Knights in ambitious bid to buy Huntington Stadium (From York Press)

Torycouncil2015 wrote:
Far more interesting proposal than commentators are giving credit. In reality as land owners the council are entering into a deal with the developers. As a result any such deal must be palatable to council tax payers. If JG gets the stadium he can enter into the same deal with the developers or any other developer for that matter. He wouldn't be bound to the wishes of taxpayers

Even AndyD wrote:

Torycouncil2015 wrote:
Far more interesting proposal than commentators are giving credit. In reality as land owners the council are entering into a deal with the developers. As a result any such deal must be palatable to council tax payers. If JG gets the stadium he can enter into the same deal with the developers or any other developer for that matter. He wouldn't be bound to the wishes of taxpayers

If he gets the stadium???!! With what? Monopoly money? Or are you suggesting the Council just give it to him?

johnabostock wrote:
Mike Oxuge, YCFC have this season been getting up to nearly 3,000 or slightly over attending their matches NOT a few hundred! Facts need to be correct, please.

Mike Oxuge wrote:

johnabostock wrote: Mike Oxuge, YCFC have this season been getting up to nearly 3,000 or slightly over attending their matches NOT a few hundred! Facts need to be correct, please.

I don't care. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fund football.

meme wrote:
The Great Buda says...
11:25am Thu 2 Feb 12

Taxpayers are not funding this. Again you need to check your facts.

You are wrong Buda... CoYC have allocated £400000 of York taxpayers monies just to deal with the investigations into viability etc..Dead money win or lose!
Then a further £2 million is going towards the stadium IF planning is granted.
Plus what is it costing in officers time etc when they could be doing better things for york
So taxpayers money and taxpayers paid executives are going towards this scheme when the biggest beneficiaries are private business who should be picking up ALL the bills win or lose but our Council don't seem to recognise that fact for whatever reason.
I actually want it to go ahead. I dont care a **** about the community stadium aspect but that is the excuse to secure planning and i dont think york can afford to turn away such huge investment BUT I do object as i have said many times to the attitude of our Councillors that they are prepared to spend our money on something I suspect a vociferous minority only support

The Great Buda wrote:
Taxpayers are not funding this. Again you need to check your facts.

The Great Buda wrote:
Taxpayers are not funding this. Again you need to check your facts.

meme wrote:
JG would have the funds to buy it so he is as entitled to do a deal as anyone else!
If he were to nuy it CoYC could then sort out footie club but there would be no chance of retail as its an 'enabling' development and without community stadium there is NO chance of any planning being granted
Clever move by JG as council MUST sell to best bidder when they are playing straight

kanchelskis wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
Taxpayers are not funding this. Again you need to check your facts.

I understand that the Council are putting £4million into the scheme, plus what has already been spent so that is where the tax payers come into it.

Even AndyD wrote:

meme wrote:
JG would have the funds to buy it so he is as entitled to do a deal as anyone else!
If he were to nuy it CoYC could then sort out footie club but there would be no chance of retail as its an 'enabling' development and without community stadium there is NO chance of any planning being granted
Clever move by JG as council MUST sell to best bidder when they are playing straight

Why 'would he have funds'? Leaving aside speculation about the precise state of JGs finances these days, the evidence we do have doesn't look good. If he could buy a ground worth millions, why were/are the Knights behind with their peppercorn rent and were locked out of their ground a few weeks back? I'm confused here.

speaks99 wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
Taxpayers are not funding this. Again you need to check your facts.

I understand that the Council are putting £4million into the scheme, plus what has already been spent so that is where the tax payers come into it.

But will be receiving a more than adequate return in income.

kanchelskis wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

meme wrote:
JG would have the funds to buy it so he is as entitled to do a deal as anyone else!
If he were to nuy it CoYC could then sort out footie club but there would be no chance of retail as its an 'enabling' development and without community stadium there is NO chance of any planning being granted
Clever move by JG as council MUST sell to best bidder when they are playing straight

Why 'would he have funds'? Leaving aside speculation about the precise state of JGs finances these days, the evidence we do have doesn't look good. If he could buy a ground worth millions, why were/are the Knights behind with their peppercorn rent and were locked out of their ground a few weeks back? I'm confused here.

Absolutely nothing to do with not been able to pay their 'peppercorn rent'. I suggest you do some research on the subject.

walwynwasgod wrote:
Would like to know why the Council have delayed their vote on the Stadium though. I believe it is now going to be sometime in February. Hope its not "crackpot" Guildford slowing things down with his pathetic ideas !

The Great Buda wrote:
Nor is their any evidence to disprove it, as you well know.

kanchelskis wrote:

walwynwasgod wrote:
Would like to know why the Council have delayed their vote on the Stadium though. I believe it is now going to be sometime in February. Hope its not "crackpot" Guildford slowing things down with his pathetic ideas !

I think it might be something to do with the actual planning application not having enough detail or answering fundamental questions. I for one am not surprised by this.

walwynwasgod wrote:
Kanchelskis

I believe it could be something to do with the extra shoppers attracted to John Lewis and M & S that will generate the income !

walwynwasgod wrote:
Kanchelskis

Any questions that Guildford needs answering should have been raised at previous meetings (if only he'd have attended !). Anyway, i think we've been down this road before.

kanchelskis wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
Taxpayers are not funding this. Again you need to check your facts.

I understand that the Council are putting £4million into the scheme, plus what has already been spent so that is where the tax payers come into it.

But will be receiving a more than adequate return in income.

I hope so, but as things stand there is no evidence to prove this.

walwynwasgod wrote:
Kanchelskis

Any questions that Guildford needs answering should have been raised at previous meetings (if only he'd have attended !). Anyway, i think we've been down this road before.

walwynwasgod wrote:
Kanchelskis

Property Developers make their fair slice of cash out of these developments (that happens in any walk of life), so Oakgate will benefit, as will any local construction company that gets to build the stadium. The income generated by the shopping scheme and creation of jobs is what matters.

kanchelskis wrote:
Can anyone tell me why the Council don't just tell the Knights what they will lose, what they will gain and how much it will cost.

