempts to block it.... Magicman!
  • Score: 0

7:03am Fri 18 May 12

bjb says...

"Who were the 2,405 writers of objection letters supporting ? Are they not people of York ?"

I suspect many of these were NOT 'people of York' but tourists that were encouraged to object by shops in the city centre that displayed the C4Y flyer.

It was interesting to note from the council website that those that supported the proposal outnumbered the objectors by about 300 - 400, you never ever mentioned that when you were throwing statistics around did you Mr Crabtree or whatever other alias you have been using on here.
"Who were the 2,405 writers of objection letters supporting ? Are they not people of York ?" I suspect many of these were NOT 'people of York' but tourists that were encouraged to object by shops in the city centre that displayed the C4Y flyer. It was interesting to note from the council website that those that supported the proposal outnumbered the objectors by about 300 - 400, you never ever mentioned that when you were throwing statistics around did you Mr Crabtree or whatever other alias you have been using on here. bjb
  • Score: 0

7:18am Fri 18 May 12

wilko27 says...

At last, something for the supporters of both the football and rugby clubs and a John Lewis for the shoppers. You cannot count the M&S as it is already at Monks Cross. So one new shop is going to kill the city centre, absolutely rubbish. The people of York who like to shop in York and the tourists will continue to pour into the city centre. If the council want to attract more people then reduce the parking charges for all.
At last, something for the supporters of both the football and rugby clubs and a John Lewis for the shoppers. You cannot count the M&S as it is already at Monks Cross. So one new shop is going to kill the city centre, absolutely rubbish. The people of York who like to shop in York and the tourists will continue to pour into the city centre. If the council want to attract more people then reduce the parking charges for all. wilko27
  • Score: 0

9:02am Fri 18 May 12

long distance depressive says...

bertieb wrote:
Absolutely fantastic news, especially for York City. I am delighted that the unholy alliance betweeen the Tories and the Greens was easily defeated in the final vote.
Don't think it was an alliance, the Tories were whipped into shape and the Greens always protest..it's what they do and will ever do.
[quote][p][bold]bertieb[/bold] wrote: Absolutely fantastic news, especially for York City. I am delighted that the unholy alliance betweeen the Tories and the Greens was easily defeated in the final vote.[/p][/quote]Don't think it was an alliance, the Tories were whipped into shape and the Greens always protest..it's what they do and will ever do. long distance depressive
  • Score: 0

9:29am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Crabtree

Get a life mate. Its over. I couldn't get to sleep last night mate. I kept waking up in the middle of the night shouting Bill Woolley ! Stick your statistics up your arse !
Crabtree Get a life mate. Its over. I couldn't get to sleep last night mate. I kept waking up in the middle of the night shouting Bill Woolley ! Stick your statistics up your arse ! walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

9:35am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

On a serious note. Common sense has prevailled. The council now need to look at reducing car parking fees. The existing shops need to reallise that the internet has damaged shopping more than anything. I rarely visit a shop, other than the supermarket these days. Hmv shop has been hit hard by the internet. Its cheaper to order on-line and it saves a lot of hassle.
On a serious note. Common sense has prevailled. The council now need to look at reducing car parking fees. The existing shops need to reallise that the internet has damaged shopping more than anything. I rarely visit a shop, other than the supermarket these days. Hmv shop has been hit hard by the internet. Its cheaper to order on-line and it saves a lot of hassle. walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

10:05am Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
On a serious note. Common sense has prevailled. The council now need to look at reducing car parking fees. The existing shops need to reallise that the internet has damaged shopping more than anything. I rarely visit a shop, other than the supermarket these days. Hmv shop has been hit hard by the internet. Its cheaper to order on-line and it saves a lot of hassle.
Completely 100% agree. The council now need to put in place a solid city centre strategy, which I hope will involve driving down the cost of parking in the city, the P&R facilities and providing cheap alternative transport. They also need to be able to demonstrate through events, fairs, specialist markets etc to keep people coming into our beautiful city. It would also go some way to mitigating any appeal this decision may go through.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: On a serious note. Common sense has prevailled. The council now need to look at reducing car parking fees. The existing shops need to reallise that the internet has damaged shopping more than anything. I rarely visit a shop, other than the supermarket these days. Hmv shop has been hit hard by the internet. Its cheaper to order on-line and it saves a lot of hassle.[/p][/quote]Completely 100% agree. The council now need to put in place a solid city centre strategy, which I hope will involve driving down the cost of parking in the city, the P&R facilities and providing cheap alternative transport. They also need to be able to demonstrate through events, fairs, specialist markets etc to keep people coming into our beautiful city. It would also go some way to mitigating any appeal this decision may go through. speaks99
  • Score: 0

11:32am Fri 18 May 12

The Great Buda says...

I see Mr Crabtree is having another breakdown.
I see Mr Crabtree is having another breakdown. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

11:38am Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Magicman! wrote:
299 comments! (well, 300 with this one)... this must be the comment record, beating Car/Cycle debates for sure! Get the thing built now, and do whatever is possible to block attempts to block it....
Only 289 left now (counting this one). It would have been 307, but, 18 have been removed - I wonder why ?

Not sure if any that called me names have been removed, but, if they have, it wasn't through my doing - I didn't report them.

Some of mine like the 'FOR SALE : Planning Permissions' etc etc have been removed. No doubt through the council or councillors complaining. At least they are watching and I hope I have pricked their consciences !
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: 299 comments! (well, 300 with this one)... this must be the comment record, beating Car/Cycle debates for sure! Get the thing built now, and do whatever is possible to block attempts to block it....[/p][/quote]Only 289 left now (counting this one). It would have been 307, but, 18 have been removed - I wonder why ? Not sure if any that called me names have been removed, but, if they have, it wasn't through my doing - I didn't report them. Some of mine like the 'FOR SALE : Planning Permissions' etc etc have been removed. No doubt through the council or councillors complaining. At least they are watching and I hope I have pricked their consciences ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

11:39am Fri 18 May 12

Sawday2 says...

Has anybody seen a map of exactly where this development will be built? Is there a link to it?
Has anybody seen a map of exactly where this development will be built? Is there a link to it? Sawday2
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

bjb wrote:
"Who were the 2,405 writers of objection letters supporting ? Are they not people of York ?" I suspect many of these were NOT 'people of York' but tourists that were encouraged to object by shops in the city centre that displayed the C4Y flyer. It was interesting to note from the council website that those that supported the proposal outnumbered the objectors by about 300 - 400, you never ever mentioned that when you were throwing statistics around did you Mr Crabtree or whatever other alias you have been using on here.
Ha, ha, ha........ and Oakgate didn't have multiple letter writers in their campaign did they ?

Why do you think that the council made the qualification, that they had not had time to check for duplication ? :(

You'll be accusing me of being Nick Eggleton or Adam Sinclair next, just like the fools who think I'm Matthew Laverack. I'm none of them - I'm just me - Little, old, sad, lonely Mr C !?!? hehehe ;-)
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: "Who were the 2,405 writers of objection letters supporting ? Are they not people of York ?" I suspect many of these were NOT 'people of York' but tourists that were encouraged to object by shops in the city centre that displayed the C4Y flyer. It was interesting to note from the council website that those that supported the proposal outnumbered the objectors by about 300 - 400, you never ever mentioned that when you were throwing statistics around did you Mr Crabtree or whatever other alias you have been using on here.[/p][/quote]Ha, ha, ha........ and Oakgate didn't have multiple letter writers in their campaign did they ? Why do you think that the council made the qualification, that they had not had time to check for duplication ? :( You'll be accusing me of being Nick Eggleton or Adam Sinclair next, just like the fools who think I'm Matthew Laverack. I'm none of them - I'm just me - Little, old, sad, lonely Mr C !?!? hehehe ;-) Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Crabtree Get a life mate. Its over. I couldn't get to sleep last night mate. I kept waking up in the middle of the night shouting Bill Woolley ! Stick your statistics up your arse !
I've got a great life and slept lig a log, thanks, mate.

I hope your sad life, and sleepless nights have been made a little more bearable through the prospect of a John Lewis and a new stadium....... when ever, and where ever they are are built ;-)

Hey, you never know the tooth fairy and Santa might 'club' together to bail out YCFC when Persimmon's offer for BC falls way short of Bill Woolley's 2008 valuation of £3.7m and bankrupts the club. If not, you can either watch the Knights, or do like most and go to Elland Road to watch a proper team !

Let's see who has the last laugh, shall we ?
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Crabtree Get a life mate. Its over. I couldn't get to sleep last night mate. I kept waking up in the middle of the night shouting Bill Woolley ! Stick your statistics up your arse ![/p][/quote]I've got a great life and slept lig a log, thanks, mate. I hope your sad life, and sleepless nights have been made a little more bearable through the prospect of a John Lewis and a new stadium....... when ever, and where ever they are are built ;-) Hey, you never know the tooth fairy and Santa might 'club' together to bail out YCFC when Persimmon's offer for BC falls way short of Bill Woolley's 2008 valuation of £3.7m and bankrupts the club. If not, you can either watch the Knights, or do like most and go to Elland Road to watch a proper team ! Let's see who has the last laugh, shall we ? Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Sawday2 wrote:
Has anybody seen a map of exactly where this development will be built? Is there a link to it?
Well informed decisions ?

