£240m city retail boost claim by Monks Cross developers (From York Press)

I forgot that Adam Sinclairs only intrest in running a shop is so he can look after the building its in.

Is that why he also has China China?

Well this is a red herring as there is absolutely no chance of york central going ahead next year or Piccadilly so what a NONE story.
PR for the sake of it I think

meme wrote:
Well this is a red herring as there is absolutely no chance of york central going ahead next year or Piccadilly so what a NONE story.
PR for the sake of it I think

Spot on meme.

'...could be boosted': Pigs might fly.

If MX2 went ahead no developer in their right mind would sort Piccadilly out until there was a retail boom - 10 years maybe. Maybe.

Certainly Centros have already 'stated' publicly they won't.

It's ridiculous pr spin from Oakgate.
Can't believe the press regurgitate this rubbish.

Oh and by the way Mr France it's 230FTE new jobs not 1000. Read your own application.

Which also doesn't take into accout how many jobs will be lost in the city if traders go bust or move to more attractive locations.

Would dept stores like Debenhams or Fenwicks renew their leases if there are department stores with thousands of free parking on the edge of town? What would be the effect / benefit to York if they left?

(Oh. BTW Buda. Attacking Adam Sinclair because he has a small unit in the designer outlet is a pitiful tactic. The guy has done loads for York and is only in there because he was asked to be and to prevent a competitor angling in on his turf. Are you not concerned for the future of the 70 people that are employed at Mulberry Hall?)

nickeggleton wrote:

meme wrote:
Well this is a red herring as there is absolutely no chance of york central going ahead next year or Piccadilly so what a NONE story.
PR for the sake of it I think

Spot on meme.

'...could be boosted': Pigs might fly.

If MX2 went ahead no developer in their right mind would sort Piccadilly out until there was a retail boom - 10 years maybe. Maybe.

Certainly Centros have already 'stated' publicly they won't.

It's ridiculous pr spin from Oakgate.
Can't believe the press regurgitate this rubbish.

Oh and by the way Mr France it's 230FTE new jobs not 1000. Read your own application.

Which also doesn't take into accout how many jobs will be lost in the city if traders go bust or move to more attractive locations.

Would dept stores like Debenhams or Fenwicks renew their leases if there are department stores with thousands of free parking on the edge of town? What would be the effect / benefit to York if they left?

(Oh. BTW Buda. Attacking Adam Sinclair because he has a small unit in the designer outlet is a pitiful tactic. The guy has done loads for York and is only in there because he was asked to be and to prevent a competitor angling in on his turf. Are you not concerned for the future of the 70 people that are employed at Mulberry Hall?)

The cat is out of the bag - ".. to prevent a competitor angling in on his turf..." Tut-Tut.

This is what it is all about isn't it?

Quite right Kat.

Pathetic.

nickeggleton wrote:

meme wrote: Well this is a red herring as there is absolutely no chance of york central going ahead next year or Piccadilly so what a NONE story. PR for the sake of it I think

Spot on meme. '...could be boosted': Pigs might fly. If MX2 went ahead no developer in their right mind would sort Piccadilly out until there was a retail boom - 10 years maybe. Maybe. Certainly Centros have already 'stated' publicly they won't. It's ridiculous pr spin from Oakgate. Can't believe the press regurgitate this rubbish. Oh and by the way Mr France it's 230FTE new jobs not 1000. Read your own application. Which also doesn't take into accout how many jobs will be lost in the city if traders go bust or move to more attractive locations. Would dept stores like Debenhams or Fenwicks renew their leases if there are department stores with thousands of free parking on the edge of town? What would be the effect / benefit to York if they left? (Oh. BTW Buda. Attacking Adam Sinclair because he has a small unit in the designer outlet is a pitiful tactic. The guy has done loads for York and is only in there because he was asked to be and to prevent a competitor angling in on his turf. Are you not concerned for the future of the 70 people that are employed at Mulberry Hall?)

I haven't commented on any of the MX debate for a while because it was getting a bit boring, repetitive and easy to quash the anti-brigade (all 10 of them) but it’s nice to see you’re still embarrassing yourself Nick, top marks for persistence at least.

“Pathetic”…you said it Nick, you said it.

Sarah - the 'anti-brigade' as you call them are a few more than 10.