If they do this then the public of York can decide if the Knights are been reasonable with what they asking for.

Why are the Councillors of York not asking why the Knights are still asking for this information bearing in mind the scheme is in planning.

The Knights are the only ones who could lose as a result of the scheme so why not just answer the questions?

And before the 'Guildford should attend the meetings' brigade start, there is no need for a meeting, just some words on a piece of paper.

speaks99 wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:
Can anyone tell me why the Council don't just tell the Knights what they will lose, what they will gain and how much it will cost.

If they do this then the public of York can decide if the Knights are been reasonable with what they asking for.

Why are the Councillors of York not asking why the Knights are still asking for this information bearing in mind the scheme is in planning.

The Knights are the only ones who could lose as a result of the scheme so why not just answer the questions?

And before the 'Guildford should attend the meetings' brigade start, there is no need for a meeting, just some words on a piece of paper.

Probably because the final figure is yet to be negotiated between JG, JM and the council. You can hardly negotiate if one of the parties fails to turn up. I am sure that the council will not impose a figure without meeting each party first.

kanchelskis wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:
Can anyone tell me why the Council don't just tell the Knights what they will lose, what they will gain and how much it will cost.

If they do this then the public of York can decide if the Knights are been reasonable with what they asking for.

Why are the Councillors of York not asking why the Knights are still asking for this information bearing in mind the scheme is in planning.

The Knights are the only ones who could lose as a result of the scheme so why not just answer the questions?

And before the 'Guildford should attend the meetings' brigade start, there is no need for a meeting, just some words on a piece of paper.

Probably because the final figure is yet to be negotiated between JG, JM and the council. You can hardly negotiate if one of the parties fails to turn up. I am sure that the council will not impose a figure without meeting each party first.

The information required by the Knights should have been in the planning application to show what is been provided to all parties. The time for talking should be over at this point and it should be up to the planners to decide. It is quite clear that they require this information otherwise it would have gone to the committee for them to approve.

Also how can the Council have a viable business plan without knowing what the income will be?

johnabostock wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:
Can anyone tell me why the Council don't just tell the Knights what they will lose, what they will gain and how much it will cost.

If they do this then the public of York can decide if the Knights are been reasonable with what they asking for.

Why are the Councillors of York not asking why the Knights are still asking for this information bearing in mind the scheme is in planning.

The Knights are the only ones who could lose as a result of the scheme so why not just answer the questions?

And before the 'Guildford should attend the meetings' brigade start, there is no need for a meeting, just some words on a piece of paper.

Probably because the final figure is yet to be negotiated between JG, JM and the council. You can hardly negotiate if one of the parties fails to turn up. I am sure that the council will not impose a figure without meeting each party first.

The information required by the Knights should have been in the planning application to show what is been provided to all parties. The time for talking should be over at this point and it should be up to the planners to decide. It is quite clear that they require this information otherwise it would have gone to the committee for them to approve.

Also how can the Council have a viable business plan without knowing what the income will be?

This is becoming very tedious, kanchelskis. I honestly don`t think you are listening, or in this case, reading other people`s comments. you keep on and on repeating the same things which others are trying to answer for you. To me, it looks as though you are trying to aggrevate the situation whereas others are trying to resolve the problems, and work out the best way forward for ALL parties.

walwynwasgod wrote:
Speaks99

I don't think Kanchelskis is a good listener. The Knights would have found out about the planning application a while ago (if Guildford had bothered turning up). Kanchelskis is right, the time for talking should be over. The planners would have decided in January if it wasn't for idiots like Guildford slowing things down. The council should ignore this cretin (Guildford) and get down to business. If the Knights fold, well that is down to JG alone. They are getting a brand new stadium for their few diehard supporters to cheer on. Be thankful, now shut up Guildford. Get on board or kill your club.

walwynwasgod wrote:
Simple sums you up Kanchelskis ! How simple do you want us to be for you ?

johnabostock wrote:
In answer to Kanchelskis, I have to now agree with walwynwasgod above. JG must know far more of the facts than he is letting on. You don`t get to this stage of planning without ALL parties having asked their questions and being given different scenarios, as happens when you apply for planning permission for extensions and extra rooms on houses.

walwynwasgod wrote:
John A Bostock

Well put about Kanchelskis. Yes, he's just on here to keep the thread going (or he's a bit slow in taking things in). We all want what is best for all sport in York. Guildford and Kanchelskis don't do the Rugby League club any favours, which is a shame for those who want both clubs to succeed.

meme wrote:
Sorry but reports are paid for all the time by developers but organised by the council. That is not illegal and saves the taxpayer money. I refuse to rise to the rude comments about the likability or otherwise of JG. I know him....I may not agree with everything he does or says but he is still likable. Just because he has not bent over to be sr.....d does not make him a monster I do believe he has the best interest of his team at heart and cannot see how YCK's can pay the sort of rent you are suggesting they may have to pay as they will also lose their main earner I understand the bars and function rooms under the new scheme. I don't agree with his tactics but can understand his position which seems to be more than most do

speaks99 wrote:
Kanchelskis

I agree to some of your points, but like many others have said, had JG gone to meetings then this WOULD have been worked out. How can CYC, YCK and YCFC negotiate rental agreements if 1/3 of the parties it affects aren't represented?
Perhaps it will get to the point where CYC will just impose a figure on the knights, but I am sure they don't want to do that.
Plus it might not be as simple as saying £X pa. There could be more complicated rebate structures to discuss linked with turnover, other revenue streams etc.
Perhaps the council believe that, once the planning application has been passed, it will force JG to come to the table and negotiate, because, until that point, JG has done his upmost to avoid the situation.
This "bid" is just one more way for JG to try and obstruct this project from happening. I don't for one minute believe that he has any intention of making this purchase - I don't believe the margins are in it for him.