I'll give you a clue.... not far from Bootham, it's called HUNTINGTON !
[quote][p][bold]Sawday2[/bold] wrote: Has anybody seen a map of exactly where this development will be built? Is there a link to it?[/p][/quote]Well informed decisions ? I'll give you a clue.... not far from Bootham, it's called HUNTINGTON ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: On a serious note. Common sense has prevailled. The council now need to look at reducing car parking fees. The existing shops need to reallise that the internet has damaged shopping more than anything. I rarely visit a shop, other than the supermarket these days. Hmv shop has been hit hard by the internet. Its cheaper to order on-line and it saves a lot of hassle.
Completely 100% agree. The council now need to put in place a solid city centre strategy, which I hope will involve driving down the cost of parking in the city, the P&R facilities and providing cheap alternative transport. They also need to be able to demonstrate through events, fairs, specialist markets etc to keep people coming into our beautiful city. It would also go some way to mitigating any appeal this decision may go through.
A solid city centre strategy ?

You mean like a Core Strategy ?

Like the one that took legions of Bill Woolley-lead officers eight years to prepare, at massive cost to York taxpayers - only to be sunk without trace yesterday, by who else ? Yes...... the same man Bill Woolley !

Suggestion to you two civic minded big thinkers. Bill Woolley is retiring this summer, so why don't you apply for his job ? Qualifications required: Janet & John Book 1 in reading, no maths skills needed, or joined-up thinking. Must have good links with rich developers, like champagne, and be sociable.
Pay : about £88,000 rising to £106,000
Pension : Must be good, Bill is retiring aged 60.

If you don't get the job, put yourself forward as prospective councillors. Rumour has it there will be a few vacant seats at the next election ? !!!!
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: On a serious note. Common sense has prevailled. The council now need to look at reducing car parking fees. The existing shops need to reallise that the internet has damaged shopping more than anything. I rarely visit a shop, other than the supermarket these days. Hmv shop has been hit hard by the internet. Its cheaper to order on-line and it saves a lot of hassle.[/p][/quote]Completely 100% agree. The council now need to put in place a solid city centre strategy, which I hope will involve driving down the cost of parking in the city, the P&R facilities and providing cheap alternative transport. They also need to be able to demonstrate through events, fairs, specialist markets etc to keep people coming into our beautiful city. It would also go some way to mitigating any appeal this decision may go through.[/p][/quote]A solid city centre strategy ? You mean like a Core Strategy ? Like the one that took legions of Bill Woolley-lead officers eight years to prepare, at massive cost to York taxpayers - only to be sunk without trace yesterday, by who else ? Yes...... the same man Bill Woolley ! Suggestion to you two civic minded big thinkers. Bill Woolley is retiring this summer, so why don't you apply for his job ? Qualifications required: Janet & John Book 1 in reading, no maths skills needed, or joined-up thinking. Must have good links with rich developers, like champagne, and be sociable. Pay : about £88,000 rising to £106,000 Pension : Must be good, Bill is retiring aged 60. If you don't get the job, put yourself forward as prospective councillors. Rumour has it there will be a few vacant seats at the next election ? !!!! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

PS If you fail to impress James Alexander, Tracey Simpson-Laing and Karstin Inglund (who?) with your massive intellects, reading and champagne quaffing skills - try bribery...... it worked for Oakgate ;-)
PS If you fail to impress James Alexander, Tracey Simpson-Laing and Karstin Inglund (who?) with your massive intellects, reading and champagne quaffing skills - try bribery...... it worked for Oakgate ;-) Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Fri 18 May 12

paintitred says...

Are you still yarrrrrrping on Mr c.

11 votes to 4 .

u boys to a hammering last night and yet you still protecting your little gift shops.

go to bed now .
freak ;-)
Are you still yarrrrrrping on Mr c. 11 votes to 4 . u boys to a hammering last night and yet you still protecting your little gift shops. go to bed now . freak ;-) paintitred
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

PPS Forget the councillor idea...... if Terry Smith is standing, you will struggle to match his colossal intellect !
PPS Forget the councillor idea...... if Terry Smith is standing, you will struggle to match his colossal intellect ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Bloody hell Crabtree. You and AngryandFrustrated are a very said pair of individuals. 11-4 and that speaks volumes.
Bloody hell Crabtree. You and AngryandFrustrated are a very said pair of individuals. 11-4 and that speaks volumes. walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Crabtree

I'm very intelligent mate. I can hold a conversation about a wide variety of topics (try me ?). I'm just fed up, like the majority of people on here hearing about bungs, bribes and Bill Woolley. 11-4. A democratic result if ever there was one. Now accept it, get on with your life (whatever that may be) and give it a rest. Your mate is just as bad with his witty one word answers.
Crabtree I'm very intelligent mate. I can hold a conversation about a wide variety of topics (try me ?). I'm just fed up, like the majority of people on here hearing about bungs, bribes and Bill Woolley. 11-4. A democratic result if ever there was one. Now accept it, get on with your life (whatever that may be) and give it a rest. Your mate is just as bad with his witty one word answers. walwynwasgod
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

paintitred wrote:
Are you still yarrrrrrping on Mr c. 11 votes to 4 . u boys to a hammering last night and yet you still protecting your little gift shops. go to bed now . freak ;-)
Another alumni from the same charm school as 'Walwynwasgod'

Lets see what the Secretary of State has to say, shall we ?

Bet your a Man Utd fan, pretending to be a pinko hehehe ;-(
[quote][p][bold]paintitred[/bold] wrote: Are you still yarrrrrrping on Mr c. 11 votes to 4 . u boys to a hammering last night and yet you still protecting your little gift shops. go to bed now . freak ;-)[/p][/quote]Another alumni from the same charm school as 'Walwynwasgod' Lets see what the Secretary of State has to say, shall we ? Bet your a Man Utd fan, pretending to be a pinko hehehe ;-( Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Crabtree I'm very intelligent mate. I can hold a conversation about a wide variety of topics (try me ?). I'm just fed up, like the majority of people on here hearing about bungs, bribes and Bill Woolley. 11-4. A democratic result if ever there was one. Now accept it, get on with your life (whatever that may be) and give it a rest. Your mate is just as bad with his witty one word answers.
You know very little about due process, protocol (not just manners), ethics or what constitues moral turpitude, that's for sure.

Learn about it, then give a lecture to James Alexander and his rag tag band, including Woolley and Slater !
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Crabtree I'm very intelligent mate. I can hold a conversation about a wide variety of topics (try me ?). I'm just fed up, like the majority of people on here hearing about bungs, bribes and Bill Woolley. 11-4. A democratic result if ever there was one. Now accept it, get on with your life (whatever that may be) and give it a rest. Your mate is just as bad with his witty one word answers.[/p][/quote]You know very little about due process, protocol (not just manners), ethics or what constitues moral turpitude, that's for sure. Learn about it, then give a lecture to James Alexander and his rag tag band, including Woolley and Slater ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Fri 18 May 12

paintitred says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
paintitred wrote:
Are you still yarrrrrrping on Mr c. 11 votes to 4 . u boys to a hammering last night and yet you still protecting your little gift shops. go to bed now . freak ;-)
Another alumni from the same charm school as 'Walwynwasgod'

Lets see what the Secretary of State has to say, shall we ?

Bet your a Man Utd fan, pretending to be a pinko hehehe ;-(
your are cheeky monkey.Mr c.

shhh dont tell every one im a man utd fan i wont be allowed to renew my YCFC season ticket.

I doubt very much that mr p will over turn the approval.The goverments over riding target for new jobs will see this sanctioned,
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paintitred[/bold] wrote: Are you still yarrrrrrping on Mr c. 11 votes to 4 . u boys to a hammering last night and yet you still protecting your little gift shops. go to bed now . freak ;-)[/p][/quote]Another alumni from the same charm school as 'Walwynwasgod' Lets see what the Secretary of State has to say, shall we ? Bet your a Man Utd fan, pretending to be a pinko hehehe ;-([/p][/quote]your are cheeky monkey.Mr c. shhh dont tell every one im a man utd fan i wont be allowed to renew my YCFC season ticket. I doubt very much that mr p will over turn the approval.The goverments over riding target for new jobs will see this sanctioned, paintitred
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Fri 18 May 12

Ichabod76 says...

Mr Crabtree

Keep up the good work
I fully support you and you views
Its just a shame some of the football fans don't really understand what this means for York in the long run.

and I'm not talking about shopping or the city centre
Mr Crabtree Keep up the good work I fully support you and you views Its just a shame some of the football fans don't really understand what this means for York in the long run. and I'm not talking about shopping or the city centre Ichabod76
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Fri 18 May 12

paintitred says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
paintitred wrote:
Are you still yarrrrrrping on Mr c. 11 votes to 4 . u boys to a hammering last night and yet you still protecting your little gift shops. go to bed now . freak ;-)
Another alumni from the same charm school as 'Walwynwasgod'

Lets see what the Secretary of State has to say, shall we ?

Bet your a Man Utd fan, pretending to be a pinko hehehe ;-(
your are cheeky monkey.Mr c.

shhh dont tell every one im a man utd fan i wont be allowed to renew my YCFC season ticket.

I doubt very much that mr p will over turn the approval.The goverments over riding target for new jobs will see this sanctioned,
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paintitred[/bold] wrote: Are you still yarrrrrrping on Mr c. 11 votes to 4 . u boys to a hammering last night and yet you still protecting your little gift shops. go to bed now . freak ;-)[/p][/quote]Another alumni from the same charm school as 'Walwynwasgod' Lets see what the Secretary of State has to say, shall we ? Bet your a Man Utd fan, pretending to be a pinko hehehe ;-([/p][/quote]your are cheeky monkey.Mr c. shhh dont tell every one im a man utd fan i wont be allowed to renew my YCFC season ticket. I doubt very much that mr p will over turn the approval.The goverments over riding target for new jobs will see this sanctioned, paintitred
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Fri 18 May 12

Dave Taylor says...

It was a very well-mannered meeting yesterday, shame it descends to such abuse on this forum.

I don't think the decision was taken on planning grounds at all, but to support the football club.