For a start every single independent business in the city that has either a direct customer there and every local single business that is part of their supply chain will be affected.

That's hundreds of businesses and there employees.

My opinion re MX2 is clear, but I object to people attacking one person whose interests have over the years proven to be unselfish. They appear to view him as some reprehensible capitalist - which is so far from the truth to be 'pathetic'. He is a proud citizen. Not a rich one.

So what if the guy opened a small shop in a massive out of town shopping centre years ago (to protect the 70 people he employs!)

We are in a completely different economic position and more so a different Internet shopping age.

It's only right that people with the information and care speak out and support existing jobs. Rather than be purposefully ignorant and selfish.

If anyone actually wanted to understand the complex interwoven nature of this issue it would be clear. But most people only see headlines.

A new JL - please. A new stadium - please. Free parking - please.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. There are always consequences.

The debate might be repetitive and boring, but it will not be quashed by personalising the issue.

Hear Hear nick

Sorry - but the anti-brigade still haven't explained why two more stores will kill the city centre when three retail parks haven't. The centre is certainly in a better state than it was in just before Clifton Moor was built - I can recall the boarded up Coney St stores of that era.
The emotional blackmail is also pitiful; we are being asked to care about the 70 people employed by Mulberry Hall but why? I don't see them going out of business anytime soon? I also care about the 1000 extra jobs, the extra community facilities of the stadium, the extra civic pride decent facilities will bring and not being behind towns like Doncaster, Burton, even it seems Scarborough. I for one hope the plan goes ahead, because I can see no reason for it not to and plenty of reason why it should. If that doesn't suit certain city centre traders, it does others and that is the nature of competition. York citizens aren't here to serve retailers, they are here to serve us and for too long in York, vested interests have meant quite the opposite. Now lets get this thing built.

As for free parking - there has been free parking at our out of town shopping centres for three decades! But I don't see an empty town centre?
I also see huge queues outside Betty's - the reason for this being, the city centre is where the history, culture and tourist attractions are, so don't give me this level playing fields nonsense. When the Minster moves to Monks Cross, then lets talk free parking for all, or when there is a rail station out there, not everyone drives.
I'm sorry, Nick, your comments are full of generalities - 'this will be hugely affected', 'no such things as a free lunch', 'Adam is a good guy', the city centre COULD die' - its just all lacking in any substance. At the end of the day, its two more shops, and those of us who've actually lived in this city for a few decades will tell you that it won't make any difference to a city centre which is tourist driven. Only my opinion, but I suspect I'm not alone!

York City centre will always survive - it has the tourists
Monks Cross & Clifton moor will always survive - it has the locals

x

Interesting interview with Alexander James on Radio Chips yesterday - did you hear it Nick?
He admits that there is lots of scaremongering going on. That this proposal will create jobs and pay for sport in the area.
John Lewis dont want to come into the town centre - why turn down jobs and money spent in our stores
Picadilly development is not an alternative - the land has been sat on for a number of years. Any development is a minimum of 2 years away. Monks X gives us the opportunity to do something NOW for Yorks economy
The market research provided for the anti brigade shows that GROWTH will decline, not the economy itself
The anti campaign spoke against the market researchers when they did there research on the Union terrace development. How could they have been wrong in that case and right about this?
A lot will be done in the city centre to help retailers - for example the free parking and buses on Boxing day.
Footfall is up 1/4 on last year though admits a lot due to better weather conditions
York has the 6th lowest empty shop rate in the country
Retailers already admit the city centre is very resiliant
John Lewis ARE opening a store in Leeds. If this doesn't go ahead we run the risk of losing consumers to Leeds.
People come to York to spend the day out. You cant do this at Monks X

Even Andy D - read the application. It's not 1000 'extra' jobs. It's 230 FTE, which equates to 340 mainly part-time jobs.

Fact - Even if you chose to ignore the GVA report, Oakgate state it will cost the city centre 7% of it's revenues. £39m. In the city centre. They also say a further £70m will come from the rest of York. That means district shopping - e.g Heworth, Bishopthorpe road, Acomb etc.



Fact - The Internet wasn't a threat to retail when the other out-of -town shopping centres were planned / built.

York has managed to recover and is now sustainable.

The 'just 2 shops' argument is shoddy. It's 240,000 sq ft - and that's the thin end of a wedge to increase MXNorth by 140,000 sq ft.