Even AndyD wrote:
The other issue I have is almost every Press release JG makes is either an open or veiled attack on the football club. They won't ground share (they will!), they send me this text (a situation he manufactured), only the football club are in a hurry, lets have a running track, lets wait, lets just continue to play rugby at HS and let the football club die. This is another example of that, he knows fine well the Council couldn't just 'pay off the clubs debts if they wanted to'.
Okay - he maybe doesn't think certain aspects suit the Knights and I can respect that. What I can't respect is trying to scupper a deal which would be in the best interest of both clubs, plus York residents and the Athletics people all because he is seemingly too 'big' to get round a table and iron out the small print (mixed metaphor, I do that when annoyed). Its all so silly, no other chairman would put up such a fight to get out of a dump of a ground and into something fit for purpose.
Now as fans, runners and residents - lets get together and demand this happens. Its a once in a lifetime opportunity.

speaks99 wrote:
Kanchelskis:
YCFC can't really negotiate that either until all parties are at the table so as both clubs are treated equally. It seems we are all waiting for JG to join the party.

The Great Buda wrote:
The stance of the Athletics Club in this should speak volumes.

kanchelskis wrote:
Important detail such as finance is not something that can just be discussed and agreed on in a meeting. CYC need to send proposals to the clubs for them to look at in detail before commenting on, not just decide in a 2 hour meeting.

NeilCOY wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
The stance of the Athletics Club in this should speak volumes.

As Chair of the Athletic Club I have so far resisted the temptation to 'comment' on press release reaction. However, this project is clearly at a critical stage and it perhaps is important to add a little more context to the athletic club stance. From the outset the core principle of the athletic club has been to fully participate in all discussions, consider all options but to actively support the 'scheme' that gives the greatest benefit to all partners, including, of course, the wider community aspects. Inevitably, this means there must be compromise and no solution will be ideal for any partner. However, the athletic club 'team' firmly believes that the community stadium proposals represent, by far, the best opportunity for York to have the sporting facilities it deserves whilst at the same time improving the chances of professional rugby and football to be sustainable. If this project is to be continually frustrated, then the opportunity for York to have fantastic, modern, affordable facilities for future generations to be proud of and enjoy will be lost. That would be a tragedy and a very sad legacy that will be hard to understand in a few years time - especially if it is the sporting community itself that ultimately could not work together and find the solutions to be able to say yes to such an amazing, once in a lifetime, opportunity. The athletic club remains active in trying to work together to find those solutions.

NeilCOY wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
The stance of the Athletics Club in this should speak volumes.

As Chair of the Athletic Club I have so far resisted the temptation to 'comment' on press release reaction. However, this project is clearly at a critical stage and it perhaps is important to add a little more context to the athletic club stance. From the outset the core principle of the athletic club has been to fully participate in all discussions, consider all options but to actively support the 'scheme' that gives the greatest benefit to all partners, including, of course, the wider community aspects. Inevitably, this means there must be compromise and no solution will be ideal for any partner. However, the athletic club 'team' firmly believes that the community stadium proposals represent, by far, the best opportunity for York to have the sporting facilities it deserves whilst at the same time improving the chances of professional rugby and football to be sustainable. If this project is to be continually frustrated, then the opportunity for York to have fantastic, modern, affordable facilities for future generations to be proud of and enjoy will be lost. That would be a tragedy and a very sad legacy that will be hard to understand in a few years time - especially if it is the sporting community itself that ultimately could not work together and find the solutions to be able to say yes to such an amazing, once in a lifetime, opportunity. The athletic club remains active in trying to work together to find those solutions.

NeilCOY wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
The stance of the Athletics Club in this should speak volumes.

As Chair of the Athletic Club I have so far resisted the temptation to 'comment' on press release reaction. However, this project is clearly at a critical stage and it perhaps is important to add a little more context to the athletic club stance. From the outset the core principle of the athletic club has been to fully participate in all discussions, consider all options but to actively support the 'scheme' that gives the greatest benefit to all partners, including, of course, the wider community aspects. Inevitably, this means there must be compromise and no solution will be ideal for any partner. However, the athletic club 'team' firmly believes that the community stadium proposals represent, by far, the best opportunity for York to have the sporting facilities it deserves whilst at the same time improving the chances of professional rugby and football to be sustainable. If this project is to be continually frustrated, then the opportunity for York to have fantastic, modern, affordable facilities for future generations to be proud of and enjoy will be lost. That would be a tragedy and a very sad legacy that will be hard to understand in a few years time - especially if it is the sporting community itself that ultimately could not work together and find the solutions to be able to say yes to such an amazing, once in a lifetime, opportunity. The athletic club remains active in trying to work together to find those solutions.

NeilCOY wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
The stance of the Athletics Club in this should speak volumes.

As Chair of the Athletic Club I have so far resisted the temptation to 'comment' on press release reaction. However, this project is clearly at a critical stage and it perhaps is important to add a little more context to the athletic club stance. From the outset the core principle of the athletic club has been to fully participate in all discussions, consider all options but to actively support the 'scheme' that gives the greatest benefit to all partners, including, of course, the wider community aspects. Inevitably, this means there must be compromise and no solution will be ideal for any partner. However, the athletic club 'team' firmly believes that the community stadium proposals represent, by far, the best opportunity for York to have the sporting facilities it deserves whilst at the same time improving the chances of professional rugby and football to be sustainable. If this project is to be continually frustrated, then the opportunity for York to have fantastic, modern, affordable facilities for future generations to be proud of and enjoy will be lost. That would be a tragedy and a very sad legacy that will be hard to understand in a few years time - especially if it is the sporting community itself that ultimately could not work together and find the solutions to be able to say yes to such an amazing, once in a lifetime, opportunity. The athletic club remains active in trying to work together to find those solutions.

walwynwasgod wrote:
NeilCoy

Well put Sir ! Everyone seems to be forgetting the Athletics Team's views. We must all stick together on the Community Stadium.