I can fully understand why many fans think like that, but Councillors really should listen to the officers' and independent reports which stated:-
1) it would cause "severe harm" to the highway network (95% of people drive to MX.
2) it would suck £50M of business per year from the city centre economy.
3) it would make the £200M development at Piccadilly unlikely.
4) that the John Lewis store could certainly have gone to Piccadilly.
5) it would have such an impact on York's "Local Development Framework" (Local Plan) that it would probably have to be withdrawn.
6) it goes against all hitherto local and national planning policies on transport, environment, inward investment, and retail development.
It was a very well-mannered meeting yesterday, shame it descends to such abuse on this forum. I don't think the decision was taken on planning grounds at all, but to support the football club. I can fully understand why many fans think like that, but Councillors really should listen to the officers' and independent reports which stated:- 1) it would cause "severe harm" to the highway network (95% of people drive to MX. 2) it would suck £50M of business per year from the city centre economy. 3) it would make the £200M development at Piccadilly unlikely. 4) that the John Lewis store could certainly have gone to Piccadilly. 5) it would have such an impact on York's "Local Development Framework" (Local Plan) that it would probably have to be withdrawn. 6) it goes against all hitherto local and national planning policies on transport, environment, inward investment, and retail development. Dave Taylor
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Fri 18 May 12

swh1963 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
I'm sorry, but like the majority of posters who are demonising and ridiculing me on this thread, you are ignorant and have failed to understand my argument.

I am not anti-York, and am not against a stadium or John Lewis, but, I do not support the breaking of the rules.

The council have ignored the rules that they are bound by, and broken their own policies. On planning grounds this application should have been refused, and it is a disgrace that no recommendation was made by Michael Slater, who has clearly been manipulated and compromised by political interference. It flies in the face of both the LDF and the NPPF.

Councillors who have voted for this should be ashamed, not for wanting the benefits that this brings to York, but, for the devious, underhanded way they have brought it about. Their consciences should not be clear and there is no excuse.
Doing the right thing the wrong way is always better than doing the wrong thing the right way.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: I'm sorry, but like the majority of posters who are demonising and ridiculing me on this thread, you are ignorant and have failed to understand my argument. I am not anti-York, and am not against a stadium or John Lewis, but, I do not support the breaking of the rules. The council have ignored the rules that they are bound by, and broken their own policies. On planning grounds this application should have been refused, and it is a disgrace that no recommendation was made by Michael Slater, who has clearly been manipulated and compromised by political interference. It flies in the face of both the LDF and the NPPF. Councillors who have voted for this should be ashamed, not for wanting the benefits that this brings to York, but, for the devious, underhanded way they have brought it about. Their consciences should not be clear and there is no excuse.[/p][/quote]Doing the right thing the wrong way is always better than doing the wrong thing the right way. swh1963
  • Score: 0

7:08pm Fri 18 May 12

Jazzper says...

Dave Taylor wrote:
It was a very well-mannered meeting yesterday, shame it descends to such abuse on this forum.

I don't think the decision was taken on planning grounds at all, but to support the football club.

I can fully understand why many fans think like that, but Councillors really should listen to the officers' and independent reports which stated:-
1) it would cause "severe harm" to the highway network (95% of people drive to MX.
2) it would suck £50M of business per year from the city centre economy.
3) it would make the £200M development at Piccadilly unlikely.
4) that the John Lewis store could certainly have gone to Piccadilly.
5) it would have such an impact on York's "Local Development Framework" (Local Plan) that it would probably have to be withdrawn.
6) it goes against all hitherto local and national planning policies on transport, environment, inward investment, and retail development.
Mr Taylor...I, and has it has now been proven, (11>4) many more people do not agree with any of your points. is it not time for you to go out to grass where you belong....I'm sure you'll find lots of 'green' shoots in those fields who will agree with you.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Taylor[/bold] wrote: It was a very well-mannered meeting yesterday, shame it descends to such abuse on this forum. I don't think the decision was taken on planning grounds at all, but to support the football club. I can fully understand why many fans think like that, but Councillors really should listen to the officers' and independent reports which stated:- 1) it would cause "severe harm" to the highway network (95% of people drive to MX. 2) it would suck £50M of business per year from the city centre economy. 3) it would make the £200M development at Piccadilly unlikely. 4) that the John Lewis store could certainly have gone to Piccadilly. 5) it would have such an impact on York's "Local Development Framework" (Local Plan) that it would probably have to be withdrawn. 6) it goes against all hitherto local and national planning policies on transport, environment, inward investment, and retail development.[/p][/quote]Mr Taylor...I, and has it has now been proven, (11>4) many more people do not agree with any of your points. is it not time for you to go out to grass where you belong....I'm sure you'll find lots of 'green' shoots in those fields who will agree with you. Jazzper
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

swh1963 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
I'm sorry, but like the majority of posters who are demonising and ridiculing me on this thread, you are ignorant and have failed to understand my argument.

I am not anti-York, and am not against a stadium or John Lewis, but, I do not support the breaking of the rules.

The council have ignored the rules that they are bound by, and broken their own policies. On planning grounds this application should have been refused, and it is a disgrace that no recommendation was made by Michael Slater, who has clearly been manipulated and compromised by political interference. It flies in the face of both the LDF and the NPPF.

Councillors who have voted for this should be ashamed, not for wanting the benefits that this brings to York, but, for the devious, underhanded way they have brought it about. Their consciences should not be clear and there is no excuse.
Doing the right thing the wrong way is always better than doing the wrong thing the right way.
It's the right thing in the wrong place, by the wrong way, which will have serious implications. Rules are there for a reason, and not to be broken by those who were paid to make them and abide by them. There is no excuse.
[quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: I'm sorry, but like the majority of posters who are demonising and ridiculing me on this thread, you are ignorant and have failed to understand my argument. I am not anti-York, and am not against a stadium or John Lewis, but, I do not support the breaking of the rules. The council have ignored the rules that they are bound by, and broken their own policies. On planning grounds this application should have been refused, and it is a disgrace that no recommendation was made by Michael Slater, who has clearly been manipulated and compromised by political interference. It flies in the face of both the LDF and the NPPF. Councillors who have voted for this should be ashamed, not for wanting the benefits that this brings to York, but, for the devious, underhanded way they have brought it about. Their consciences should not be clear and there is no excuse.[/p][/quote]Doing the right thing the wrong way is always better than doing the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]It's the right thing in the wrong place, by the wrong way, which will have serious implications. Rules are there for a reason, and not to be broken by those who were paid to make them and abide by them. There is no excuse. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Fri 18 May 12

swh1963 says...

Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.
Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing. swh1963
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

paintitred wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
paintitred wrote:
Are you still yarrrrrrping on Mr c. 11 votes to 4 . u boys to a hammering last night and yet you still protecting your little gift shops. go to bed now . freak ;-)
Another alumni from the same charm school as 'Walwynwasgod'

Lets see what the Secretary of State has to say, shall we ?

Bet your a Man Utd fan, pretending to be a pinko hehehe ;-(
your are cheeky monkey.Mr c.

shhh dont tell every one im a man utd fan i wont be allowed to renew my YCFC season ticket.

I doubt very much that mr p will over turn the approval.The goverments over riding target for new jobs will see this sanctioned,
I disagree, but, we shall see.

Many council make decisions that are challenged and quashed, and York have lost at appeal on far less contentious issues than this. I have followed planning applications for 36 years and have never witnessed anything that blatantly disregarded so many rules, laws and policies. If it is allowed, it sets a very dangerous precedent, and one that the government can ill afford. With population growth out of control, the nullification of the LDF could make York a target for a groundswell of greenbelt development. The council deserve all that is coming their way, but, York will be the biggest loser, all because of councillors who break their own rules !
[quote][p][bold]paintitred[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paintitred[/bold] wrote: Are you still yarrrrrrping on Mr c. 11 votes to 4 . u boys to a hammering last night and yet you still protecting your little gift shops. go to bed now . freak ;-)[/p][/quote]Another alumni from the same charm school as 'Walwynwasgod' Lets see what the Secretary of State has to say, shall we ? Bet your a Man Utd fan, pretending to be a pinko hehehe ;-([/p][/quote]your are cheeky monkey.Mr c. shhh dont tell every one im a man utd fan i wont be allowed to renew my YCFC season ticket. I doubt very much that mr p will over turn the approval.The goverments over riding target for new jobs will see this sanctioned,[/p][/quote]I disagree, but, we shall see. Many council make decisions that are challenged and quashed, and York have lost at appeal on far less contentious issues than this. I have followed planning applications for 36 years and have never witnessed anything that blatantly disregarded so many rules, laws and policies. If it is allowed, it sets a very dangerous precedent, and one that the government can ill afford. With population growth out of control, the nullification of the LDF could make York a target for a groundswell of greenbelt development. The council deserve all that is coming their way, but, York will be the biggest loser, all because of councillors who break their own rules ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

Dave Taylor wrote:
It was a very well-mannered meeting yesterday, shame it descends to such abuse on this forum.

I don't think the decision was taken on planning grounds at all, but to support the football club.

I can fully understand why many fans think like that, but Councillors really should listen to the officers' and independent reports which stated:-
1) it would cause "severe harm" to the highway network (95% of people drive to MX.
2) it would suck £50M of business per year from the city centre economy.
3) it would make the £200M development at Piccadilly unlikely.
4) that the John Lewis store could certainly have gone to Piccadilly.
5) it would have such an impact on York's "Local Development Framework" (Local Plan) that it would probably have to be withdrawn.
6) it goes against all hitherto local and national planning policies on transport, environment, inward investment, and retail development.
1) Is the only possibly valid point against... Though I'm not sure as I haven't read documents recently

2) £50m that the city centre can afford... Not quite the £100m that C4Y was scaremongering with...