York city fans that use the word 'community' make me sad. More people could lose their jobs (3600) than regularly go to your home games (average 2300!) according to research by York Civic Trust. That is real evidence.

You might not give a **** about the people who work in the city, but I do.

The club disappearing is an emotive one. It's the only emotional leverage on the table. If YCFC was viable it wouldn't need to move. It would be able to pay it's loans. It wouldn;t have needed to borrow £1m from the McGills or £2m from the FF.

Instead it's fans are blackmailing CYCouncil.

NB I notice you didn't mention Darlington's community stadium. Was that because their community aren't proud of it... no. Because it's a bust flush.

There is no transparent plan for who will own or pay for the stadium going forward.

Ask yourself why the McGills are happy to waive £650,000 in interest.

What is their motive?

The McGills motive is to get any sort return on their investment - They stay at BC and they will get nothing. They move to Monks X they get their initial investment back. Not too difficult to understand Septimus...

Darlingtons stadium has nothing to do with the argument. You are winning the prize for useless post of the year award.

Adam Sinclair is showing himself to be a hypocrite and only interested in one thing. If he thought the development at MX would benefit him he would be extolling its virtues...

Septimus/Nick - agree to disagree - I think there is an element of entrenched views on both sides. What I do object to is being miss-quoted, I don't not care about city centre jobs, I just don't think they are at risk.

speaks99 wrote:
Darlingtons stadium has nothing to do with the argument. You are winning the prize for useless post of the year award.

Well yes and he called my argument shoddy!
Darlington are something of a one off, an unneeded 25k stadium build on the back of a safe-breakers ego. Chester are the other example of a team whose move didn't work. But for every Chester you get a Shrewsbury, Doncaster, Chesterfield, Burton, Northampton, Scunthorpe, Hull, Oxford, Brighton, Walsall, Morecambe, Rotherham, Reading, Bolton, Middlesborough, Cardiff, Southampton - to name but a few who seem to be doing quite well thanks in a new stadium and one which benefits the community at large. Am sure there are more - I've also seen smaller versions and done community sporting events at places like Hinckley and Lancaster. This is a city of 200,000 nearly, it deserves facilities that towns up and down the country with half (or less) populations enjoy.

Sorry - Telford, not Lancaster, wrong memory. But hey - even Telford got a bigger stadium than York are proposing! Hmm.

FACT the City Centre retailers poured scorn on the GVA report when it suit them.

nickeggleton wrote:
Sarah - the 'anti-brigade' as you call them are a few more than 10.

For a start every single independent business in the city that has either a direct customer there and every local single business that is part of their supply chain will be affected.

That's hundreds of businesses and there employees.

My opinion re MX2 is clear, but I object to people attacking one person whose interests have over the years proven to be unselfish. They appear to view him as some reprehensible capitalist - which is so far from the truth to be 'pathetic'. He is a proud citizen. Not a rich one.

So what if the guy opened a small shop in a massive out of town shopping centre years ago (to protect the 70 people he employs!)

We are in a completely different economic position and more so a different Internet shopping age.

It's only right that people with the information and care speak out and support existing jobs. Rather than be purposefully ignorant and selfish.

If anyone actually wanted to understand the complex interwoven nature of this issue it would be clear. But most people only see headlines.

A new JL - please. A new stadium - please. Free parking - please.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. There are always consequences.

The debate might be repetitive and boring, but it will not be quashed by personalising the issue.

You know what in five years time when it's completed many will look back on these objections with a huge smile on their face. It won't make a jot of difference to the city centre and half of the population of York will be packing out John Lewis every weekend. People were on here moaning about the council funding the new stadium and now it's part funded by private business they are still moaning. Seriously, move with the times.

Even AndyD wrote:
Sorry - but the anti-brigade still haven't explained why two more stores will kill the city centre when three retail parks haven't. The centre is certainly in a better state than it was in just before Clifton Moor was built - I can recall the boarded up Coney St stores of that era.
The emotional blackmail is also pitiful; we are being asked to care about the 70 people employed by Mulberry Hall but why? I don't see them going out of business anytime soon? I also care about the 1000 extra jobs, the extra community facilities of the stadium, the extra civic pride decent facilities will bring and not being behind towns like Doncaster, Burton, even it seems Scarborough. I for one hope the plan goes ahead, because I can see no reason for it not to and plenty of reason why it should. If that doesn't suit certain city centre traders, it does others and that is the nature of competition. York citizens aren't here to serve retailers, they are here to serve us and for too long in York, vested interests have meant quite the opposite. Now lets get this thing built.