Mike Oxuge

I think most "sensible" people have understood my answers. Its a shame that Kanchelskis and yourself have the inability to "take in" that JG HAS NOT ATTENDED MEETINGS. I'm still awaiting the questions again that i have "not answered"

speaks99 wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:
Important detail such as finance is not something that can just be discussed and agreed on in a meeting. CYC need to send proposals to the clubs for them to look at in detail before commenting on, not just decide in a 2 hour meeting.

That's ridiculous. All parties should be present to discuss and negotiate. I repeat (again) you can't negotiate if one party refuses to come to the table.
You're loyalty to JG is commendable, but you are wrong I think on this count.
Anyway, given his history, what reaction would JG give to any proposals? The proposal would appear in the press before the ink had dried and he would be bleating about being hard done by. We've seen it all before.

The Great Buda wrote:
7. Why hasn't JG gone to meetings to get these answers?

kanchelskis wrote:

NeilCOY wrote:

The Great Buda wrote: The stance of the Athletics Club in this should speak volumes.

As Chair of the Athletic Club I have so far resisted the temptation to 'comment' on press release reaction. However, this project is clearly at a critical stage and it perhaps is important to add a little more context to the athletic club stance. From the outset the core principle of the athletic club has been to fully participate in all discussions, consider all options but to actively support the 'scheme' that gives the greatest benefit to all partners, including, of course, the wider community aspects. Inevitably, this means there must be compromise and no solution will be ideal for any partner. However, the athletic club 'team' firmly believes that the community stadium proposals represent, by far, the best opportunity for York to have the sporting facilities it deserves whilst at the same time improving the chances of professional rugby and football to be sustainable. If this project is to be continually frustrated, then the opportunity for York to have fantastic, modern, affordable facilities for future generations to be proud of and enjoy will be lost. That would be a tragedy and a very sad legacy that will be hard to understand in a few years time - especially if it is the sporting community itself that ultimately could not work together and find the solutions to be able to say yes to such an amazing, once in a lifetime, opportunity. The athletic club remains active in trying to work together to find those solutions.

Bit of a nothing post really. Just appears that you are saying the right things and sitting on the fence. As a board member you should be assisting the Council in putting together a robust and sustainable proposal and one that benefits your club, bearing in mind there is nothing in the planning application for athletics facilities. After reading the objection letter from Jones Lang Lasalle the current application breaks nearly every planning law in the book and is not robust and sustainable. When deciding that the current scheme is the best option for the City of York did Mr Hunter consider the objection letters from Sport England, Jones Lang Lasalle and GVA Grimleys report, as it appears that the board have not come up with the robust and sustainable plan that the people of York require and to make the scheme a success long term. A link to the Lasalle letter for anyone interested can be found below http://planningacces s.york.gov.uk/online -applications/files/ 4E3A89010D164E2B9377 443ED900421D/pdf/11_ 02581_OUTM-JONES_LAN G_LASALLE-1292848.pd f

walwynwasgod wrote:
Kanchelskis

Having seen the Oakgate Plans, i believe the Gym and Pool at Courtneys (or whatever it is called now) are remaining. I am sure JG has looked at possible links with local ARL clubs such as Heworth to assist with outdoor training and Academy/Reserve sides playing there (if not, this should have been raised at the meetings with the Council). With regards to paying rent, it will be a more reallistic figure than what Mr Guildford is paying now. The Football Club hold regular Fans Forums to discuss "wish lists" for what they want at the new Stadium (this includes the prospect of a Social Club, so i would have thought JG would have raised these questions before now regarding Bar 13). If not, the Knights supporters should have arranged their own "wish list" to discuss this. Bootham Crescent will continue to be used until the new Stadium is built. Ground sharing would be looked at if the time scale falls behind (that will only happen if JG continues to stall things). M & S and John Lewis are keen to move in sooner rather than later. Additional income is something that both clubs have always had to look at. Please feel free to query my answers.

NeilCOY wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:

NeilCOY wrote:

The Great Buda wrote: The stance of the Athletics Club in this should speak volumes.

As Chair of the Athletic Club I have so far resisted the temptation to 'comment' on press release reaction. However, this project is clearly at a critical stage and it perhaps is important to add a little more context to the athletic club stance. From the outset the core principle of the athletic club has been to fully participate in all discussions, consider all options but to actively support the 'scheme' that gives the greatest benefit to all partners, including, of course, the wider community aspects. Inevitably, this means there must be compromise and no solution will be ideal for any partner. However, the athletic club 'team' firmly believes that the community stadium proposals represent, by far, the best opportunity for York to have the sporting facilities it deserves whilst at the same time improving the chances of professional rugby and football to be sustainable. If this project is to be continually frustrated, then the opportunity for York to have fantastic, modern, affordable facilities for future generations to be proud of and enjoy will be lost. That would be a tragedy and a very sad legacy that will be hard to understand in a few years time - especially if it is the sporting community itself that ultimately could not work together and find the solutions to be able to say yes to such an amazing, once in a lifetime, opportunity. The athletic club remains active in trying to work together to find those solutions.