3) Here's my favourite quote of the day, if the Castle Piccadilly developers' case is so weak that they would walk away if Monks Cross were expanded "then you have no business case at all", to which I raise a glass (and this guy voted against the proposals!)

4) "Andrew Mills from John Lewis says nobody from LaSalle Venture Fund has made meaningful attempts to engage them in talks about Castle Piccadilly, and says two previous attempts to regenerate that site have failed."

5) The governments over riding objective is one of "sustainable growth".

6) See above.

Sorry, but those arguments don't hold any water...
[quote][p][bold]Dave Taylor[/bold] wrote: It was a very well-mannered meeting yesterday, shame it descends to such abuse on this forum. I don't think the decision was taken on planning grounds at all, but to support the football club. I can fully understand why many fans think like that, but Councillors really should listen to the officers' and independent reports which stated:- 1) it would cause "severe harm" to the highway network (95% of people drive to MX. 2) it would suck £50M of business per year from the city centre economy. 3) it would make the £200M development at Piccadilly unlikely. 4) that the John Lewis store could certainly have gone to Piccadilly. 5) it would have such an impact on York's "Local Development Framework" (Local Plan) that it would probably have to be withdrawn. 6) it goes against all hitherto local and national planning policies on transport, environment, inward investment, and retail development.[/p][/quote]1) Is the only possibly valid point against... Though I'm not sure as I haven't read documents recently 2) £50m that the city centre can afford... Not quite the £100m that C4Y was scaremongering with... 3) Here's my favourite quote of the day, if the Castle Piccadilly developers' case is so weak that they would walk away if Monks Cross were expanded "then you have no business case at all", to which I raise a glass (and this guy voted against the proposals!) 4) "Andrew Mills from John Lewis says nobody from LaSalle Venture Fund has made meaningful attempts to engage them in talks about Castle Piccadilly, and says two previous attempts to regenerate that site have failed." 5) The governments over riding objective is one of "sustainable growth". 6) See above. Sorry, but those arguments don't hold any water... speaks99
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

I disagree, but, we shall see.

Many council make decisions that are challenged and quashed, and York have lost at appeal on far less contentious issues than this. I have followed planning applications for 36 years and have never witnessed anything that blatantly disregarded so many rules, laws and policies. If it is allowed, it sets a very dangerous precedent, and one that the government can ill afford. With population growth out of control, the nullification of the LDF could make York a target for a groundswell of greenbelt development. The council deserve all that is coming their way, but, York will be the biggest loser, all because of councillors who break their own rules !
I disagree, but, we shall see. Many council make decisions that are challenged and quashed, and York have lost at appeal on far less contentious issues than this. I have followed planning applications for 36 years and have never witnessed anything that blatantly disregarded so many rules, laws and policies. If it is allowed, it sets a very dangerous precedent, and one that the government can ill afford. With population growth out of control, the nullification of the LDF could make York a target for a groundswell of greenbelt development. The council deserve all that is coming their way, but, York will be the biggest loser, all because of councillors who break their own rules ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Dave Taylor wrote:
It was a very well-mannered meeting yesterday, shame it descends to such abuse on this forum.

I don't think the decision was taken on planning grounds at all, but to support the football club.

I can fully understand why many fans think like that, but Councillors really should listen to the officers' and independent reports which stated:-
1) it would cause "severe harm" to the highway network (95% of people drive to MX.
2) it would suck £50M of business per year from the city centre economy.
3) it would make the £200M development at Piccadilly unlikely.
4) that the John Lewis store could certainly have gone to Piccadilly.
5) it would have such an impact on York's "Local Development Framework" (Local Plan) that it would probably have to be withdrawn.
6) it goes against all hitherto local and national planning policies on transport, environment, inward investment, and retail development.
1) Is the only possibly valid point against... Though I'm not sure as I haven't read documents recently

2) £50m that the city centre can afford... Not quite the £100m that C4Y was scaremongering with...

3) Here's my favourite quote of the day, if the Castle Piccadilly developers' case is so weak that they would walk away if Monks Cross were expanded "then you have no business case at all", to which I raise a glass (and this guy voted against the proposals!)

4) "Andrew Mills from John Lewis says nobody from LaSalle Venture Fund has made meaningful attempts to engage them in talks about Castle Piccadilly, and says two previous attempts to regenerate that site have failed."

5) The governments over riding objective is one of "sustainable growth".

6) See above.

Sorry, but those arguments don't hold any water...
Another vain attempt at spin, which most ignorant footy fans will gobble up willingly. Those who know better, will see through the bluster and misinformed rhetoric. You are a bluffer, and one who has no credibility or understanding of planning or policy. Dave Taylor will eat you up and spit you out.

Stick to subuteo, would be my advice, as you are out of your depth. I'm still waiting for you to give me evidence of all the other councils that have broken all these rules and got away with it. Get a move on.......
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Taylor[/bold] wrote: It was a very well-mannered meeting yesterday, shame it descends to such abuse on this forum. I don't think the decision was taken on planning grounds at all, but to support the football club. I can fully understand why many fans think like that, but Councillors really should listen to the officers' and independent reports which stated:- 1) it would cause "severe harm" to the highway network (95% of people drive to MX. 2) it would suck £50M of business per year from the city centre economy. 3) it would make the £200M development at Piccadilly unlikely. 4) that the John Lewis store could certainly have gone to Piccadilly. 5) it would have such an impact on York's "Local Development Framework" (Local Plan) that it would probably have to be withdrawn. 6) it goes against all hitherto local and national planning policies on transport, environment, inward investment, and retail development.[/p][/quote]1) Is the only possibly valid point against... Though I'm not sure as I haven't read documents recently 2) £50m that the city centre can afford... Not quite the £100m that C4Y was scaremongering with... 3) Here's my favourite quote of the day, if the Castle Piccadilly developers' case is so weak that they would walk away if Monks Cross were expanded "then you have no business case at all", to which I raise a glass (and this guy voted against the proposals!) 4) "Andrew Mills from John Lewis says nobody from LaSalle Venture Fund has made meaningful attempts to engage them in talks about Castle Piccadilly, and says two previous attempts to regenerate that site have failed." 5) The governments over riding objective is one of "sustainable growth". 6) See above. Sorry, but those arguments don't hold any water...[/p][/quote]Another vain attempt at spin, which most ignorant footy fans will gobble up willingly. Those who know better, will see through the bluster and misinformed rhetoric. You are a bluffer, and one who has no credibility or understanding of planning or policy. Dave Taylor will eat you up and spit you out. Stick to subuteo, would be my advice, as you are out of your depth. I'm still waiting for you to give me evidence of all the other councils that have broken all these rules and got away with it. Get a move on....... Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Dave Taylor wrote:
It was a very well-mannered meeting yesterday, shame it descends to such abuse on this forum.

I don't think the decision was taken on planning grounds at all, but to support the football club.

I can fully understand why many fans think like that, but Councillors really should listen to the officers' and independent reports which stated:-
1) it would cause "severe harm" to the highway network (95% of people drive to MX.
2) it would suck £50M of business per year from the city centre economy.
3) it would make the £200M development at Piccadilly unlikely.
4) that the John Lewis store could certainly have gone to Piccadilly.
5) it would have such an impact on York's "Local Development Framework" (Local Plan) that it would probably have to be withdrawn.
6) it goes against all hitherto local and national planning policies on transport, environment, inward investment, and retail development.
1) Is the only possibly valid point against... Though I'm not sure as I haven't read documents recently

2) £50m that the city centre can afford... Not quite the £100m that C4Y was scaremongering with...

3) Here's my favourite quote of the day, if the Castle Piccadilly developers' case is so weak that they would walk away if Monks Cross were expanded "then you have no business case at all", to which I raise a glass (and this guy voted against the proposals!)

4) "Andrew Mills from John Lewis says nobody from LaSalle Venture Fund has made meaningful attempts to engage them in talks about Castle Piccadilly, and says two previous attempts to regenerate that site have failed."

5) The governments over riding objective is one of "sustainable growth".

6) See above.

Sorry, but those arguments don't hold any water...
Another vain attempt at spin, which most ignorant footy fans will gobble up willingly. Those who know better, will see through the bluster and misinformed rhetoric. You are a bluffer, and one who has no credibility or understanding of planning or policy. Dave Taylor will eat you up and spit you out.

Stick to subuteo, would be my advice, as you are out of your depth. I'm still waiting for you to give me evidence of all the other councils that have broken all these rules and got away with it. Get a move on.......
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Taylor[/bold] wrote: It was a very well-mannered meeting yesterday, shame it descends to such abuse on this forum. I don't think the decision was taken on planning grounds at all, but to support the football club. I can fully understand why many fans think like that, but Councillors really should listen to the officers' and independent reports which stated:- 1) it would cause "severe harm" to the highway network (95% of people drive to MX. 2) it would suck £50M of business per year from the city centre economy. 3) it would make the £200M development at Piccadilly unlikely. 4) that the John Lewis store could certainly have gone to Piccadilly. 5) it would have such an impact on York's "Local Development Framework" (Local Plan) that it would probably have to be withdrawn. 6) it goes against all hitherto local and national planning policies on transport, environment, inward investment, and retail development.[/p][/quote]1) Is the only possibly valid point against... Though I'm not sure as I haven't read documents recently 2) £50m that the city centre can afford... Not quite the £100m that C4Y was scaremongering with... 3) Here's my favourite quote of the day, if the Castle Piccadilly developers' case is so weak that they would walk away if Monks Cross were expanded "then you have no business case at all", to which I raise a glass (and this guy voted against the proposals!) 4) "Andrew Mills from John Lewis says nobody from LaSalle Venture Fund has made meaningful attempts to engage them in talks about Castle Piccadilly, and says two previous attempts to regenerate that site have failed." 5) The governments over riding objective is one of "sustainable growth". 6) See above. Sorry, but those arguments don't hold any water...[/p][/quote]Another vain attempt at spin, which most ignorant footy fans will gobble up willingly. Those who know better, will see through the bluster and misinformed rhetoric. You are a bluffer, and one who has no credibility or understanding of planning or policy. Dave Taylor will eat you up and spit you out. Stick to subuteo, would be my advice, as you are out of your depth. I'm still waiting for you to give me evidence of all the other councils that have broken all these rules and got away with it. Get a move on....... Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Fri 18 May 12

swh1963 says...

swh1963 wrote:
Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.
Hate to quote myself but wondering what your response is, Mr Crabtree.
[quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.[/p][/quote]Hate to quote myself but wondering what your response is, Mr Crabtree. swh1963
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

swh1963 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.
Hate to quote myself but wondering what your response is, Mr Crabtree.
God, you're so vain!! Quoting your own post for Gods sake ;o)
[quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.[/p][/quote]Hate to quote myself but wondering what your response is, Mr Crabtree.[/p][/quote]God, you're so vain!! Quoting your own post for Gods sake ;o) speaks99
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Fri 18 May 12

Buzz Light-year says...