Here Here.

duffy wrote:

nickeggleton wrote:
Sarah - the 'anti-brigade' as you call them are a few more than 10.

For a start every single independent business in the city that has either a direct customer there and every local single business that is part of their supply chain will be affected.

That's hundreds of businesses and there employees.

My opinion re MX2 is clear, but I object to people attacking one person whose interests have over the years proven to be unselfish. They appear to view him as some reprehensible capitalist - which is so far from the truth to be 'pathetic'. He is a proud citizen. Not a rich one.

So what if the guy opened a small shop in a massive out of town shopping centre years ago (to protect the 70 people he employs!)

We are in a completely different economic position and more so a different Internet shopping age.

It's only right that people with the information and care speak out and support existing jobs. Rather than be purposefully ignorant and selfish.

If anyone actually wanted to understand the complex interwoven nature of this issue it would be clear. But most people only see headlines.

A new JL - please. A new stadium - please. Free parking - please.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. There are always consequences.

The debate might be repetitive and boring, but it will not be quashed by personalising the issue.

You know what in five years time when it's completed many will look back on these objections with a huge smile on their face. It won't make a jot of difference to the city centre and half of the population of York will be packing out John Lewis every weekend. People were on here moaning about the council funding the new stadium and now it's part funded by private business they are still moaning. Seriously, move with the times.

How dare you! Don't you know the people of this City serve only to support the life styles of the few.

In five years time the City Centre will look just like Castleford's. I know so because some propaganda told me so.

Trinity Walk is opening in Leeds next year, which will make Leeds' retail space in the city centre larger than that of Manchester (don't know how the development size compares with the massive Metrocentre in Gateshead)... Yorks plans to develop shopping and bring in more people...??

The Great Buda wrote:
FACT the City Centre retailers poured scorn on the GVA report when it suit them.

Some retailers on a totally different report.

Speaks666
I heard the interview. If you want to call it that. More of a one way propaganda exercise. 
1) Scaremongering is subjective but to use the term is to patronise opponents
2) he says John Lewis don't want to come into York but where's the proof. Has he spoken to them?
3) 2 years in the long-term sustainable development is a drop in the ocean for developments of this scale. The only 'time' limit is the untested agreement with the Football  Foundation
4) What market research says growth will decline. The opinion of experts is that the impact will be severe
5) James shot himself in the foot by questioning CYC retail experts. A great political 'spin' to say well 'retailers questioned them on UTCP' so they are hypocrits, but they are his council's experts. And they are being ignored. 
6) A lot is being considered on car parking, but the boxing day exercise was paid for in saved wages from the strike. Are you saying that the Labour party are hoping for more strikes to pay for more parking / park n ride freebies. Nah!
7) footfall is a little above 2009. 2010 was a bit snowy and footfall dropped. About 20%
8) 6th lowest for a reason. Because it is coping
9) retailers don't say it is resiliant. The developers and council spin do. Retailers say it has been resiliant. Past tense. 
9) Only an idiot thinks people will drive 50 miles + return to Leeds pay for parking just to visit John Lewis. It's part of there city centre mix. And the reason it should be in York city centre. 
10)  People do come to York for the shopping in a unique environment. Made so by many independent eclectic small businesses in well maintained listed buildings.  Will they if more are emptied due to a loss of 15% of their turnover?

The argument for out of town shopping is redundant. National planning policy prevents it. Except under specifically beneficial circumstances. 

The argument will be. Is losing somewhere between £40m - £119m (Oakgates figures! - GVA say £90 just from the city centre) from York's existing businesses in order to pay for a development containing a stadium (that has no business plan and less than 2% of the population attending matches) and a lot of maybe other facilities that are just pie in the sky ideas dreamt up to hide the con.?

Since when has York been 50 miles from Leeds?

Good grief.

Oh God... Do I really have to do this step by step?