Bit of a nothing post really. Just appears that you are saying the right things and sitting on the fence. As a board member you should be assisting the Council in putting together a robust and sustainable proposal and one that benefits your club, bearing in mind there is nothing in the planning application for athletics facilities. After reading the objection letter from Jones Lang Lasalle the current application breaks nearly every planning law in the book and is not robust and sustainable. When deciding that the current scheme is the best option for the City of York did Mr Hunter consider the objection letters from Sport England, Jones Lang Lasalle and GVA Grimleys report, as it appears that the board have not come up with the robust and sustainable plan that the people of York require and to make the scheme a success long term. A link to the Lasalle letter for anyone interested can be found below http://planningacces s.york.gov.uk/online -applications/files/ 4E3A89010D164E2B9377 443ED900421D/pdf/11_ 02581_OUTM-JONES_LAN G_LASALLE-1292848.pd f

Again, although not really wishing to correspond directly through comments, I will clarify.
Of course I am completely aware, and excited by, the proposals for the athletic club and am also aware of the robustness and detail of the business case for the community stadium in the wider sense. I would not support any proposal that did not satisfy these basic and essential criteria. Obviously the financial model will necessarily evolve over the life of the project but the (frequently quoted) assurance that no partner will be financially worse off does take away financial risk - and I am satisfied that the current proposals are robust enough to enable that asurance to be delivered - along with the fantastic new facilities. Obviously, over the last few years, there has been a significant amount of challenge and reality checks from all partners and these have contributed greatly to the business case.
I have no expertise nor opinion to offer on the wider objections to the scheme - all views must be sought and considered from all stakeholders in the community (as championed in the Localism Bill) and these will be considered, quite rightly, as part of the planning process.
Many thanks for taking the time to respond and, although it is posssible we may not agree, I hope that goes some way to explaining the athletics team position.

walwynwasgod wrote:
Kanchelskis

I'm beginning to lose my patience.

Its a Community Stadium for Gods sake ! The City Fans work with our Board to make sure everyone attempts to get things right, and hold regular discussions. I have answered your questions, now go and write to your Councillor to find out if JG has asked these questions at the 2 or 3 meetings he has attended. The shoe is not on the other foot because we are run by a Board that liases with their Fans and don't rely on a Bar for its income ! I've also said it before about Doncaster as well. They've always been crap and have had more grounds than i care to mention from Dog Tracks to Farmers Fields ! Perhaps you can let us all know what Guildford has asked at these meetings regarding the issues you raise ?

walwynwasgod wrote:
Kanchelskis

I'm beginning to lose my patience.

Its a Community Stadium for Gods sake ! The City Fans work with our Board to make sure everyone attempts to get things right, and hold regular discussions. I have answered your questions, now go and write to your Councillor to find out if JG has asked these questions at the 2 or 3 meetings he has attended. The shoe is not on the other foot because we are run by a Board that liases with their Fans and don't rely on a Bar for its income ! I've also said it before about Doncaster as well. They've always been crap and have had more grounds than i care to mention from Dog Tracks to Farmers Fields ! Perhaps you can let us all know what Guildford has asked at these meetings regarding the issues you raise ?

meme wrote:
as you have been told many times meme, but keep deciding to ignore - it would be ilegal for the £400K to be paid by anyone else.

Sorry i dont understand...Why is it illegal for the developer to pay the costs of the Council appointing an independent to assess the viability. You are talking rubbish.
As regards the rents you throw around in follow up blogs no wonder Guildford is concerned if he is expected to pay anything like this when its a peppercorn now!
Frankly i would be amazed if these were the sort of rents being paid but I just am guessing
Finally does Guildford have the money to buy this? I don't know for sure but I do know him and he is very well off and very clever, likable and capable and I suspect he has the skills and finance to buy it if he wants too.
So which way will this go. CoYC have played this all wrong keeping their cards too close to their chests and alienating their tenant and others who feel their relationship with Oakgate is just a little too close and cosy.They don't want to listen to other ideas for whatever reason and have now dug a hole that they are going to find very hard to defend at the obligatory public enquiry into this in some 12 months time

meme wrote:
as you have been told many times meme, but keep deciding to ignore - it would be ilegal for the £400K to be paid by anyone else.

Sorry i dont understand...Why is it illegal for the developer to pay the costs of the Council appointing an independent to assess the viability. You are talking rubbish.
As regards the rents you throw around in follow up blogs no wonder Guildford is concerned if he is expected to pay anything like this when its a peppercorn now!
Frankly i would be amazed if these were the sort of rents being paid but I just am guessing
Finally does Guildford have the money to buy this? I don't know for sure but I do know him and he is very well off and very clever, likable and capable and I suspect he has the skills and finance to buy it if he wants too.
So which way will this go. CoYC have played this all wrong keeping their cards too close to their chests and alienating their tenant and others who feel their relationship with Oakgate is just a little too close and cosy.They don't want to listen to other ideas for whatever reason and have now dug a hole that they are going to find very hard to defend at the obligatory public enquiry into this in some 12 months time

NeilCOY wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:

NeilCOY wrote:

The Great Buda wrote: The stance of the Athletics Club in this should speak volumes.

As Chair of the Athletic Club I have so far resisted the temptation to 'comment' on press release reaction. However, this project is clearly at a critical stage and it perhaps is important to add a little more context to the athletic club stance. From the outset the core principle of the athletic club has been to fully participate in all discussions, consider all options but to actively support the 'scheme' that gives the greatest benefit to all partners, including, of course, the wider community aspects. Inevitably, this means there must be compromise and no solution will be ideal for any partner. However, the athletic club 'team' firmly believes that the community stadium proposals represent, by far, the best opportunity for York to have the sporting facilities it deserves whilst at the same time improving the chances of professional rugby and football to be sustainable. If this project is to be continually frustrated, then the opportunity for York to have fantastic, modern, affordable facilities for future generations to be proud of and enjoy will be lost. That would be a tragedy and a very sad legacy that will be hard to understand in a few years time - especially if it is the sporting community itself that ultimately could not work together and find the solutions to be able to say yes to such an amazing, once in a lifetime, opportunity. The athletic club remains active in trying to work together to find those solutions.