And now here are the ctrl-f results so far:

Crabtree: 120
walwynwasgod: 63
Even AndyD: 38
speaks99: 27
AngryandFrustrated: 24
And now here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 120 walwynwasgod: 63 Even AndyD: 38 speaks99: 27 AngryandFrustrated: 24 Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

9:25pm Fri 18 May 12

swh1963 says...

speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.
Hate to quote myself but wondering what your response is, Mr Crabtree.
God, you're so vain!! Quoting your own post for Gods sake ;o)
Well I did kind of apologise for it but Mr Crabtree and his supporters are on the ropes on this point so it was worth repeating.
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.[/p][/quote]Hate to quote myself but wondering what your response is, Mr Crabtree.[/p][/quote]God, you're so vain!! Quoting your own post for Gods sake ;o)[/p][/quote]Well I did kind of apologise for it but Mr Crabtree and his supporters are on the ropes on this point so it was worth repeating. swh1963
  • Score: 0

9:26pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

Oh Mr C, can't we all just get along...

Which part was spin? The quote from the Tory councillor (who voted against the proposals) when he put La Salle in their place?

The part where JL said that they have no interest in Coppergate because there is a precedent for planning permissions on that site falling through?

The part where the DJD report (give or take) agreed with the Oakgate proposal about the size of displacement from the city centre and totally rubbished the GVA (paid for) prediction?

That's all documented. No spin, plain quotes and plain facts.

I know better than to get into a conversation about planning regulations with you. You clearly know a lot more about them than I do, but what I do know, regardless of how it has been achieved, was that the right decision for the city of York, as a whole, has been reached, and I applaud the councillors.

Talk about spin, have a read through the Campaign4York leaflet and tell me how many of the so called facts are actually that. The only reason the C4Y got so much support is because they were scaring people into opposing it.
Oh Mr C, can't we all just get along... Which part was spin? The quote from the Tory councillor (who voted against the proposals) when he put La Salle in their place? The part where JL said that they have no interest in Coppergate because there is a precedent for planning permissions on that site falling through? The part where the DJD report (give or take) agreed with the Oakgate proposal about the size of displacement from the city centre and totally rubbished the GVA (paid for) prediction? That's all documented. No spin, plain quotes and plain facts. I know better than to get into a conversation about planning regulations with you. You clearly know a lot more about them than I do, but what I do know, regardless of how it has been achieved, was that the right decision for the city of York, as a whole, has been reached, and I applaud the councillors. Talk about spin, have a read through the Campaign4York leaflet and tell me how many of the so called facts are actually that. The only reason the C4Y got so much support is because they were scaring people into opposing it. speaks99
  • Score: 0

9:28pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
And now here are the ctrl-f results so far:

Crabtree: 120
walwynwasgod: 63
Even AndyD: 38
speaks99: 27
AngryandFrustrated: 24
Just 27?? I've spent all day at work on the internet and only 27 posts to show for it? Pah!
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: And now here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 120 walwynwasgod: 63 Even AndyD: 38 speaks99: 27 AngryandFrustrated: 24[/p][/quote]Just 27?? I've spent all day at work on the internet and only 27 posts to show for it? Pah! speaks99
  • Score: 0

9:41pm Fri 18 May 12

swh1963 says...

speaks99 wrote:
Oh Mr C, can't we all just get along...

Which part was spin? The quote from the Tory councillor (who voted against the proposals) when he put La Salle in their place?

The part where JL said that they have no interest in Coppergate because there is a precedent for planning permissions on that site falling through?

The part where the DJD report (give or take) agreed with the Oakgate proposal about the size of displacement from the city centre and totally rubbished the GVA (paid for) prediction?

That's all documented. No spin, plain quotes and plain facts.

I know better than to get into a conversation about planning regulations with you. You clearly know a lot more about them than I do, but what I do know, regardless of how it has been achieved, was that the right decision for the city of York, as a whole, has been reached, and I applaud the councillors.

Talk about spin, have a read through the Campaign4York leaflet and tell me how many of the so called facts are actually that. The only reason the C4Y got so much support is because they were scaring people into opposing it.
Hate to fall out but that's what I just said in a tenth of the words and with none of the extraneous detail.
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Oh Mr C, can't we all just get along... Which part was spin? The quote from the Tory councillor (who voted against the proposals) when he put La Salle in their place? The part where JL said that they have no interest in Coppergate because there is a precedent for planning permissions on that site falling through? The part where the DJD report (give or take) agreed with the Oakgate proposal about the size of displacement from the city centre and totally rubbished the GVA (paid for) prediction? That's all documented. No spin, plain quotes and plain facts. I know better than to get into a conversation about planning regulations with you. You clearly know a lot more about them than I do, but what I do know, regardless of how it has been achieved, was that the right decision for the city of York, as a whole, has been reached, and I applaud the councillors. Talk about spin, have a read through the Campaign4York leaflet and tell me how many of the so called facts are actually that. The only reason the C4Y got so much support is because they were scaring people into opposing it.[/p][/quote]Hate to fall out but that's what I just said in a tenth of the words and with none of the extraneous detail. swh1963
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Fri 18 May 12

Dave Taylor says...

@Speaks99: One of the things that disturbed me about yeaterday's meeting was JLP's Andrew Mills' assertion that no-one from LaSalle had approached them. That was a real distortion, as JLP had had meetings with Centros which is LaSalle's developer.
@Speaks99: One of the things that disturbed me about yeaterday's meeting was JLP's Andrew Mills' assertion that no-one from LaSalle had approached them. That was a real distortion, as JLP had had meetings with Centros which is LaSalle's developer. Dave Taylor
  • Score: 0

9:53pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

swh1963 wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Oh Mr C, can't we all just get along...

Which part was spin? The quote from the Tory councillor (who voted against the proposals) when he put La Salle in their place?

The part where JL said that they have no interest in Coppergate because there is a precedent for planning permissions on that site falling through?

The part where the DJD report (give or take) agreed with the Oakgate proposal about the size of displacement from the city centre and totally rubbished the GVA (paid for) prediction?

That's all documented. No spin, plain quotes and plain facts.

I know better than to get into a conversation about planning regulations with you. You clearly know a lot more about them than I do, but what I do know, regardless of how it has been achieved, was that the right decision for the city of York, as a whole, has been reached, and I applaud the councillors.

Talk about spin, have a read through the Campaign4York leaflet and tell me how many of the so called facts are actually that. The only reason the C4Y got so much support is because they were scaring people into opposing it.
Hate to fall out but that's what I just said in a tenth of the words and with none of the extraneous detail.
Where's the fun in using 1 word when 10 will suffice?
[quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Oh Mr C, can't we all just get along... Which part was spin? The quote from the Tory councillor (who voted against the proposals) when he put La Salle in their place? The part where JL said that they have no interest in Coppergate because there is a precedent for planning permissions on that site falling through? The part where the DJD report (give or take) agreed with the Oakgate proposal about the size of displacement from the city centre and totally rubbished the GVA (paid for) prediction? That's all documented. No spin, plain quotes and plain facts. I know better than to get into a conversation about planning regulations with you. You clearly know a lot more about them than I do, but what I do know, regardless of how it has been achieved, was that the right decision for the city of York, as a whole, has been reached, and I applaud the councillors. Talk about spin, have a read through the Campaign4York leaflet and tell me how many of the so called facts are actually that. The only reason the C4Y got so much support is because they were scaring people into opposing it.[/p][/quote]Hate to fall out but that's what I just said in a tenth of the words and with none of the extraneous detail.[/p][/quote]Where's the fun in using 1 word when 10 will suffice? speaks99
  • Score: 0

2:17am Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
And now here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 120 walwynwasgod: 63 Even AndyD: 38 speaks99: 27 AngryandFrustrated: 24
Another attempt at fraud ?
I haven't checked this thread, and doubt that I will. You did the same thing on the other most commented story (currently with 292 comments), which I did check and your numbers did not reconcile with the actual number of comments. You exaggerated mine by over double; claiming I had posted 89, when the actual number I had posted was 26. You had Walwynwasgod down for 65, but he had 39, and speaks99 and Angry&Frustrated at 67 each who actually had 22 and 20 respectively.

I expect the same distorted figures have been used on this thread.