1) Not Patronising at all - what would you call some of the "brochures" which have been sent around families in York. Of course its scaremongering.
2) Have you? Maybe he has approached them - I don't know...
3) Don't be ridiculous - The anti brigade are using the Picadilly development as "makeweight" for their argument. The developers have sat on this land for a long time now (mainly due to objections from the same retailers in a previous planning application) and Alexander was pointing out it will be at least 2 years - IF the development begins now, if certain retailers don't change their minds and object to this, IF IF IF...
4) Funnily enough I trust his interpretation of the research over yours... Why don't you call him out on this if its untrue...
5) Nope - not spin at all. How can you question a companies validity on one project, but believe it on a different project. Either the company is unreliable or not. Make your mind up!
6) Don't be a d***. He suggested there will be a city centre policy to help retailers...
7) Proved my point... Above 2009, even after conservative austerity cuts? Surely not...
8) If it was just "coping" it would be much lower. How about "thriving"? It is evidence that York can survive and sustain such a development.
9) Past tense - coupled with the low empty shop rate suggests that it still is resilient...
10) I know plenty of people who would make a dedicated journey to visit JL. Not every week, granted, but a couple of times a year. There will always be people who prefer to shop in John Lewis or Waitrose... get over it. And for your information, parking in Leeds is almost half the price of parking in York. What you pay for in petrol you save on parking...

By the way, like what you did with my name... A real comedian...

One last thing. If exactly the same people turned up to matches, 2% However, the crowd is made up from different people, so in reality will be many more, with many more people having an interest in the club, but maybe do not attend for whatever their reason. Plus the Knights fans. Plus people with an interest in Athletics... Actually, its mounting up a bit now, isn't it?

Yawn

nickeggleton wrote:
Yawn

Point 6 - you really are one...

nickeggleton wrote:
Yawn

It's pretty simple Nick (which is a good job judging by your attempts at humour on this story).

John Lewis don't want to move into the city centre, even if they did it would be years before anything was put in place at Piccadilly (mainly due to your lot objecting as usual), and as they want to invest in a York store in the here and now - Monks Cross it is.

The fact that you and your little retail cronies are now using this report to suggest one thing happening that is diametrically opposed to the view you took on it previously should not come as any surprise to the rest of us.

And you still have no compelling arguments - just happy to regurgitate the scaremongering propaganda of the Campaign for York clowns.

o2binibiza wrote:

nickeggleton wrote:
Yawn

It's pretty simple Nick (which is a good job judging by your attempts at humour on this story).

John Lewis don't want to move into the city centre, even if they did it would be years before anything was put in place at Piccadilly (mainly due to your lot objecting as usual), and as they want to invest in a York store in the here and now - Monks Cross it is.

The fact that you and your little retail cronies are now using this report to suggest one thing happening that is diametrically opposed to the view you took on it previously should not come as any surprise to the rest of us.

And you still have no compelling arguments - just happy to regurgitate the scaremongering propaganda of the Campaign for York clowns.

Absolutely and in a nutshell. Couldn't have put it better.

"Oh god... Do I have to do this step by step?" Not patronising at all!
I used numbers to make points clearly. Not to condescend.
But here point by point are further replies.
1) The 'York in Peril' leaflets were produced by Centros. Not retailers. I can see the headline is a little over egging the custard. But all the objections are not. And the arguments / opinions well thought.
2) I haven't. Nor have you. Nor has JA. Otherwise he would have said so. He is guessing.
3) Yes they have been sitting on their hands. Yes the Oakgate plan has spurred action. But 2 years is only 2 years. It's only more urgent because YCFC is in a hole and up against a time limit caused by themselves and the failure of them and CYC to sort it out sooner.
4) I'll ask again. What Market research?
5) I never criticised the GVA report into UTCP. But they are still CYC go to retail experts. So it is what suits JA to say to undermine us. Spin.
6) More spin. No facts. His idea ( not plan) is to 'Reinvigorate York'. It meant new bins using a UTCP windfall that never came. So now he wants the Oakgate bribe to buy them with...
There is nothing to be done to support retail without money. (and calling me D***!? Ooh hurts.)
7) You might find 2009 was a LibDem council & a Labour government. No austerity. No conservatives.
8) 'Coping', 'Thriving', whatever. The point is it can't get much better. So it can only get worse.
9) Nice swerve. My point. Ignored by you. Was. Retailers haven't said 'is' resiliant. 'ReinvigorateYork' wouldn't be a CYC project if they felt the city centre didn't need to improve the product / experience. All put in place before the Oakgate plan.
10) I parked in Leeds a week or so ago. It cost £3.40 for an hour. About £6 for half a day. No difference at all. You make the real point 'a couple of times a year'. I visit London once. Year to go to Harrods sale, maybe we should build one of them. Or a Wembley.
11) Terrible maths theory. To make that 2% into 3% half of the crowd would have to interchange each match. Ridiculous. Plus by including the Knights you might add 1% (but have to take away those that support both) and btw athletics is moving to Heslington.