Bit of a nothing post really. Just appears that you are saying the right things and sitting on the fence. As a board member you should be assisting the Council in putting together a robust and sustainable proposal and one that benefits your club, bearing in mind there is nothing in the planning application for athletics facilities. After reading the objection letter from Jones Lang Lasalle the current application breaks nearly every planning law in the book and is not robust and sustainable. When deciding that the current scheme is the best option for the City of York did Mr Hunter consider the objection letters from Sport England, Jones Lang Lasalle and GVA Grimleys report, as it appears that the board have not come up with the robust and sustainable plan that the people of York require and to make the scheme a success long term. A link to the Lasalle letter for anyone interested can be found below http://planningacces s.york.gov.uk/online -applications/files/ 4E3A89010D164E2B9377 443ED900421D/pdf/11_ 02581_OUTM-JONES_LAN G_LASALLE-1292848.pd f

Again, although not really wishing to correspond directly through comments, I will clarify.
Of course I am completely aware, and excited by, the proposals for the athletic club and am also aware of the robustness and detail of the business case for the community stadium in the wider sense. I would not support any proposal that did not satisfy these basic and essential criteria. Obviously the financial model will necessarily evolve over the life of the project but the (frequently quoted) assurance that no partner will be financially worse off does take away financial risk - and I am satisfied that the current proposals are robust enough to enable that asurance to be delivered - along with the fantastic new facilities. Obviously, over the last few years, there has been a significant amount of challenge and reality checks from all partners and these have contributed greatly to the business case.
I have no expertise nor opinion to offer on the wider objections to the scheme - all views must be sought and considered from all stakeholders in the community (as championed in the Localism Bill) and these will be considered, quite rightly, as part of the planning process.
Many thanks for taking the time to respond and, although it is posssible we may not agree, I hope that goes some way to explaining the athletics team position.

kanchelskis wrote:

NeilCOY wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:

NeilCOY wrote:

The Great Buda wrote: The stance of the Athletics Club in this should speak volumes.

As Chair of the Athletic Club I have so far resisted the temptation to 'comment' on press release reaction. However, this project is clearly at a critical stage and it perhaps is important to add a little more context to the athletic club stance. From the outset the core principle of the athletic club has been to fully participate in all discussions, consider all options but to actively support the 'scheme' that gives the greatest benefit to all partners, including, of course, the wider community aspects. Inevitably, this means there must be compromise and no solution will be ideal for any partner. However, the athletic club 'team' firmly believes that the community stadium proposals represent, by far, the best opportunity for York to have the sporting facilities it deserves whilst at the same time improving the chances of professional rugby and football to be sustainable. If this project is to be continually frustrated, then the opportunity for York to have fantastic, modern, affordable facilities for future generations to be proud of and enjoy will be lost. That would be a tragedy and a very sad legacy that will be hard to understand in a few years time - especially if it is the sporting community itself that ultimately could not work together and find the solutions to be able to say yes to such an amazing, once in a lifetime, opportunity. The athletic club remains active in trying to work together to find those solutions.

Bit of a nothing post really. Just appears that you are saying the right things and sitting on the fence. As a board member you should be assisting the Council in putting together a robust and sustainable proposal and one that benefits your club, bearing in mind there is nothing in the planning application for athletics facilities. After reading the objection letter from Jones Lang Lasalle the current application breaks nearly every planning law in the book and is not robust and sustainable. When deciding that the current scheme is the best option for the City of York did Mr Hunter consider the objection letters from Sport England, Jones Lang Lasalle and GVA Grimleys report, as it appears that the board have not come up with the robust and sustainable plan that the people of York require and to make the scheme a success long term. A link to the Lasalle letter for anyone interested can be found below http://planningacces s.york.gov.uk/online -applications/files/ 4E3A89010D164E2B9377 443ED900421D/pdf/11_ 02581_OUTM-JONES_LAN G_LASALLE-1292848.pd f

Again, although not really wishing to correspond directly through comments, I will clarify. Of course I am completely aware, and excited by, the proposals for the athletic club and am also aware of the robustness and detail of the business case for the community stadium in the wider sense. I would not support any proposal that did not satisfy these basic and essential criteria. Obviously the financial model will necessarily evolve over the life of the project but the (frequently quoted) assurance that no partner will be financially worse off does take away financial risk - and I am satisfied that the current proposals are robust enough to enable that asurance to be delivered - along with the fantastic new facilities. Obviously, over the last few years, there has been a significant amount of challenge and reality checks from all partners and these have contributed greatly to the business case. I have no expertise nor opinion to offer on the wider objections to the scheme - all views must be sought and considered from all stakeholders in the community (as championed in the Localism Bill) and these will be considered, quite rightly, as part of the planning process. Many thanks for taking the time to respond and, although it is posssible we may not agree, I hope that goes some way to explaining the athletics team position.

Can you point me to the proposals in the planning application for the athletics club as i have not seen anything. To be robust it has to be evidence based. Do the athletics club have a signed agreement with the University and if so why is it not in the planning application? Regarding the statement from the Council that 'no partner will be financially worse off' for how much longer will this just be a statement? Surely at some point it needs to be backed up with evidence and signed agreements and only at that point can it be robust and sustainable. I hope you are not selling the athletics club short on this one. Guildford seems to be asking more questions about this than you are. I genuinely hope that you get the facilities you are hoping for but it appears to be a very risky way of doing things.

NeilCOY wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:

NeilCOY wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:

NeilCOY wrote:

The Great Buda wrote: The stance of the Athletics Club in this should speak volumes.

As Chair of the Athletic Club I have so far resisted the temptation to 'comment' on press release reaction. However, this project is clearly at a critical stage and it perhaps is important to add a little more context to the athletic club stance. From the outset the core principle of the athletic club has been to fully participate in all discussions, consider all options but to actively support the 'scheme' that gives the greatest benefit to all partners, including, of course, the wider community aspects. Inevitably, this means there must be compromise and no solution will be ideal for any partner. However, the athletic club 'team' firmly believes that the community stadium proposals represent, by far, the best opportunity for York to have the sporting facilities it deserves whilst at the same time improving the chances of professional rugby and football to be sustainable. If this project is to be continually frustrated, then the opportunity for York to have fantastic, modern, affordable facilities for future generations to be proud of and enjoy will be lost. That would be a tragedy and a very sad legacy that will be hard to understand in a few years time - especially if it is the sporting community itself that ultimately could not work together and find the solutions to be able to say yes to such an amazing, once in a lifetime, opportunity. The athletic club remains active in trying to work together to find those solutions.