Sir, you are a fraud and a cheat !
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: And now here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 120 walwynwasgod: 63 Even AndyD: 38 speaks99: 27 AngryandFrustrated: 24[/p][/quote]Another attempt at fraud ? I haven't checked this thread, and doubt that I will. You did the same thing on the other most commented story (currently with 292 comments), which I did check and your numbers did not reconcile with the actual number of comments. You exaggerated mine by over double; claiming I had posted 89, when the actual number I had posted was 26. You had Walwynwasgod down for 65, but he had 39, and speaks99 and Angry&Frustrated at 67 each who actually had 22 and 20 respectively. I expect the same distorted figures have been used on this thread. Sir, you are a fraud and a cheat ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

2:24am Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

swh1963 wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
swh1963 wrote: Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.
Hate to quote myself but wondering what your response is, Mr Crabtree.
God, you're so vain!! Quoting your own post for Gods sake ;o)
Well I did kind of apologise for it but Mr Crabtree and his supporters are on the ropes on this point so it was worth repeating.
'On the ropes' ?

We are not under examination by counsel, but some councillors and officers will be in due course. We will soon see who is 'on the ropes', will we not ?

I refuse to be drawn into some childish game of semantics. I am not on trial, but CoYC will be, that I promise you. There will be a Public Inquiry, and those responsible for breaking the rules will be held to account.
[quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.[/p][/quote]Hate to quote myself but wondering what your response is, Mr Crabtree.[/p][/quote]God, you're so vain!! Quoting your own post for Gods sake ;o)[/p][/quote]Well I did kind of apologise for it but Mr Crabtree and his supporters are on the ropes on this point so it was worth repeating.[/p][/quote]'On the ropes' ? We are not under examination by counsel, but some councillors and officers will be in due course. We will soon see who is 'on the ropes', will we not ? I refuse to be drawn into some childish game of semantics. I am not on trial, but CoYC will be, that I promise you. There will be a Public Inquiry, and those responsible for breaking the rules will be held to account. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

7:56am Sat 19 May 12

swh1963 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
swh1963 wrote: Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.
Hate to quote myself but wondering what your response is, Mr Crabtree.
God, you're so vain!! Quoting your own post for Gods sake ;o)
Well I did kind of apologise for it but Mr Crabtree and his supporters are on the ropes on this point so it was worth repeating.
'On the ropes' ?

We are not under examination by counsel, but some councillors and officers will be in due course. We will soon see who is 'on the ropes', will we not ?

I refuse to be drawn into some childish game of semantics. I am not on trial, but CoYC will be, that I promise you. There will be a Public Inquiry, and those responsible for breaking the rules will be held to account.
It's not semantics it's a simple and fundamental question: would you rather do the right thing in the wrong place (when there is no other place to do it) or do the wrong thing?
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.[/p][/quote]Hate to quote myself but wondering what your response is, Mr Crabtree.[/p][/quote]God, you're so vain!! Quoting your own post for Gods sake ;o)[/p][/quote]Well I did kind of apologise for it but Mr Crabtree and his supporters are on the ropes on this point so it was worth repeating.[/p][/quote]'On the ropes' ? We are not under examination by counsel, but some councillors and officers will be in due course. We will soon see who is 'on the ropes', will we not ? I refuse to be drawn into some childish game of semantics. I am not on trial, but CoYC will be, that I promise you. There will be a Public Inquiry, and those responsible for breaking the rules will be held to account.[/p][/quote]It's not semantics it's a simple and fundamental question: would you rather do the right thing in the wrong place (when there is no other place to do it) or do the wrong thing? swh1963
  • Score: 0

11:09am Sat 19 May 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote: And now here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 120 walwynwasgod: 63 Even AndyD: 38 speaks99: 27 AngryandFrustrated: 24
Another attempt at fraud ? I haven't checked this thread, and doubt that I will. You did the same thing on the other most commented story (currently with 292 comments), which I did check and your numbers did not reconcile with the actual number of comments. You exaggerated mine by over double; claiming I had posted 89, when the actual number I had posted was 26. You had Walwynwasgod down for 65, but he had 39, and speaks99 and Angry&Frustrated at 67 each who actually had 22 and 20 respectively. I expect the same distorted figures have been used on this thread. Sir, you are a fraud and a cheat !
Crabtree - There you go again with your false accusations based on ignorance.

Read the post - They are ctrl-f results. What you do is you press and hold the Ctrl key then f. You get a little little box which allows you to search a page for any given term.
Remember Crabtree, I'm an observer. I'm not trying to discredit anyone or cheat.
You are once again out of order for calling me a fraud and a cheat.
The figures I gave are not distorted.
There are 5 names in my post why would I be singling you out? Paranoid much?

An apology would be appropriate.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: And now here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 120 walwynwasgod: 63 Even AndyD: 38 speaks99: 27 AngryandFrustrated: 24[/p][/quote]Another attempt at fraud ? I haven't checked this thread, and doubt that I will. You did the same thing on the other most commented story (currently with 292 comments), which I did check and your numbers did not reconcile with the actual number of comments. You exaggerated mine by over double; claiming I had posted 89, when the actual number I had posted was 26. You had Walwynwasgod down for 65, but he had 39, and speaks99 and Angry&Frustrated at 67 each who actually had 22 and 20 respectively. I expect the same distorted figures have been used on this thread. Sir, you are a fraud and a cheat ![/p][/quote]Crabtree - There you go again with your false accusations based on ignorance. Read the post - They are [bold]ctrl-f[/bold] results. What you do is you press and hold the Ctrl key then f. You get a little little box which allows you to search a page for any given term. Remember Crabtree, I'm an observer. I'm not trying to discredit anyone or cheat. You are once again out of order for calling me a fraud and a cheat. The figures I gave are not distorted. There are 5 names in my post why would I be singling you out? Paranoid much? An apology would be appropriate. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

11:51am Sat 19 May 12

speaks99 says...

Dave Taylor wrote:
@Speaks99: One of the things that disturbed me about yeaterday's meeting was JLP's Andrew Mills' assertion that no-one from LaSalle had approached them. That was a real distortion, as JLP had had meetings with Centros which is LaSalle's developer.
Difficult for me to comment on this as details have never been printed in the press, so unless you are "in the know" or "in the loop" its hard to comment.

Having said that Adam Sinclair went up and publicly lied about his reasons for objecting to coppergate II...
[quote][p][bold]Dave Taylor[/bold] wrote: @Speaks99: One of the things that disturbed me about yeaterday's meeting was JLP's Andrew Mills' assertion that no-one from LaSalle had approached them. That was a real distortion, as JLP had had meetings with Centros which is LaSalle's developer.[/p][/quote]Difficult for me to comment on this as details have never been printed in the press, so unless you are "in the know" or "in the loop" its hard to comment. Having said that Adam Sinclair went up and publicly lied about his reasons for objecting to coppergate II... speaks99
  • Score: 0

11:52am Sat 19 May 12

onlooker says...

Will you guys PLEASE stop using the quote facility on all you comments and replies. It's making it almost impossible to wade through this thread.
And on the subject of posts, be aware that some posts have been removed (I know mine have), so if Crabtree is working from a saved copy of the thread, he will get a different total than CTRL-F”
Will you guys PLEASE stop using the quote facility on all you comments and replies. It's making it almost impossible to wade through this thread. And on the subject of posts, be aware that some posts have been removed (I know mine have), so if Crabtree is working from a saved copy of the thread, he will get a different total than CTRL-F” onlooker
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote: And now here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 120 walwynwasgod: 63 Even AndyD: 38 speaks99: 27 AngryandFrustrated: 24
Another attempt at fraud ? I haven't checked this thread, and doubt that I will. You did the same thing on the other most commented story (currently with 292 comments), which I did check and your numbers did not reconcile with the actual number of comments. You exaggerated mine by over double; claiming I had posted 89, when the actual number I had posted was 26. You had Walwynwasgod down for 65, but he had 39, and speaks99 and Angry&Frustrated at 67 each who actually had 22 and 20 respectively. I expect the same distorted figures have been used on this thread. Sir, you are a fraud and a cheat !
Crabtree - There you go again with your false accusations based on ignorance. Read the post - They are ctrl-f results. What you do is you press and hold the Ctrl key then f. You get a little little box which allows you to search a page for any given term. Remember Crabtree, I'm an observer. I'm not trying to discredit anyone or cheat. You are once again out of order for calling me a fraud and a cheat. The figures I gave are not distorted. There are 5 names in my post why would I be singling you out? Paranoid much? An apology would be appropriate.
I will not apologise.

Your intention is to mislead, and cause trouble.

I tried the Ctrl-F command, inserted the number and it took me to your weird post. What exactly are the numbers meant to represent ?

Your behaviour is that of a crank. If you're not 'involved' don't get involved with your gimmickly silly sideshows.
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: And now here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 120 walwynwasgod: 63 Even AndyD: 38 speaks99: 27 AngryandFrustrated: 24[/p][/quote]Another attempt at fraud ? I haven't checked this thread, and doubt that I will. You did the same thing on the other most commented story (currently with 292 comments), which I did check and your numbers did not reconcile with the actual number of comments. You exaggerated mine by over double; claiming I had posted 89, when the actual number I had posted was 26. You had Walwynwasgod down for 65, but he had 39, and speaks99 and Angry&Frustrated at 67 each who actually had 22 and 20 respectively. I expect the same distorted figures have been used on this thread. Sir, you are a fraud and a cheat ![/p][/quote]Crabtree - There you go again with your false accusations based on ignorance. Read the post - They are [bold]ctrl-f[/bold] results. What you do is you press and hold the Ctrl key then f. You get a little little box which allows you to search a page for any given term. Remember Crabtree, I'm an observer. I'm not trying to discredit anyone or cheat. You are once again out of order for calling me a fraud and a cheat. The figures I gave are not distorted. There are 5 names in my post why would I be singling you out? Paranoid much? An apology would be appropriate.[/p][/quote]I will not apologise. Your intention is to mislead, and cause trouble. I tried the Ctrl-F command, inserted the number and it took me to your weird post. What exactly are the numbers meant to represent ? Your behaviour is that of a crank. If you're not 'involved' don't get involved with your gimmickly silly sideshows. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

swh1963 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
swh1963 wrote: Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.
Hate to quote myself but wondering what your response is, Mr Crabtree.
God, you're so vain!! Quoting your own post for Gods sake ;o)
Well I did kind of apologise for it but Mr Crabtree and his supporters are on the ropes on this point so it was worth repeating.
'On the ropes' ? We are not under examination by counsel, but some councillors and officers will be in due course. We will soon see who is 'on the ropes', will we not ? I refuse to be drawn into some childish game of semantics. I am not on trial, but CoYC will be, that I promise you. There will be a Public Inquiry, and those responsible for breaking the rules will be held to account.
It's not semantics it's a simple and fundamental question: would you rather do the right thing in the wrong place (when there is no other place to do it) or do the wrong thing?
swh1963

In reply to your 7.56am post:

I'm sorry, this has no bearing on the issue. Rules are rules, and they should be adhered to, especially by those that make some of them, eg Councils.