For the record.

I never objected to the CastlePiccadilly plans.
Campaign For York is not just retail (little or otherwise) cronies. Nor are they clowns. Nor are they opposed to developing Piccadilly.

Just saying there are 'no compelling arguments' doesn't make it so. There are. Plenty. Obviously not simple enough for you to comprehend.
The more vitriol you pour on the issue shows up the crass selfish and ignorant panic of a losing argument.

Actually I'm pretty confident of winning.

The fact remains that the same self protectionists objecting to this are the same people who objected to Piccadilly last time round. (It may not have been you as an individual, but it's your group of traders - of which you are the sole mouthpiece on here it appears)

And to claim Centros produced those leaflets completely independently is not true. If the retailers had no hand in them why were they on display and being handed out at the Campaign meeting?

Also the fact that the follow up email has come from the York Green Party suggests that this is more than just Centros acting alone.

Any chance you can provide a couple of these compelling arguments? Still waiting since asking on a previous story before Christmas.

I can see you are diametrically opposed to the development, so everything positive that might come out of the enterprise suddenly becomes "spin"...
1) However you dress it up it does not provide a balanced view. It highlights the worst of what MIGHT happen, therefore it is fair to call it scaremongering in my opinion.
2) It was one comment made in an interview. I don't know whether he has or hasn't appoached them. Its fairly certain that JL wouldn't hang around for the 2,3,4,5 or however many years it would take to develop other parts of the city.
3)It's not only 2 years because the very same people who opposed it years ago, because it might hurt trade in their stores, now opposing Monks x for the same reason. But its now suddenly "acceptable". For how long? I don't trust Sinclair and his cronies and neither should anyone who knows the full story behind whats gone on in the past.
4) I'm guessing he's talking of the GVA research, since that is the one you are hiding behind. I haven't read it thoroughly, but I trust his interpretation of the report than yours...
5) You're probably right - it is spin - about as much spin as the "York in Peril" rubbish.
6) I don't think the city of York council will just let the centre die out. They really aren't the enemy. I believe them when they say they will put together a city centre policy, just like in many of the towns and cities across the country. Money? Yes it can be budgeted. Perhaps with the money that will be bought in from the Monks X development - you never know... Stating that the council will only be able to do this if there are more strikes - even you aren't that stupid.
7) Austerity measures have hit the country - My point highlights that many people are worse off now than in 2009, yet footfall was up in 2011.
8) Yep - things are good. Lets stop all progressive thinking now just in case... Actually - I understand the research says that there will be a net benefit for the city of york. That's a good thing, right? So if York centre could sustain this development, this would be a good thing, right?
9) Semantics. Is. Was. What has changed to make York retail less resiliant then? Nothing. So therefore it still is. 6th in the country empty retail units = resiliance.
10) God - where do you park. Its £3.50 all day. Even the parking meters on the streets (owned and run by Leeds council) were only a couple of pounds for about 6 hours on a SATURDAY - you know, the primary shopping day for most people...
11) Whatever. I would estimate that it might be as much as 5% plus of the population will go and watch a match at least once a year. THen there are those who don't go, but have an interest in sport in York. Then there are those who would benefit from the athletics move. THere are plenty of people who want this to happen.

For what its worth, I am a york fan of over 25 years, but that's not the reason I am passionate about this. I hate the nimby-ism that these projects bring out. I hate the double standards from several of the anti brigade and the more I hear about them, the more infuriated I get, and that's not aimed at you, Nick, more the faces who lead this campaign and have their own interests at heart rather than that of the city as a whole.

I believe this scheme should go ahead even though I don't know exactly what damage York centre may or may not incur BUT I believe Oakgate should pay for ALL of it as their rewards are potentially huge and i see no reason why Yoprk citizens should contribute at all. It makes me livid to see CopYC allocating £400000 for reports..Why?... Oakgate should pay for these as they will benefit most financially
Anyone stopped to think why Oakgate are so keen to see this go ahead? I assure you its not for the love of York This is about money ..Full stop..and Oakgate will make plenty so make them pay for everything win or lose. I cannot understand why CoYC are so eager to move this forward and spend our money on what is essentially a private enterprise scheme unless someone somewhere is benefiting financially also?

meme wrote:
I believe this scheme should go ahead even though I don't know exactly what damage York centre may or may not incur BUT I believe Oakgate should pay for ALL of it as their rewards are potentially huge and i see no reason why Yoprk citizens should contribute at all. It makes me livid to see CopYC allocating £400000 for reports..Why?... Oakgate should pay for these as they will benefit most financially
Anyone stopped to think why Oakgate are so keen to see this go ahead? I assure you its not for the love of York This is about money ..Full stop..and Oakgate will make plenty so make them pay for everything win or lose. I cannot understand why CoYC are so eager to move this forward and spend our money on what is essentially a private enterprise scheme unless someone somewhere is benefiting financially also?

How on earth do you know how much is in this for Oakgate? That is the biggest assumption I've ever read on the press...

meme wrote:
I believe this scheme should go ahead even though I don't know exactly what damage York centre may or may not incur BUT I believe Oakgate should pay for ALL of it as their rewards are potentially huge and i see no reason why Yoprk citizens should contribute at all. It makes me livid to see CopYC allocating £400000 for reports..Why?... Oakgate should pay for these as they will benefit most financially
Anyone stopped to think why Oakgate are so keen to see this go ahead? I assure you its not for the love of York This is about money ..Full stop..and Oakgate will make plenty so make them pay for everything win or lose. I cannot understand why CoYC are so eager to move this forward and spend our money on what is essentially a private enterprise scheme unless someone somewhere is benefiting financially also?

How on earth do you know how much is in this for Oakgate? That is the biggest assumption I've ever read on the press...

Because if they were not going to make a huge profit they would not be as keen to press this forward despite huge opposition Basic facts ..Developers who are going to lose money do not promote dead losses!
How much do you think Oakgate are spending on PR and planning as well.They would not be spending this money without huge rewards
Finally why should york ratepayers fund them at all. Either it works or it does not. I don't support York City although I wish them well but I don't want to pay anything towards their new supposed 'community' stadium which I believe is just another home for YCfc.
We already have a community stadium being Ryedale. The only reason an bigger one is wanted is for football. Fair enough but I don't want to pay for it at all; Not a brass farthing!
I also think it may well harm the centre of York short term but believe the job creation etc that this scheme brings in the next few years will outweigh the negatives which may be felt but i still don't want to contribute to it financially

Fact. The planning application states that the development will require £170m pa.

And says where this income comes from.

From that you can deduce that it must be worth a lot.

If you look on commercial property websites you can see like for like £per Sq ft rental values. Multiply it by 244,000 and that's the annual income value to Oakgate.

Give me 5 minutes. I'll do it for you.

Do you think that CYC haven't thought about how much the property company are going to make out of the deal. It would've been the starting point I imagine, for determining how much the development company are going to put into this. I would be very surprised if there was much leaway (sp) in this at all given the economic climate we're in etc. You make it sound like you are the only person who has thought about this.
Were this the case all CYC would have to do would be throw it open to tender.

meme wrote:
I believe this scheme should go ahead even though I don't know exactly what damage York centre may or may not incur BUT I believe Oakgate should pay for ALL of it as their rewards are potentially huge and i see no reason why Yoprk citizens should contribute at all. It makes me livid to see CopYC allocating £400000 for reports..Why?... Oakgate should pay for these as they will benefit most financially
Anyone stopped to think why Oakgate are so keen to see this go ahead? I assure you its not for the love of York This is about money ..Full stop..and Oakgate will make plenty so make them pay for everything win or lose. I cannot understand why CoYC are so eager to move this forward and spend our money on what is essentially a private enterprise scheme unless someone somewhere is benefiting financially also?

Oakgate should pay for the planning reports?

You are aware that would be illegal, arn't you?

Oakgate are paying indirectly with the £4million sweetner in the offer to contribute to building a stadium. That said, if the stadium doesn't get built it will be money lost...