Bit of a nothing post really. Just appears that you are saying the right things and sitting on the fence. As a board member you should be assisting the Council in putting together a robust and sustainable proposal and one that benefits your club, bearing in mind there is nothing in the planning application for athletics facilities. After reading the objection letter from Jones Lang Lasalle the current application breaks nearly every planning law in the book and is not robust and sustainable. When deciding that the current scheme is the best option for the City of York did Mr Hunter consider the objection letters from Sport England, Jones Lang Lasalle and GVA Grimleys report, as it appears that the board have not come up with the robust and sustainable plan that the people of York require and to make the scheme a success long term. A link to the Lasalle letter for anyone interested can be found below http://planningacces s.york.gov.uk/online -applications/files/ 4E3A89010D164E2B9377 443ED900421D/pdf/11_ 02581_OUTM-JONES_LAN G_LASALLE-1292848.pd f

Again, although not really wishing to correspond directly through comments, I will clarify. Of course I am completely aware, and excited by, the proposals for the athletic club and am also aware of the robustness and detail of the business case for the community stadium in the wider sense. I would not support any proposal that did not satisfy these basic and essential criteria. Obviously the financial model will necessarily evolve over the life of the project but the (frequently quoted) assurance that no partner will be financially worse off does take away financial risk - and I am satisfied that the current proposals are robust enough to enable that asurance to be delivered - along with the fantastic new facilities. Obviously, over the last few years, there has been a significant amount of challenge and reality checks from all partners and these have contributed greatly to the business case. I have no expertise nor opinion to offer on the wider objections to the scheme - all views must be sought and considered from all stakeholders in the community (as championed in the Localism Bill) and these will be considered, quite rightly, as part of the planning process. Many thanks for taking the time to respond and, although it is posssible we may not agree, I hope that goes some way to explaining the athletics team position.

Can you point me to the proposals in the planning application for the athletics club as i have not seen anything. To be robust it has to be evidence based. Do the athletics club have a signed agreement with the University and if so why is it not in the planning application? Regarding the statement from the Council that 'no partner will be financially worse off' for how much longer will this just be a statement? Surely at some point it needs to be backed up with evidence and signed agreements and only at that point can it be robust and sustainable. I hope you are not selling the athletics club short on this one. Guildford seems to be asking more questions about this than you are. I genuinely hope that you get the facilities you are hoping for but it appears to be a very risky way of doing things.

Thanks again for your response - final comment from me.
I am more than satisfied that the athletic club is provided for and that the planning application for the site at Huntington has little need to mention a development at the University. I only clarify to ensure those reading these posts do not believe it to be an issue.
Regarding the other points raised - I can assure you that as part of my attendance at formal meetings and (a great deal of additional) general work/inolvement with the project team and partners I have sufficient 'evidence' upon which to base the athletic team's position. Like many, I am trying to positively move this project forward to ensure that athletics, nor any other sporting partner, is 'sold short' - and certainly do not consider this position (nor the way the athletic team does things) to be a risk. Paradoxically, the big risk (to athletics and other sporting partners) seems very clearly to be this project not progressing.

NeilCOY wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:

NeilCOY wrote:

kanchelskis wrote:

NeilCOY wrote:

The Great Buda wrote: The stance of the Athletics Club in this should speak volumes.

As Chair of the Athletic Club I have so far resisted the temptation to 'comment' on press release reaction. However, this project is clearly at a critical stage and it perhaps is important to add a little more context to the athletic club stance. From the outset the core principle of the athletic club has been to fully participate in all discussions, consider all options but to actively support the 'scheme' that gives the greatest benefit to all partners, including, of course, the wider community aspects. Inevitably, this means there must be compromise and no solution will be ideal for any partner. However, the athletic club 'team' firmly believes that the community stadium proposals represent, by far, the best opportunity for York to have the sporting facilities it deserves whilst at the same time improving the chances of professional rugby and football to be sustainable. If this project is to be continually frustrated, then the opportunity for York to have fantastic, modern, affordable facilities for future generations to be proud of and enjoy will be lost. That would be a tragedy and a very sad legacy that will be hard to understand in a few years time - especially if it is the sporting community itself that ultimately could not work together and find the solutions to be able to say yes to such an amazing, once in a lifetime, opportunity. The athletic club remains active in trying to work together to find those solutions.

Bit of a nothing post really. Just appears that you are saying the right things and sitting on the fence. As a board member you should be assisting the Council in putting together a robust and sustainable proposal and one that benefits your club, bearing in mind there is nothing in the planning application for athletics facilities. After reading the objection letter from Jones Lang Lasalle the current application breaks nearly every planning law in the book and is not robust and sustainable. When deciding that the current scheme is the best option for the City of York did Mr Hunter consider the objection letters from Sport England, Jones Lang Lasalle and GVA Grimleys report, as it appears that the board have not come up with the robust and sustainable plan that the people of York require and to make the scheme a success long term. A link to the Lasalle letter for anyone interested can be found below http://planningacces s.york.gov.uk/online -applications/files/ 4E3A89010D164E2B9377 443ED900421D/pdf/11_ 02581_OUTM-JONES_LAN G_LASALLE-1292848.pd f

Again, although not really wishing to correspond directly through comments, I will clarify. Of course I am completely aware, and excited by, the proposals for the athletic club and am also aware of the robustness and detail of the business case for the community stadium in the wider sense. I would not support any proposal that did not satisfy these basic and essential criteria. Obviously the financial model will necessarily evolve over the life of the project but the (frequently quoted) assurance that no partner will be financially worse off does take away financial risk - and I am satisfied that the current proposals are robust enough to enable that asurance to be delivered - along with the fantastic new facilities. Obviously, over the last few years, there has been a significant amount of challenge and reality checks from all partners and these have contributed greatly to the business case. I have no expertise nor opinion to offer on the wider objections to the scheme - all views must be sought and considered from all stakeholders in the community (as championed in the Localism Bill) and these will be considered, quite rightly, as part of the planning process. Many thanks for taking the time to respond and, although it is posssible we may not agree, I hope that goes some way to explaining the athletics team position.

Can you point me to the proposals in the planning application for the athletics club as i have not seen anything. To be robust it has to be evidence based. Do the athletics club have a signed agreement with the University and if so why is it not in the planning application? Regarding the statement from the Council that 'no partner will be financially worse off' for how much longer will this just be a statement? Surely at some point it needs to be backed up with evidence and signed agreements and only at that point can it be robust and sustainable. I hope you are not selling the athletics club short on this one. Guildford seems to be asking more questions about this than you are. I genuinely hope that you get the facilities you are hoping for but it appears to be a very risky way of doing things.

Thanks again for your response - final comment from me.
I am more than satisfied that the athletic club is provided for and that the planning application for the site at Huntington has little need to mention a development at the University. I only clarify to ensure those reading these posts do not believe it to be an issue.
Regarding the other points raised - I can assure you that as part of my attendance at formal meetings and (a great deal of additional) general work/inolvement with the project team and partners I have sufficient 'evidence' upon which to base the athletic team's position. Like many, I am trying to positively move this project forward to ensure that athletics, nor any other sporting partner, is 'sold short' - and certainly do not consider this position (nor the way the athletic team does things) to be a risk. Paradoxically, the big risk (to athletics and other sporting partners) seems very clearly to be this project not progressing.

meme wrote:
I have been asked what are the community facilities...I suspect this is the real weak point in the planning argument
This scheme only gets planning if it can be proved its an enabling development for a community stadium as otherwise it would be refused out of hand.
Unfortunately i suspect most of us think a community stadium provides sporting facilities for all and not a rescue package for YCFC.
YCK dont want it and they are a true community user/The athletics club go elsewhere and the other community benefits are dubious to say the least and dont provide any further sporting facilities. I suspect this will be a serious challenge to the validity of the application which will have to go before an inspector who will see through it

walwynwasgod wrote:
Kanchelskis

Its people like you that paint a picture that everyone at the Rugby Club is like Guildford. Don't compare the Knights with Doncaster. The Athletics club are behind the proposal, as well as the Football Club. All the Knights fans i have spoken to are behind it. The truth is Guildford does not want to lose his precious Bar 13 and pay more rent for a better facility (if indeed he will pay more). KISS have become very quiet about this. I wonder what their views are about Guildford's latest crackpot idea !

speaks99 wrote:
God - reading just 14 hours later and I'm getting more and more angry.
How dare you Kanchelskis/milkybar

kid continue to persue Neil Hunter. He is in a very sensitive position but has taken the time to address certain concerns on this message board. Your more and more desperate responses are becoming embarrassing to you and the rugby club. He states he is happy that the athletics club are getting the best for York athletics. What he doesn't need is a rugby fan continually hounding him. Just get over the fact York Athletics feel that moving to the university will be advantageous to them, and move on.
Given JG penchant to "leak" documents to the press I am sure York Council will send him some ammunition so he can bleat on about how the Knights cant afford the rent (but can afford to buy the land surprisingly).
And your list of 6 questions is frankly pathetic. If JG cant be bothered to work these out I worry for the future of the knights. Where will they train? Like, seriously? Sad sad man.

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Buda, I don't understand your logic? You suggest that from the Ryedale Stadium sale; £8Million go to the football club and only £2Million to Athletics. Let me remind you that the stadium was built for Athletics with funds raised mostly by local people. Football had nothing to do with it yet you seem to think they can grab most of the value!

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
I did live in Ryedale at the time and helped raise lots of money for the stadium so we had much needed Athletics facilities.

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
I did live in Ryedale at the time and helped raise lots of money for the stadium so we had much needed Athletics facilities.

Septimius Severus wrote:
Seems to me JG going to a meeting or not isn't the issue.

A landlord telling a tenant he has to share with another party and pay more rent and lose the revenue he uses to provide for himself.

Doesn't seem fair.

Not surprised JG's accepted the landlords previous and standing offer to buy the property.

CYC have assumed (to suit their agenda) that they can bully YCFC into HS.

If YCFC and CYC want to share they should be a little more sensitive to the RL club.

It's done nothing wrong except try to survive.

I guess JG doesn't like being bullied.

Punk_Ian wrote:
As a YCFC without an interest in rugby this might sound strange but I want the Knights to prosper almost as much as I want City to do. There's so much in this proposal that isn't right, if he buys the land (or the Knights) what's to stop him asset stripping the Knights leaving them homeless and him with a nice multi-million pound plot to develop on (covenants can be bought off with enough money)? The other point I'd like to make, which no one seems to have brought up, is why isn't the new stadium built on land next to train tracks so could have it's own station and transport links? It's 'a lot of trouble' getting to Monks Cross as it is if you don't drive. I live in Leeds now but my folks live in Huntington and just say for arguments sake City were challenging at League 1 level or the Knights got to the Super League there isn't the possibility of expanding the current infrastructure there. Also with it's own rail links then the stadium could be used for gigs and suchlike producing more revenue for both clubs. The council seems to forget, in it's efforts to kill BOTH clubs, that a lot of people who travel to see their clubs will make a weekend of it in York for all the family thus bringing in the revenue from tourists that the council wants. After talking to a few AFC Wimbledon fans last year (on the Saturday game that was abandoned) they'd all come up for the weekend and let the misses and kids be tourists while they hoped to watch the footy on the Saturday. It might just be me but in it's urge to generally ruin York for people who live their and get all the Yen and Dollars it can an opportunity is there for something to be built that will benefit both clubs and the people of York.