My opinion is irrelevant in relation to your hypothetical question.

The decision of the Secretary of State or Planning Inspector is the one that will ultimately count.
[quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: Ok that's interesting, you say 'it's the right thing' but 'in the wrong place'. Only there is no other place in which to do the right thing.[/p][/quote]Hate to quote myself but wondering what your response is, Mr Crabtree.[/p][/quote]God, you're so vain!! Quoting your own post for Gods sake ;o)[/p][/quote]Well I did kind of apologise for it but Mr Crabtree and his supporters are on the ropes on this point so it was worth repeating.[/p][/quote]'On the ropes' ? We are not under examination by counsel, but some councillors and officers will be in due course. We will soon see who is 'on the ropes', will we not ? I refuse to be drawn into some childish game of semantics. I am not on trial, but CoYC will be, that I promise you. There will be a Public Inquiry, and those responsible for breaking the rules will be held to account.[/p][/quote]It's not semantics it's a simple and fundamental question: would you rather do the right thing in the wrong place (when there is no other place to do it) or do the wrong thing?[/p][/quote]swh1963 In reply to your 7.56am post: I'm sorry, this has no bearing on the issue. Rules are rules, and they should be adhered to, especially by those that make some of them, eg Councils. My opinion is irrelevant in relation to your hypothetical question. The decision of the Secretary of State or Planning Inspector is the one that will ultimately count. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Sat 19 May 12

Tug job says...

English law is based on the rule of precedent, i.e. applying cases and testing these against the law of the day - sometimes the original law is upheld, sometimes not, which is how things changes and develop. Laws and rules are always liable to inrterpretation, adaptation and development; that'w what happens in a mature democracy, not in the world of Crabby (appropriate name, mate!). Right, pub crawl of Balham befor the big one, here I come. Come on your mighty, mighty Minstermen!!!
English law is based on the rule of precedent, i.e. applying cases and testing these against the law of the day - sometimes the original law is upheld, sometimes not, which is how things changes and develop. Laws and rules are always liable to inrterpretation, adaptation and development; that'w what happens in a mature democracy, not in the world of Crabby (appropriate name, mate!). Right, pub crawl of Balham befor the big one, here I come. Come on your mighty, mighty Minstermen!!! Tug job
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Sat 19 May 12

swh1963 says...

Tug job wrote:
English law is based on the rule of precedent, i.e. applying cases and testing these against the law of the day - sometimes the original law is upheld, sometimes not, which is how things changes and develop. Laws and rules are always liable to inrterpretation, adaptation and development; that'w what happens in a mature democracy, not in the world of Crabby (appropriate name, mate!). Right, pub crawl of Balham befor the big one, here I come. Come on your mighty, mighty Minstermen!!!
Agreed - see you tomorrow though I won't know you from Adam!
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: English law is based on the rule of precedent, i.e. applying cases and testing these against the law of the day - sometimes the original law is upheld, sometimes not, which is how things changes and develop. Laws and rules are always liable to inrterpretation, adaptation and development; that'w what happens in a mature democracy, not in the world of Crabby (appropriate name, mate!). Right, pub crawl of Balham befor the big one, here I come. Come on your mighty, mighty Minstermen!!![/p][/quote]Agreed - see you tomorrow though I won't know you from Adam! swh1963
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Sun 20 May 12

purpleronnie says...

I hope with the new stadium and John Lewis being built, someone builds a decent boozer at Monks X - in my opinion it's needed one for ages ;)
I hope with the new stadium and John Lewis being built, someone builds a decent boozer at Monks X - in my opinion it's needed one for ages ;) purpleronnie
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Sun 20 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Tug job wrote:
English law is based on the rule of precedent, i.e. applying cases and testing these against the law of the day - sometimes the original law is upheld, sometimes not, which is how things changes and develop. Laws and rules are always liable to inrterpretation, adaptation and development; that'w what happens in a mature democracy, not in the world of Crabby (appropriate name, mate!). Right, pub crawl of Balham befor the big one, here I come. Come on your mighty, mighty Minstermen!!!
Try 'Res ipsa loquitur' rather than 'Stare decisis et non quieta movere'. I think the former doctrine rather than the latter is more relevant/appropriate here.

Perhaps Mr Justice Hand Job, would care to give us his verdict ?
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: English law is based on the rule of precedent, i.e. applying cases and testing these against the law of the day - sometimes the original law is upheld, sometimes not, which is how things changes and develop. Laws and rules are always liable to inrterpretation, adaptation and development; that'w what happens in a mature democracy, not in the world of Crabby (appropriate name, mate!). Right, pub crawl of Balham befor the big one, here I come. Come on your mighty, mighty Minstermen!!![/p][/quote]Try 'Res ipsa loquitur' rather than 'Stare decisis et non quieta movere'. I think the former doctrine rather than the latter is more relevant/appropriate here. Perhaps Mr Justice Hand Job, would care to give us his verdict ? Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Sun 20 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Is the pub in Balham called The Anchor or The Sherman Tanker, by any chance ? Pretty appropriate for our footy fan friend with the law degree.
Is the pub in Balham called The Anchor or The Sherman Tanker, by any chance ? Pretty appropriate for our footy fan friend with the law degree. Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

9:30pm Sun 20 May 12

Mizi123 says...

All i have to say on this decision is.......i hope that all those people that voted in favor of these plans live on the same side of town as i do (Strensall) and they all regret their decision when they have to sit in the slow moving traffic on this part of the outer ring road.
All i have to say on this decision is.......i hope that all those people that voted in favor of these plans live on the same side of town as i do (Strensall) and they all regret their decision when they have to sit in the slow moving traffic on this part of the outer ring road. Mizi123
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Sun 20 May 12

bjb says...

Mizi123 wrote:
All i have to say on this decision is.......i hope that all those people that voted in favor of these plans live on the same side of town as i do (Strensall) and they all regret their decision when they have to sit in the slow moving traffic on this part of the outer ring road.
I live in Huntington in sight of Monks Cross and have heard all this before. I remember the campaigning against the original Monks Cross development that totally over egged the effects. These have never happened. We all know that the A1237 is not fit for purpose and that something must be done to improve it, but to prohibit any further development is not the way to encourage growth or new jobs. The rugby (Ryedale York) were demonised because all the local roads were supposed to be grid locked and suffer indescrimate parking. It has never happened.

York City has gained promotion to League 2 which means once a fortnight extra traffic for a couple of hours. Big deal!

I am confident that the new sports complex and a couple of new shops are not going to seriously impact on our quality of life.
[quote][p][bold]Mizi123[/bold] wrote: All i have to say on this decision is.......i hope that all those people that voted in favor of these plans live on the same side of town as i do (Strensall) and they all regret their decision when they have to sit in the slow moving traffic on this part of the outer ring road.[/p][/quote]I live in Huntington in sight of Monks Cross and have heard all this before. I remember the campaigning against the original Monks Cross development that totally over egged the effects. These have never happened. We all know that the A1237 is not fit for purpose and that something must be done to improve it, but to prohibit any further development is not the way to encourage growth or new jobs. The rugby (Ryedale York) were demonised because all the local roads were supposed to be grid locked and suffer indescrimate parking. It has never happened. York City has gained promotion to League 2 which means once a fortnight extra traffic for a couple of hours. Big deal! I am confident that the new sports complex and a couple of new shops are not going to seriously impact on our quality of life. bjb
  • Score: 0

8:15am Mon 21 May 12

Tug job says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Tug job wrote: English law is based on the rule of precedent, i.e. applying cases and testing these against the law of the day - sometimes the original law is upheld, sometimes not, which is how things changes and develop. Laws and rules are always liable to inrterpretation, adaptation and development; that'w what happens in a mature democracy, not in the world of Crabby (appropriate name, mate!). Right, pub crawl of Balham befor the big one, here I come. Come on your mighty, mighty Minstermen!!!
Try 'Res ipsa loquitur' rather than 'Stare decisis et non quieta movere'. I think the former doctrine rather than the latter is more relevant/appropriate here. Perhaps Mr Justice Hand Job, would care to give us his verdict ?
Hiya, Crabby, couldn't respond yesterday as I was down in that London witenssing York City hand out a footballing lesson to Luton. I do not have a law degree, although I am familiar with Cicero, having taken my degree in PPE at Merton - suggest you reread your own argument and refelct on the principles you calim to understand. By the way, you appear to have misread my user name. This is Tug Job as I am a mechanical engineer involved in the railway industry. A hand job is something quite different (although I suspect you will be famillar with these!).
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: English law is based on the rule of precedent, i.e. applying cases and testing these against the law of the day - sometimes the original law is upheld, sometimes not, which is how things changes and develop. Laws and rules are always liable to inrterpretation, adaptation and development; that'w what happens in a mature democracy, not in the world of Crabby (appropriate name, mate!). Right, pub crawl of Balham befor the big one, here I come. Come on your mighty, mighty Minstermen!!![/p][/quote]Try 'Res ipsa loquitur' rather than 'Stare decisis et non quieta movere'. I think the former doctrine rather than the latter is more relevant/appropriate here. Perhaps Mr Justice Hand Job, would care to give us his verdict ?[/p][/quote]Hiya, Crabby, couldn't respond yesterday as I was down in that London witenssing York City hand out a footballing lesson to Luton. I do not have a law degree, although I am familiar with Cicero, having taken my degree in PPE at Merton - suggest you reread your own argument and refelct on the principles you calim to understand. By the way, you appear to have misread my user name. This is Tug Job as I am a mechanical engineer involved in the railway industry. A hand job is something quite different (although I suspect you will be famillar with these!). Tug job
  • Score: 0

8:24am Mon 21 May 12

Tug job says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Is the pub in Balham called The Anchor or The Sherman Tanker, by any chance ? Pretty appropriate for our footy fan friend with the law degree.
Nope, Crabby, I've known Balham for 20 years and there are no such bars/pubs as the ones you cite, I wonder if, as with so many of your other postings, you are becoming a little confused? The Eclipse does sell Crabtree wine and we tried it out in your honour but found it to have a bitter after-taste - doubtless made from sour grapes! This correspondence is getting boring so I shall say goodbye, to you, you odious little man!
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: Is the pub in Balham called The Anchor or The Sherman Tanker, by any chance ? Pretty appropriate for our footy fan friend with the law degree.[/p][/quote]Nope, Crabby, I've known Balham for 20 years and there are no such bars/pubs as the ones you cite, I wonder if, as with so many of your other postings, you are becoming a little confused? The Eclipse does sell Crabtree wine and we tried it out in your honour but found it to have a bitter after-taste - doubtless made from sour grapes! This correspondence is getting boring so I shall say goodbye, to you, you odious little man! Tug job
  • Score: 0

9:44am Mon 21 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Tug job wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Tug job wrote: English law is based on the rule of precedent, i.e. applying cases and testing these against the law of the day - sometimes the original law is upheld, sometimes not, which is how things changes and develop. Laws and rules are always liable to inrterpretation, adaptation and development; that'w what happens in a mature democracy, not in the world of Crabby (appropriate name, mate!). Right, pub crawl of Balham befor the big one, here I come. Come on your mighty, mighty Minstermen!!!
Try 'Res ipsa loquitur' rather than 'Stare decisis et non quieta movere'. I think the former doctrine rather than the latter is more relevant/appropriate here. Perhaps Mr Justice Hand Job, would care to give us his verdict ?
Hiya, Crabby, couldn't respond yesterday as I was down in that London witenssing York City hand out a footballing lesson to Luton. I do not have a law degree, although I am familiar with Cicero, having taken my degree in PPE at Merton - suggest you reread your own argument and refelct on the principles you calim to understand. By the way, you appear to have misread my user name. This is Tug Job as I am a mechanical engineer involved in the railway industry. A hand job is something quite different (although I suspect you will be famillar with these!).
Congratulations on your team's success, Tug, and for deciding to ditch the PPE in favour of engineering.

Law is much like an engine, and works well whilst all the parts are functioning. Also, like an engine it has been developed and refined over the years to make an efficient machine. The re-design that York Council are expecting to the law, caused by their throwing, not just one spanner in the works, but, the whole toolkit, is not looking for a design modification - it's expecting a whole new engine. Not a better engine, one that would lead to higher costs, higher emissions and more breakdowns. It's expecting a retrograde step, just so local politicians can get something that they want, but, would lead to chaos if allowed as a precedent.

Stick with your spanners, and leave the law to those who know what they are talking about.

Things has moved on since Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote De Legibus over 2.000 years ago, when engines were not even a figment of man's imagination. Do not let your imagination of a new stadium becoming reality, get too carried away just yet !
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: English law is based on the rule of precedent, i.e. applying cases and testing these against the law of the day - sometimes the original law is upheld, sometimes not, which is how things changes and develop. Laws and rules are always liable to inrterpretation, adaptation and development; that'w what happens in a mature democracy, not in the world of Crabby (appropriate name, mate!). Right, pub crawl of Balham befor the big one, here I come. Come on your mighty, mighty Minstermen!!![/p][/quote]Try 'Res ipsa loquitur' rather than 'Stare decisis et non quieta movere'. I think the former doctrine rather than the latter is more relevant/appropriate here. Perhaps Mr Justice Hand Job, would care to give us his verdict ?[/p][/quote]Hiya, Crabby, couldn't respond yesterday as I was down in that London witenssing York City hand out a footballing lesson to Luton. I do not have a law degree, although I am familiar with Cicero, having taken my degree in PPE at Merton - suggest you reread your own argument and refelct on the principles you calim to understand. By the way, you appear to have misread my user name. This is Tug Job as I am a mechanical engineer involved in the railway industry. A hand job is something quite different (although I suspect you will be famillar with these!).[/p][/quote]Congratulations on your team's success, Tug, and for deciding to ditch the PPE in favour of engineering. Law is much like an engine, and works well whilst all the parts are functioning. Also, like an engine it has been developed and refined over the years to make an efficient machine. The re-design that York Council are expecting to the law, caused by their throwing, not just one spanner in the works, but, the whole toolkit, is not looking for a design modification - it's expecting a whole new engine. Not a better engine, one that would lead to higher costs, higher emissions and more breakdowns. It's expecting a retrograde step, just so local politicians can get something that they want, but, would lead to chaos if allowed as a precedent. Stick with your spanners, and leave the law to those who know what they are talking about. Things has moved on since Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote De Legibus over 2.000 years ago, when engines were not even a figment of man's imagination. Do not let your imagination of a new stadium becoming reality, get too carried away just yet ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Mon 21 May 12

Fat Harry says...

About the last thing that I saw before leaving the hearing on Thursday was coun Taylor loudly clapping one of the Tories.

There was a time when I might have voted Green because of some of their social policies, but now I see what friends of mine mean when they call the Greens "middle class winkers".

Theyre not much different to the Tories when it comes down to it, theres no point spouting about the environment if you dont give a flying feck about people.

Come to my door at the next election Mr Taylor, and youre likely to get a two word answer involving sex and travel.
About the last thing that I saw before leaving the hearing on Thursday was coun Taylor loudly clapping one of the Tories. There was a time when I might have voted Green because of some of their social policies, but now I see what friends of mine mean when they call the Greens "middle class winkers". Theyre not much different to the Tories when it comes down to it, theres no point spouting about the environment if you dont give a flying feck about people. Come to my door at the next election Mr Taylor, and youre likely to get a two word answer involving sex and travel. Fat Harry
  • Score: 0

7:56pm Mon 21 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Tug Job

Do you remember what Cicero said about the judicial system ?

Cicero believed that the trial courts, as he had seen them, were too open to tampering through bribery or through sharp practice ???

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, eh ?
Tug Job Do you remember what Cicero said about the judicial system ? Cicero believed that the trial courts, as he had seen them, were too open to tampering through bribery or through sharp practice ??? Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, eh ? Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

8:51pm Mon 21 May 12

swh1963 says...

Mr Crabtree, you have as much support as the Luton branch of the Matty Blair Appreciation Society: the planning application may well have been offside but the goal was given and we won, get over it.
Mr Crabtree, you have as much support as the Luton branch of the Matty Blair Appreciation Society: the planning application may well have been offside but the goal was given and we won, get over it. swh1963
  • Score: 0

12:55am Tue 22 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

swh1963 wrote:
Mr Crabtree, you have as much support as the Luton branch of the Matty Blair Appreciation Society: the planning application may well have been offside but the goal was given and we won, get over it.
Sadly the rules of football don't apply to planning decisions, and if found to be wrong, they can be overturned. The Secretary of State can demand the game be replayed, on a level playing field, and any players found to have cheated will be given a 'red card'. The Lib-Lab team of 11 who may have conspired to cheat the rules may yet have to face a tribunal !
[quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: Mr Crabtree, you have as much support as the Luton branch of the Matty Blair Appreciation Society: the planning application may well have been offside but the goal was given and we won, get over it.[/p][/quote]Sadly the rules of football don't apply to planning decisions, and if found to be wrong, they can be overturned. The Secretary of State can demand the game be replayed, on a level playing field, and any players found to have cheated will be given a 'red card'. The Lib-Lab team of 11 who may have conspired to cheat the rules may yet have to face a tribunal ! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Tue 22 May 12

The Great Buda says...

So its "may have" now is it? I hope for you sake some of your friends have asked you to tone it down a bit.
So its "may have" now is it? I hope for you sake some of your friends have asked you to tone it down a bit. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Tue 22 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

The Great Buda wrote:
So its "may have" now is it? I hope for you sake some of your friends have asked you to tone it down a bit.
Always was, but, if I was a betting man....... ? !!!!
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: So its "may have" now is it? I hope for you sake some of your friends have asked you to tone it down a bit.[/p][/quote]Always was, but, if I was a betting man....... ? !!!! Mr Crabtree
  • Score: 0

7:35am Wed 23 May 12

bjb says...

As always expected the Great Crested newts and endagered wildlife propaganda has started on BBC Look North this morning. I predict that all the tactics used at Derwenthorpe will be used to block this, resulkting in us the council tax payer having to foot the bill.
As always expected the Great Crested newts and endagered wildlife propaganda has started on BBC Look North this morning. I predict that all the tactics used at Derwenthorpe will be used to block this, resulkting in us the council tax payer having to foot the bill. bjb
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree