Community stadium news RSS Feed


£200 million Castle Piccadilly development in York hangs in the balance

Graeme Chalk, of LaSalle’s development manager Centros Graeme Chalk, of LaSalle’s development manager Centros

Updated: THE owners of York’s Coppergate Centre will abandon their redevelopment plans and sell the site if new out-of-town shopping schemes get the go-ahead, they have warned.

In a message to City of York Council, LaSalle UK Ventures Fund said approval for new John Lewis and Marks & Spencer stores at Monks Cross and an expansion of Monks Cross Shopping Park would force it to pull the plug on its £200 million Castle Piccadilly plans.

The company, which owns the city-centre retail site and two neighbouring pieces of land, said it would be “impossible” for it to continue with its plans, if the council gives permission for Oakgate (Monks Cross) Ltd’s proposals, which include a community stadium, and for introduction of mezzanine floors and smaller units at the shopping park.

LaSalle said the trading impact on the centre of York would be too damaging, and said they would look to sell the Coppergate Centre and the Castle Piccadilly site to separate buyers to “maximise value”.

LaSalle revealed last year it was talking to major retailers and discussing the possible expansion of the Fenwick store in Castle Piccadilly. It has now formally objected to the both Monks Cross applications, saying they go against planning guidelines.

Graeme Chalk, of LaSalle’s development manager Centros, said: “We are continuing to work closely with council officers to bring forward new plans for the Castle Piccadilly site, but councillors should understand they can't have both massive expansion at Monks Cross and the major investment LaSalle wishes to bring to the development.

“We believe the scale of the Monks Cross proposals will be devastating for city-centre retailers. The shoppers and trade it will pull away from the centre would cause a large number of shop closures and job losses.

“In that environment, it would be impossible to justify the major investment needed to deliver a development.”

Mr Chalk said LaSalle planned to launch a public consultation in the spring and was “totally committed and immensely enthusiastic” about Castle Piccadilly and said it would prevent major retailers seeking out-of-town sites. He said he hoped the plan would not need to be abandoned.

Oakgate managing director Richard France said: “The large store formats we are promoting at Monks Cross cannot be accommodated at Castle Piccadilly and there is currently unsatisfied demand from a large number of retailers for 450,000sq ft of retail space in York city centre alone.

"The Centros scheme could easily accommodate many of these retailers, as they could specifically tailor the size of the units to individual requirements. It is also important to state that our proposals provide funds for the enabling development of the community stadium which adjoins our site.

"Our own recent research shows that there is absolutely no reason why the community stadium development and the Castle Piccadilly redevelopment cannot both go ahead, as there would be little detrimental long-term impact on the city centre. To suggest that our development would be devastating for the city centre is completely unjustified."

Bill Woolley, the council’s director of city strategy and deputy chief executive, said: “We are very supportive of the development of Castle Piccadilly for retail and this site is at the heart of our future retail strategy for the city, as set out in our recently published planning core strategy.”

He said the council would look at all evidence surrounding the Monks Cross applications and take a balanced view on what was best for the city as a whole.

Cross purposes

Campaigners against “Monks Cross 2” gather for their              meeting in Bennett’s Café in High Petergate

Campaigners against “Monks Cross 2” gather for their meeting in Bennett’s Café in High Petergate.

CAMPAIGNERS stepped up their opposition to proposed retail developments on the edge of York at a public meeting last night.

Traders from York, Selby and Malton said they fear new Monks Cross stores and an expansion of its shopping centre will wreck businesses and communities.

The Campaign For York is distributing 30,000 leaflets and is preparing to unveil a new website.

Spokesman Nick Eggleton said: “We are aiming to raise awareness of exactly what will happen, which is that businesses will close and hundreds of jobs will be lost.”

Andy Shrimpton, who owns Cycle Heaven, in Bishopthorpe Road, said: “These developments will suck the life out of the city and local communities, because businesses will have to relocate to compete – it’s not just about money, it’s about principle.”

Mark Wetherell, director of Selby’s Wetherells store, claimed a revamped Monks Cross would create “another town centre” and hit the town’s trade. City of York councillor Dave Taylor, who represents Fishergate ward, said: “I want to see a John Lewis store in York, but it should be in the city centre.”

City of York Council’s director of city strategy, Bill Woolley, said: “We are committed to supporting York’s city-centre trade and our Reinvigorate York initiative will improve and enhance the city’s public spaces and access. It is right there is a debate, but it’s crucial this is backed up by reliable and balanced data.”

Comments(96)

Sillybillies says...
6:45pm Thu 2 Feb 12

LaSalle said the trading impact on the centre of York would be too damaging, and said they would look to sell the Coppergate Centre and the Castle Piccadilly site to separate buyers to "maximise value".

Byee, it always was a white elephant no one really wanted.

Even AndyD says...
6:46pm Thu 2 Feb 12

Developer says rival developers plans should be abandoned. Oh right, we better do that then. Not.

The Great Buda says...
6:48pm Thu 2 Feb 12

Now the blackmailing begins.

Call their bluff. Even if they did sell, someone would buy it. Far from the end of the world....

dave1989 says...
6:52pm Thu 2 Feb 12

If they do not want monks cross 2 all they have to do is offer free parking that is the only advantage that monks cross has, so many shops display the poster no to monks cross 2 if they all clubbed together to provide this but they havent so deserve to have their business fail as they refuse to provide customers with the same quality experience as monks cross will.

The Great Buda says...
6:58pm Thu 2 Feb 12

Actually it would be brilliant if they did pull out. The Council could ensure the buyer develops the land to increase the amount of recreation and arts space in the City Centre.

The GVA report rightly points out that the City Centre is moving away from being a hub of retail. This space can be used to help facilitate that.

More open spaces, more parks, more Art. That's what York City Centre needs; not more retail units.

speaks99 says...
6:59pm Thu 2 Feb 12

York Council must NOT give in to this blackmail.
To begin with its a blackmail based around if's and but's. Any plans are at least 5 years away, plus there are no firm proposals on the table. To cancel a project at this stage after this desperate throw of the dice would be lunacy.

The sale of this site might be a bonus anyway. We might get a developer in who won't sit on it like this lot have.

They didn't develop through the retail boom of the 90's and 00's. They won't now.

bolero says...
7:20pm Thu 2 Feb 12

BOGOF LaSalle!

Justinheaven says...
7:22pm Thu 2 Feb 12

Blackmail !

Captain Grimble says...
7:22pm Thu 2 Feb 12

An extremely large 'sponsorship' deal from these developers for YCFC, enough to make it feasible to stay at BC and destroy the community stadium business plan, might be enough to torpedo MX. Otherwise forget it.

speaks99 says...
7:25pm Thu 2 Feb 12

Captain Grimble wrote:
An extremely large 'sponsorship' deal from these developers for YCFC, enough to make it feasible to stay at BC and destroy the community stadium business plan, might be enough to torpedo MX. Otherwise forget it.
You are talking at least £4m or £5m. £2m + to pay back the FF loan and interest, and the enough to get BC up to a decent standard where maintenance issues aren't crippling us. Don't hold your breath, though would be a dream ticket!!

Waspish1 says...
7:27pm Thu 2 Feb 12

The Coppergate 2/ Castle development has been 'on the way' for over 20 years so why have LaSalle suddenly been stimulated into activity in the middle of a recession ? They see the value of the assets they have been sitting on significantly reduce so their strategy appears to be that they threaten to do nothing.....so no change there then.

Guy Fawkes says...
7:32pm Thu 2 Feb 12

The Council could ensure the buyer develops the land to increase the amount of recreation and arts space in the City Centre.


Only if there is a buyer to ensure.

Recreation and arts space costs money to run. Retail makes money. Who is going to buy the site if they will only be allowed to use it for loss-making activities?

redrrr says...
7:47pm Thu 2 Feb 12

What I would like to know is who is really behind these coppergate proposals? LaSalle’s UK ventures Fund is listed as dormant according to companycheck.co.uk. The site also reveals that the company has only one listed director, a Mister Sunil Patel. A quick check on Google shows that according to company-director-che
ck.co.uk Mister Patel has listed directorships of 85 companies! Two of those companies sound vaguely familiar. The first, Lasalle UK ventures property UK1, is listed as, ‘in administration.’ The second, Lasalle UK ventures property UK2, is listed as dissolved. Is it only me who is wondering what this is all about?

The Great Buda says...
7:48pm Thu 2 Feb 12

Waspish1 wrote:
The Coppergate 2/ Castle development has been 'on the way' for over 20 years so why have LaSalle suddenly been stimulated into activity in the middle of a recession ? They see the value of the assets they have been sitting on significantly reduce so their strategy appears to be that they threaten to do nothing.....so no change there then.
The only reason they've sat on it is too stop anyone else developing it. Its a very common tactic.

Torycouncil2015 says...
7:52pm Thu 2 Feb 12

Attempted blackmail pure and simple. They've been sat on this trying to maximise their profit now someone has come along with serious proposals they've finally woken up. Tough luck guys. I suggest you get to work on something before someone else beats you to the punch again and again and again

Back and Beyond says...
8:03pm Thu 2 Feb 12

Amazing that this attempt at blackmail coincides with York Knights offer to buy the stadium of YCC?

Sawday2 says...
8:11pm Thu 2 Feb 12

I have to agree with the previous comments. La Salle has had years to put their proposals into action but have just sat on their assets waiting for the land prices to go up. Their only concern is that Monks Cross 2 will cause the value of their land holdings to reduce. All this talk of job losses etc is a red herring. Message to York Councillors - call their bluff and ignore La Salle. Crack on with Monks Cross 2. Compulsory purchase La Salles city centre land and turn it into a much needed car park. Oh and put a few cycle racks in it to please PP.

micky moodys hat says...
8:22pm Thu 2 Feb 12

They should put a bulldozer through the whol of piccadilly on both sides of the road up to merchantgate and start again from scratch. Culvert over the foss, it never floods anyway, and then there will be loads of room to do whatever they want. Job sorted

eldewsio says...
8:49pm Thu 2 Feb 12

Sunil patel more like Son of Guildford

rogue84 says...
10:14pm Thu 2 Feb 12

thanks for coming LaSalle, close the door on the way out.

mickrick says...
10:35pm Thu 2 Feb 12

eldewsio wrote:
Sunil patel more like Son of Guildford
Is he big mates with Richard ?
Not long ago they lived 20yds from each other. !!!

Magicman! says...
12:31am Fri 3 Feb 12

Oh for Gods sake... talk about manipulative blackmail. 'if they get their extra shops then we will pull out so you will lose nyeh nyeh nyeh'. All the objections to the Monks Cross development have simply and purely been about a slight loss of profit, a tiny little dint in a big pile of money - and only for the short term, because once people realise there are more popular shops in York area then more people would come from places like Harrogate and Thirsk instead of taking the train the other way to Leeds.

"We believe the scale of the Monks Cross proposals will be devastating for city-centre retailers. The shoppers and trade it will pull away from the centre would cause a large number of shop closures and job losses, In that environment, it would be impossible to justify the major investment needed to deliver a development."
- IT'S TWO SHOPS!! They're not planning to build the Manchester Arndale Centre right next door, it's a slightlly bigger M&S that will replace two M&S units at Monks Cross (probably about equal floor space) and a John Lewis. If York shopkeepers are so worried about two shops taking out all their profits then maybe they should move to some town in the middle of a National Park where supermarkets etc cannot be built, and leave the city of york to get a proper shopping development or two that people will actually use.

The current Piccadilly area is a mess. The only decent building on the river side of Piccadilly (beyond Merchantgate) is the Postern Gate pub and Travelodge... everything else on the side including the car parks and Ryedale Building are complete eyesores right up to the river. On the other side the old tram shed still stands - and much as it is nice to see the history still there, if it cannot be prettied up to make it a useable aesthetically pleasing retail unit or two then it should be flattened. The river foss at this point has been referred to as a canal, as this corner of the river scape is bland and ugly. There is no real connection between Piccadilly and the Castle area (yes there is a walkway, but it is narrow and in places poorly lit, and has no vista worth mentioning)... and so if all the nearby buildings were flattened and the foss at this point was capped over then an indoor mall of some sort could be made (something york city centre seriously lacks compared to other cities... even Bradford is supposed to be getting an indoor mall. Preston and Blackburn have them - york? nope).... the foss cap could even have a section of reinforced glass as part of an indoor walkway so that shoppers are walking on glass over the river (and then you could have LED lights shining onto the surface of the water which would then give ripple effects on the ceilings).

pedalling paul says...
8:39am Fri 3 Feb 12

Sawday2 wrote:
I have to agree with the previous comments. La Salle has had years to put their proposals into action but have just sat on their assets waiting for the land prices to go up. Their only concern is that Monks Cross 2 will cause the value of their land holdings to reduce. All this talk of job losses etc is a red herring. Message to York Councillors - call their bluff and ignore La Salle. Crack on with Monks Cross 2. Compulsory purchase La Salles city centre land and turn it into a much needed car park. Oh and put a few cycle racks in it to please PP.
Only a few....tch...tch...t
ch...!

MaisieMol says...
9:05am Fri 3 Feb 12

People go to Monks Cross for entirely different reasons than visiting city centre shops. Monks X is a 'sterile' experience -a hit and run thing. Whereas city centre is browsing and pleasurable. It'll all find its own level. And there are better things to do than shop - if we spent this energy on improving our arts and cultural provision we'd be attracting more people to the city for longer which is what we need.

meme says...
9:14am Fri 3 Feb 12

I think its time we all were rational
The proposal for monks cross flies in the face of every planning directive ever issued by CoYC. Its completely against policy. Monks Cross south only got office planning permission with a restriction to 'science type' uses which everyone has conveniently forgotten.
The only justification for this change is the 'enabling' development ie money for a community stadium which even one of the present occupiers does not want to happen.
There is a very powerful argument both legal and moral against this proposal.
As I have said before I support it BUT there is a long and uncertain road to travel before this is approved or otherwise and this latest torpedo could sink this proposal as an inspector at the public enquiry will be hard pushed to find against it.
So insults and shouting will not help. This is a very serious development in this issue

Zetkin says...
9:15am Fri 3 Feb 12

If La Salle could come up with the £8million (give or take a couple of million) needed to expand/redevelop Bootham Crescent and make it the community stadium, I'd support them over Oakgate's Monk's Cross.

BUT there's no sign of any such offer - their spokesman on the radio this morning was fairly dismissive of the idea, and I'd have to doubt they could achieve it in the set timesacle, unless they stump up £2million immediately to placate off the FSIF, who have been extraordinarily patient through all this.

Therefore, the council must not give into La Salle's petulant foot-stamping.

lezyork1966 says...
9:48am Fri 3 Feb 12

coppergate center, kidding, never been to a shop in it but i do very often at monkss cross, go tak your ball back and sell your land, the only shops you have in the place is ones most york residents dont need.

coppergate, few niche shops and a dusty grey boring courtyard

lets have monks cross expand with its nice free parking and better selection of things i need.

Head of Bomber Command says...
9:58am Fri 3 Feb 12

Quote from the story....

LaSalle said the trading impact on the centre of York would be too damaging, and said they would look to sell the Coppergate Centre and the Castle Piccadilly site to separate buyers to “maximise value”.

If it is going to be too 'damaging' who in their right mind would then buy both Coppergate and Castle Piccadilly sites!!!!!!!!!!

What a load of utter b***x

Mike Oxuge says...
10:01am Fri 3 Feb 12

Keep the comments coming people, you're all doing a great job. Comments on sites like this really make a difference to any decisions, especially one for such large sums of money.
People power!

OLD - HEAD says...
10:06am Fri 3 Feb 12

Oh Dear! - The so called community stadium looks to be further away than ever now. The Council will probably buckle under this pressure from big business. They will want to preserve the city centre for the tourist trade, and once again ignore the needs of the local community.

OLD - HEAD says...
10:06am Fri 3 Feb 12

Oh Dear! - The so called community stadium looks to be further away than ever now. The Council will probably buckle under this pressure from big business. They will want to preserve the city centre for the tourist trade, and once again ignore the needs of the local community.

Sawday2 says...
10:10am Fri 3 Feb 12

MaisieMol wrote:
People go to Monks Cross for entirely different reasons than visiting city centre shops. Monks X is a 'sterile' experience -a hit and run thing. Whereas city centre is browsing and pleasurable. It'll all find its own level. And there are better things to do than shop - if we spent this energy on improving our arts and cultural provision we'd be attracting more people to the city for longer which is what we need.
I'll second that!

roskoboskovic says...
10:11am Fri 3 Feb 12

pathetic.i watched a totally biased report on bbc look north last night totally in favour of the stop monks cross development campaign.the coppergate thingy hasn t been mooted for over 10 years its nearer 25.don t give in to the blackmail,let them walk if they want but i bet they won t because york city centre is still prime real estate and a goldmine for well run enterprises.

The Legend Of Keith says...
10:13am Fri 3 Feb 12

Mike Oxuge wrote:
Keep the comments coming people, you're all doing a great job. Comments on sites like this really make a difference to any decisions, especially one for such large sums of money. People power!
Dragged yourself back out from under the rock?

LaSalle just threw their dummy out of the pram as they see their asset devaluing. How about you appreciate the value of your asset by actually developing it?!

roskoboskovic says...
10:16am Fri 3 Feb 12

i bet dave taylor has never been clothes shopping in york city centre and neither has his mate d agorne except maybe at milletts.i saw the wetherall bloke on tv last night and just thought what the hell has this got to do with a selby shopkeeper.keep your neb out of yorks business and wait for the grand new monks cross development when it arrives because the majority of york residents want it apart from the greens and the city centre businessmen.

milkybarkid says...
10:24am Fri 3 Feb 12

mickrick wrote:
eldewsio wrote:
Sunil patel more like Son of Guildford
Is he big mates with Richard ?
Not long ago they lived 20yds from each other. !!!
John Guildford and Richard France or Oakgate are good friends and socialize and work together regularly. They can often be seen in town together and at one of the Knights games earlier this year they were sat talking and watching the game. Make of that what you like but it does show that both parties are doing whats best for their businesses without falling out.

Mike Oxuge says...
10:25am Fri 3 Feb 12

The Legend Of Keith wrote:
Mike Oxuge wrote:
Keep the comments coming people, you're all doing a great job. Comments on sites like this really make a difference to any decisions, especially one for such large sums of money. People power!
Dragged yourself back out from under the rock?

LaSalle just threw their dummy out of the pram as they see their asset devaluing. How about you appreciate the value of your asset by actually developing it?!
I've got an idea, lets all get together and flood the comments section of the Press, we could all have loads of user names, it doesn't matter, that's totally irrelevant. If they see loads of us with the same viewpoint, they're BOUND to take notice, aren't they? Aren't they?

Keep up the good fight people!

Woody Mellor says...
10:31am Fri 3 Feb 12

OLD - HEAD wrote:
Oh Dear! - The so called community stadium looks to be further away than ever now. The Council will probably buckle under this pressure from big business. They will want to preserve the city centre for the tourist trade, and once again ignore the needs of the local community.
When will you people ever learn???

The tourist trade "IS" one of the major needs of the local community. Sheesh!

The Great Buda says...
10:36am Fri 3 Feb 12

Woody Mellor wrote:
OLD - HEAD wrote:
Oh Dear! - The so called community stadium looks to be further away than ever now. The Council will probably buckle under this pressure from big business. They will want to preserve the city centre for the tourist trade, and once again ignore the needs of the local community.
When will you people ever learn???

The tourist trade "IS" one of the major needs of the local community. Sheesh!
Quite right.

York Residents clearly need more niche boutiques selling over-priced tat.

Woody Mellor says...
10:55am Fri 3 Feb 12

The Great Buda wrote:
Woody Mellor wrote:
OLD - HEAD wrote:
Oh Dear! - The so called community stadium looks to be further away than ever now. The Council will probably buckle under this pressure from big business. They will want to preserve the city centre for the tourist trade, and once again ignore the needs of the local community.
When will you people ever learn???

The tourist trade "IS" one of the major needs of the local community. Sheesh!
Quite right.

York Residents clearly need more niche boutiques selling over-priced tat.
Quite right. York Residents clearly need more tourists visiting York city centre spending their money, whether it be spent on tat, or not.

By the way, I'm not saying that the out of town development will discourage tourists visiting the centre of York, just that tourists are important to York's economy, therefore important York's residents. Anyone who cant see that is plainly a blinkered fool.

Tug job says...
11:01am Fri 3 Feb 12

redrrr wrote:
What I would like to know is who is really behind these coppergate proposals? LaSalle’s UK ventures Fund is listed as dormant according to companycheck.co.uk. The site also reveals that the company has only one listed director, a Mister Sunil Patel. A quick check on Google shows that according to company-director-che ck.co.uk Mister Patel has listed directorships of 85 companies! Two of those companies sound vaguely familiar. The first, Lasalle UK ventures property UK1, is listed as, ‘in administration.’ The second, Lasalle UK ventures property UK2, is listed as dissolved. Is it only me who is wondering what this is all about?
Well done, this is the real "story", here: one property developer with dubious acounts and less than robust corporate governance, and which has sat on an asset for two decades, is attempting to prevent another developer, with a more open set of accounting and governance arrangements, from developing a site that meets the expreesed needs of many local residents. Perhaps there was no genuine interest in LaSalle UK developing these sites, rather they hoped to cash in on rising land values, but got this badly wrong.Why didn't the BBC cover that angle? Farewell LaSalle UK and thanks for all you haven't done over the past couple of decades.

Tug job says...
11:05am Fri 3 Feb 12

Woody Mellor wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Woody Mellor wrote:
OLD - HEAD wrote: Oh Dear! - The so called community stadium looks to be further away than ever now. The Council will probably buckle under this pressure from big business. They will want to preserve the city centre for the tourist trade, and once again ignore the needs of the local community.
When will you people ever learn??? The tourist trade "IS" one of the major needs of the local community. Sheesh!
Quite right. York Residents clearly need more niche boutiques selling over-priced tat.
Quite right. York Residents clearly need more tourists visiting York city centre spending their money, whether it be spent on tat, or not. By the way, I'm not saying that the out of town development will discourage tourists visiting the centre of York, just that tourists are important to York's economy, therefore important York's residents. Anyone who cant see that is plainly a blinkered fool.
Agreed, but some people accept the argument that developing Monk's Cross will, in itself, damage the city centre; in reality, the city centre and out of town shopping sites serve different markets.

Woody Mellor says...
11:12am Fri 3 Feb 12

Tug job wrote:
Woody Mellor wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Woody Mellor wrote:
OLD - HEAD wrote: Oh Dear! - The so called community stadium looks to be further away than ever now. The Council will probably buckle under this pressure from big business. They will want to preserve the city centre for the tourist trade, and once again ignore the needs of the local community.
When will you people ever learn??? The tourist trade "IS" one of the major needs of the local community. Sheesh!
Quite right. York Residents clearly need more niche boutiques selling over-priced tat.
Quite right. York Residents clearly need more tourists visiting York city centre spending their money, whether it be spent on tat, or not. By the way, I'm not saying that the out of town development will discourage tourists visiting the centre of York, just that tourists are important to York's economy, therefore important York's residents. Anyone who cant see that is plainly a blinkered fool.
Agreed, but some people accept the argument that developing Monk's Cross will, in itself, damage the city centre; in reality, the city centre and out of town shopping sites serve different markets.
Spot On!

Shouter says...
11:14am Fri 3 Feb 12

Good. We don't want it.

Septimius Severus says...
11:27am Fri 3 Feb 12

If Lasalle announcement is blackmail then Oakgate's is a bribe.

topumpire1 says...
11:39am Fri 3 Feb 12

There is UNIVERSAL condemnation of LaSalle's BLACKMAIL "threat" or "promise" regarding the Coppergate 2 development, IF they were keen to have developed the site, then WHY as it not done in the boom years of the 90's? Were LaSalle waiting for the boom to grow even larger? being too greedy? If THEY had wanted to develope then plans would have been at an advanced state, when the bubble burst & would now be in the public domain, they are NOT! Even without the threat, how far along will York have to wait for this development before it is ready? 5 years, more?
The cYc must call LaSalles bluff & if they do sell the land, it maywell be at a knock-down price and the council MAY just be able to acquire a commercial "Partner" to develope the land FOR York & its people, with more leasure facilities and more for the tourists

PKH says...
11:39am Fri 3 Feb 12

Hasn't York twinned with Blackpool re tourists, why not built a pleasure park in Piccadilly that should bring in the visitors.

The Great Buda says...
11:45am Fri 3 Feb 12

Centros UK Ltd - Lost £22,000 in 2011 and it's subsiduary Centros Managment Limited lost £260,000. Both are supported financially by a company based in the British Virgin Islands.

Both filed their 2011 accounts late at Companies House.

Extract from Centros Uk Ltd's annual accounts.

"The directors are aware that income received from current projects managed by the company is insufficient to support its business in the short term"

Here is details of one of their other projects.

http://www.portsmout
h.co.uk/news/loc...h
old_1_1226224

wolfie66 says...
12:05pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Hi
I have lived in york for two years and am from manchester originally. Will york council never learn how important there city centre is? First the gillygate car park debacle due to not realising the strength of local feeling. Now they are trying to close the centre itself not just gillygate shops. Look at some of the smaller towns like eccles where I come from an learn. The community spirit will be lost as will a city centre that belongs to the people of york and not just the town council and planners!!! kathryn wynne-thomas

Garrowby Turnoff says...
12:11pm Fri 3 Feb 12

I think La Salle would be foolish to pull out now. Monks Cross 2 will not pull more people away from the centre as the number of local shoppers in town is already depleted by Clifton Moor, the Designer Centre and Monks Cross1. I think the main reason for withdrawal is a general economic decision based on the recession hitting British retail hard, therefore making the attraction of funding from investors for the £200million next to impossible.

La Salle aren't interested in what's best for York, and neither is the development at Monks Cross 2 either. The CoYC council is the best to judge which hooker it gets into bed with.

yorky1979 says...
12:40pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Right, Persimmon homes have already bought Bootham Crescent off city which is providing funds for the new stadium, why don't they see if the said developer would be interested in a land swop and build houses @ monks x and the funds in towards redevelope BC into the new community stadium. Also the school behind has been empty for years so we could quite easily move the stadium back to create more room for a 7000 "bowl" type enclosed stadium.

metsaagain says...
1:29pm Fri 3 Feb 12

I am proud in my city - but my sense of pride isn't predicated on the success or otherwise of a lower division sports team - nor does it express itself in threats of vandalism issued from behind a username on the comments board of a local newspaper. The football club is undoubtedly important to lots of people, I don't deny it for a minute, I've got things that are important to me too, but being an adult I don't threaten to throw my rattle out of the pram if I don't get my way all the time. Stand up and be counted if you want, but do it properly, don't issue anonymous threats, do it properly- I'll be checking the letters page for a letter repeating these threats published under your own name and with your contact details as you are so keen to 'stand up and be counted'. Otherwise, like I said, pathetic, blow-hard, posturing...

The Great Buda says...
1:33pm Fri 3 Feb 12

It does not take much for someone to register and come on here pretending to be a football fan and threaten people.

If thats as low as the Anti-Brigade have sunk, then even more reason to get the thing built.

meme says...
1:34pm Fri 3 Feb 12

1. The financial viability of Centros to deliver..Centros in many guises has the financial power and muscle to deliver this in partnership with others so don't underestimate them.
2. If the attitude of the average footie supporter is represented by those advocating vandalism and boycotts of those people who are trying to stand up for what they believe in the YC FC do not deserve to continue in operation. Its disgusting talk
3. Whoever wrote Centros is blackmail and Oakgate is a bribe is quite right.Bribe is a strong word but many are concerned about the close relationship of Oakgate and Council officers. Both parties are doing this to make money and our Council are too stupid to take most of it off them!I ask again.... WHY ARE RATEPAYERS CONTRIBUTING ANYTHING TO THESE PROPOSALS?
4. YCFC supporters on here are making it more and more clear that this is a footie ground/rescue package for their team and not a community stadium and I suspect they should back off a bit if they are not going to shoot themselves in the foot

The Great Buda says...
1:45pm Fri 3 Feb 12

You've chosen to ignore the comments from the Athletics Club.

You again fail to understand that for the developers to contribute towards the planning stage would be illegal and leave the development open to attacks of being bias. Rather than being independant as they are now.

How many more times do you need to be told that?

As for the rest of what you've written; wow I'm speechless.

Septimius Severus says...
2:09pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Am appalled. Not just by the (now disappeared) threats from that joker, but also that anyone would consider that it was the opposition embarking on a counter strategy so ridiculous.

Only a twisted mind would dream such a thing. Who would pretend?

There are fans of York city who must be hanging their heads in shame.

Surely?

The club is under no threat from this opposition campaign. The club will survive.

How have the McGills got away with diverting attention from the money they spent on the club that's forced them into this place?

They are the ones running it (into the ground). They are the ones responsible.

They've racked up debts of £1.6m to themselves!

Are city fans not curious as to what the money was spent on?

Look closer to home for someone to blame.

johnabostock says...
2:23pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Septimius Severus wrote:
Am appalled. Not just by the (now disappeared) threats from that joker, but also that anyone would consider that it was the opposition embarking on a counter strategy so ridiculous.

Only a twisted mind would dream such a thing. Who would pretend?

There are fans of York city who must be hanging their heads in shame.

Surely?

The club is under no threat from this opposition campaign. The club will survive.

How have the McGills got away with diverting attention from the money they spent on the club that's forced them into this place?

They are the ones running it (into the ground). They are the ones responsible.

They've racked up debts of £1.6m to themselves!

Are city fans not curious as to what the money was spent on?

Look closer to home for someone to blame.
Actually Septimius Severus that fault goes right back to a previous owner of the Club who walked off with all the assets of the Club, leaving the Club with nothing then selling the Club for £1 to a toilet roll seller. The McGills have used all their own money to try and better the team (as we have seen this season) in the hope that YCFC can gain promotion back to the FL, unlike Crawley and Fleetwood who both have sugar daddies and are buying their promotion with sugar daddies money.

speaks99 says...
2:26pm Fri 3 Feb 12

meme wrote:
1. The financial viability of Centros to deliver..Centros in many guises has the financial power and muscle to deliver this in partnership with others so don't underestimate them.
2. If the attitude of the average footie supporter is represented by those advocating vandalism and boycotts of those people who are trying to stand up for what they believe in the YC FC do not deserve to continue in operation. Its disgusting talk
3. Whoever wrote Centros is blackmail and Oakgate is a bribe is quite right.Bribe is a strong word but many are concerned about the close relationship of Oakgate and Council officers. Both parties are doing this to make money and our Council are too stupid to take most of it off them!I ask again.... WHY ARE RATEPAYERS CONTRIBUTING ANYTHING TO THESE PROPOSALS?
4. YCFC supporters on here are making it more and more clear that this is a footie ground/rescue package for their team and not a community stadium and I suspect they should back off a bit if they are not going to shoot themselves in the foot
1) I don't doubt. I do doubt that they ever intend to develop the land in the next 5-10 years.
2)Why shouldn't we boycott the shops which displays the signs. Its a free market place. If I heard that one shop owner was racist, sexist, BNP member etc I might choose to boycott their shop. For what its worth there isn't an organised boycott, official or otherwise, on any shops.
3) Wrong. This is blackmail. If Oakgates proposal was a bribe there would be major repercussions to all parties involved - there are laws against this now.
Oh and give over banging on about taxpayers money. The scheme will give a good return for all parties, so wheres the problem. You start taking margin away from the developer and they will choose not to build the **** thing because the numbers don't stack up for them.
4) No this is not the last throw if the dice. The vast, vast majority of the people above haven't mentioned the community stadium. Just the odd one (you) who feels that it would discredit all the comments on here to suggest its only about a stadium. It isn't. Its about an obvious blackmail tactic to try and kill competition for their stores.

johnabostock says...
2:40pm Fri 3 Feb 12

johnabostock wrote:
Septimius Severus wrote:
Am appalled. Not just by the (now disappeared) threats from that joker, but also that anyone would consider that it was the opposition embarking on a counter strategy so ridiculous.

Only a twisted mind would dream such a thing. Who would pretend?

There are fans of York city who must be hanging their heads in shame.

Surely?

The club is under no threat from this opposition campaign. The club will survive.

How have the McGills got away with diverting attention from the money they spent on the club that's forced them into this place?

They are the ones running it (into the ground). They are the ones responsible.

They've racked up debts of £1.6m to themselves!

Are city fans not curious as to what the money was spent on?

Look closer to home for someone to blame.
Actually Septimius Severus that fault goes right back to a previous owner of the Club who walked off with all the assets of the Club, leaving the Club with nothing then selling the Club for £1 to a toilet roll seller. The McGills have used all their own money to try and better the team (as we have seen this season) in the hope that YCFC can gain promotion back to the FL, unlike Crawley and Fleetwood who both have sugar daddies and are buying their promotion with sugar daddies money.
Adding: what did the toilet roll seller do. Money that Nestle had given him specifically for the football club ended up being used for his racing team. So, please do not blame the current owners for this mess. It was the supporters who saved the football club during its liquidation days and the McGills where part of the Supporters Trust that carried out the survival ambitions of the supporters.

long distance depressive says...
2:42pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Blacmail pure and simple, are they afraid the shops they will develop will not be sufficiently popular? bunch of new Greetings Card outlets, cafes and Mobile Phone shops are not what the city centre needs anyway. City of York have proved they have either no bottle/clout/interes
t in the development re. York City/Monks Cross so why should we expect them to stand up to this lot. Call their bluff and wait for the back tracking to start.

Septimius Severus says...
2:53pm Fri 3 Feb 12

No fan of the toilet roll years.

My understanding was that 'they' lent £1m to the club, because they wanted to spend more than it was making. They played 'sugar daddy' with the clubs own future.

They gambled on promotion and lost.

I appreciate their generosity, and their wish to cash out, but why not be honest about it. E.g.

"We lent the club £1m over the last few years to make it successful. It didn't work out. We're tired of it all now and if we don't press the FF to extend the loan or turn it into a grant to refurb BC then we can use the excuse that we need to move urgently to get our money back."

I'd respect them much more.

redbluelion says...
2:59pm Fri 3 Feb 12

We don't need rich parasite w****** in our city ripping off the working class and giving nothing in return..we need our football club..we don't need more shops in the town centre that no-one can get too...this is nothing more then holding a gun to someone's head and demanding them to hand over some cash...blackmail now..F*** o** and take your shops with you..

speaks99 says...
3:05pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Septimius Severus wrote:
No fan of the toilet roll years.

My understanding was that 'they' lent £1m to the club, because they wanted to spend more than it was making. They played 'sugar daddy' with the clubs own future.

They gambled on promotion and lost.

I appreciate their generosity, and their wish to cash out, but why not be honest about it. E.g.

"We lent the club £1m over the last few years to make it successful. It didn't work out. We're tired of it all now and if we don't press the FF to extend the loan or turn it into a grant to refurb BC then we can use the excuse that we need to move urgently to get our money back."

I'd respect them much more.
THe FF have already extended their loan at least once, maybe twice. Their patience is slowly wearing thin. And saying that they wont call in their loan wont help. They will if pushed hard enough.
I don't think its that much of a mystery/conspiracy that the McGills are using the ground as collateral against their initial and subsequent loans. So what? You are just guessing (and poorly at that) that they need this money back. If you can find one shred of evidence that they are thinking that I will carve "fancy that" on the end of my **** (to quote a well known comedian lol)

johnabostock says...
3:17pm Fri 3 Feb 12

speaks99 wrote:
Septimius Severus wrote:
No fan of the toilet roll years.

My understanding was that 'they' lent £1m to the club, because they wanted to spend more than it was making. They played 'sugar daddy' with the clubs own future.

They gambled on promotion and lost.

I appreciate their generosity, and their wish to cash out, but why not be honest about it. E.g.

"We lent the club £1m over the last few years to make it successful. It didn't work out. We're tired of it all now and if we don't press the FF to extend the loan or turn it into a grant to refurb BC then we can use the excuse that we need to move urgently to get our money back."

I'd respect them much more.
THe FF have already extended their loan at least once, maybe twice. Their patience is slowly wearing thin. And saying that they wont call in their loan wont help. They will if pushed hard enough.
I don't think its that much of a mystery/conspiracy that the McGills are using the ground as collateral against their initial and subsequent loans. So what? You are just guessing (and poorly at that) that they need this money back. If you can find one shred of evidence that they are thinking that I will carve "fancy that" on the end of my **** (to quote a well known comedian lol)
At the same time, one must also remember two other football clubs (one in our region), Kettering & Darlington who both have people like the McGills in charge. However, unlike the McGills, those Directors are demanding their money back and both clubs looked as though they were going to the wall. The administrator for Darlington has come out on the side of the supporters whereas Kettering are waiting to appear before HMRC. At least the McGills are making every effort to keep YCFC going even if it is costing them. I wish we were supporter run again but the ST couldn`t raise the funds needed to buy decent players

Septimius Severus says...
3:27pm Fri 3 Feb 12

The ST have been v quiet on this.

Who is in charge?

They're on the board.

Even AndyD says...
3:33pm Fri 3 Feb 12

So what have we here? Developer who has sat on a piece of land and done nothing with it, now says it might sell it. Are we supposed to be impressed with this threat?
Yeah - sell it, please do - its not an investment, its a chunk of our city. Flog it to someone who might do some good with it!

ReginaldBiscuit says...
3:34pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Beware of developers going public with their grievances. Money hungry cash-whores always have motives and motives are rarely selfless.

Ask yourself this, in the current economic climate where retail shops & chains are going bust left, right and centre, why on earth would anyone start bleating, intimidating, threatening? I tell you why, desperation. You can argue to Kingdom come about the motive but an article like this is a public stimulus for something and 'Developers' can be ranked alongside Bankers when it comes to destruction and carnage. Stand up for yourselves CYoC. Don't be unduly influenced by privateers trying to force the issue. Hell, use James Alexander as a Barrage if needs be but don't crumble. Some things require a measured thought through response and this is one.

Realistically in times of austerity, the council should cease pursuit of what would be a white elephant and a major own goal. Please, please get it out of your heads that to create success, you need to build brand new facilities. That's almost as mad as the creationists in the world building temples and starving their devotees and believers to do so. My old school, Joseph Rowntree, levelled, built new and still, yes still, producing poor results. A good case study indeed in wasting money.

I wish YCFC all the best, I really do. Many clubs will go to the wall and I sincerely hope they don't end up with their faces pressed against brick and mortar. Revisit Bootham Crescent. The stadium does't need that much improvement. A station Halt near the ground would serve the hospital and club immensely well. YCFC could become a feeder B club, a Manchester United B. They do this in other countries. Imagine the gates with a Rooney on display for York recovering from injury and getting fitter. Berbatov knocking them in. It really isn't as mad as it sounds. All it takes is a few phone calls and a bit of imagination.

I digress, I always do. Remember, you're all human beings, all pointless, all hanging out here till death grabs you. Make love not war and definitely not religion.

TTFN

speaks99 says...
3:35pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Septimius Severus wrote:
The ST have been v quiet on this.

Who is in charge?

They're on the board.
We can agree on that - would like to hear more from the ST.

johnabostock says...
3:41pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Septimius Severus wrote:
The ST have been v quiet on this.

Who is in charge?

They're on the board.
Their website can be found at:

http://www.ycst.org.
uk/

johnabostock says...
3:47pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Who is this ReginaldBiscuit that has clearly thought out an answer to all of this?

ReginaldBiscuit says...
3:52pm Fri 3 Feb 12

johnabostock wrote:
Who is this ReginaldBiscuit that has clearly thought out an answer to all of this?
Hello.

TheTruthHurts says...
4:08pm Fri 3 Feb 12


YCFC could become a feeder B club, a Manchester United B.
'
I you sure? i thought the FA recently said this was not going to happen in the English leagues.

McArthur Crown says...
4:18pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Could all the traders who are against the Monks Cross scheme kindly make sure they have the posters in their windows so my family and I can boycott them.

My kids were due a couple of new bikes. As the cycle shop has now closed in Acomb I was thinking of a trip to Cycle Heaven, which has now been cancelled because of their short-sighted selfish stance.

If this council gives into blackmail from property developers and petty bourgeois retailers acting out of a mixture of misplaced fear and rabid self-interest, in response to two large shops on the edge of the city, they can say goodbye to my vote too.

As for the green party, what a funny world, them getting into bed with big business and those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

meme says...
4:37pm Fri 3 Feb 12

1) I don't doubt. I do doubt that they ever intend to develop the land in the next 5-10 years. DOUBT IT NOT
2)Why shouldn't we boycott the shops which displays the signs. Its a free market place. If I heard that one shop owner was racist, sexist, BNP member etc I might choose to boycott their shop. For what its worth there isn't an organised boycott, official or otherwise, on any shops.AGREED IT WAS THE VANDALISM COMMENT I TOOK OFFENCE AT
3) Wrong. This is blackmail. If Oakgates proposal was a bribe there would be major repercussions to all parties involved - there are laws against this now.BUT IT IS A BRIBE AS WELL.NOT GIVING MONEY TO PLANNERS BUT TO BAIL THEM OUT OF A FINANCIAL HOLE IN RETURN FOR GIVING YORK POLITICIANS THE AMMUNITION TO SAY THEY SAVED YORK CITY. BOTH ARE WRONG ACTIONS BUT BOTH DESCRIPTIONS ARE CORRECT
Oh and give over banging on about taxpayers money. The scheme will give a good return for all parties, so wheres the problem. You start taking margin away from the developer and they will choose not to build the **** thing because the numbers don't stack up for them. THERE IS PLENTY OF MARGIN HERE FOR OAKGATE IF THEY GET RETAIL CONSENTS. WE ARE TALKING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS HERE NOT PENNIES.I DO KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT HERE
4) No this is not the last throw if the dice. The vast, vast majority of the people above haven't mentioned the community stadium. Just the odd one (you) who feels that it would discredit all the comments on here to suggest its only about a stadium. It isn't. Its about an obvious blackmail tactic to try and kill competition for their stores.OF COURSE THEY HAVE VESTED INTERESTS AND WANT TO PROTECT THEIRS; JUST LIKE YOU WANT TO PROTECT YOURS AND ME MINE..YOU DO/I DO/WE ALL DO.... BUT PULL THE OTHER ONE... WHAT ARE THE REAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT YORK WILL GET THAT WILL HELP SPORT?

JONNYGOODSHOES says...
6:43pm Fri 3 Feb 12

redbluelion wrote:
We don't need rich parasite w****** in our city ripping off the working class and giving nothing in return..we need our football club..we don't need more shops in the town centre that no-one can get too...this is nothing more then holding a gun to someone's head and demanding them to hand over some cash...blackmail now..F*** o** and take your shops with you..
IDIOT.

speaks99 says...
6:59pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Meme,
1) No action in the past twenty or so years, then suddenly, when this development threatens to devalue their land they suddenly pipe up. Well, sorry, I don't believe that they have any intention of developing it any more than I believe John Guildford has of buying the land.
2) Is that the comment that has been removed - not seen it, but apologies otherwise.
3) I honestly don't think there is. Having been through this with Severus my calculations (which admittedly are based around projections) show that the payback on the project for Oakgate is about 8 to 10 years, and the return they get on the investment will only be around 4%. Not much better than a savings account.
4) i. THe proposed health and wellbeing centre run by the university is proposed to be sited there.
ii. A new & improved home for Rugby league.
iii. A new & improved home for Football
iv. A new & improved home for Athletics (are these the three biggest sports in York??)
v. Refurbishment of the swimming pool (I think this was part of the plans)
vi.The knock on effects of the improvement of sport in York WILL promote healthy lifestyles and sports participation (If I can find the research paper on this I'll post the link)
vii. Plus its more than just the stadium. The retail side of things will invest into the local economy (which really is the biggest plus, even though I have put it at the end)

Dave Taylor says...
7:07pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Zetkin wrote:
If La Salle could come up with the £8million (give or take a couple of million) needed to expand/redevelop Bootham Crescent and make it the community stadium, I'd support them over Oakgate's Monk's Cross. BUT there's no sign of any such offer - their spokesman on the radio this morning was fairly dismissive of the idea, and I'd have to doubt they could achieve it in the set timesacle, unless they stump up £2million immediately to placate off the FSIF, who have been extraordinarily patient through all this. Therefore, the council must not give into La Salle's petulant foot-stamping.
So, we actually agree that redevelopment of Piccadilly (perhaps not the Castle side!) could be used to pay for a revamp of Bootham Crescent or to make land accessible at York Central. That would be far more beneficial to football fans. And it would not have the crippling effect on the economy of York and towns to the North that MXII would bring.

the butler says...
7:23pm Fri 3 Feb 12

How can the laSalle company be made to get off their duff and do something to the Piccadilly area, Moaning about Monks Cross is all a red herring to my way of thinking, and yes cover the Foss in that area to extend the acreage! Please

speaks99 says...
7:30pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Dave Taylor wrote:
Zetkin wrote:
If La Salle could come up with the £8million (give or take a couple of million) needed to expand/redevelop Bootham Crescent and make it the community stadium, I'd support them over Oakgate's Monk's Cross. BUT there's no sign of any such offer - their spokesman on the radio this morning was fairly dismissive of the idea, and I'd have to doubt they could achieve it in the set timesacle, unless they stump up £2million immediately to placate off the FSIF, who have been extraordinarily patient through all this. Therefore, the council must not give into La Salle's petulant foot-stamping.
So, we actually agree that redevelopment of Piccadilly (perhaps not the Castle side!) could be used to pay for a revamp of Bootham Crescent or to make land accessible at York Central. That would be far more beneficial to football fans. And it would not have the crippling effect on the economy of York and towns to the North that MXII would bring.
1) Why would the council "gift" £2m to YCFC?
2) Why would the council then "gift" YCFC a further £8m+ to redevelop Bootham Crescent
or
3) Who would build the stadium should land be bought on York Central - your about £16m short at the moment.
4) Who says its crippling... Oh yeah, the shopkeepers... Well forgive me for not believing them.

arglemcgee says...
8:48pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Justinheaven wrote:
Blackmail !
No, it's an ultimatum. Not at all the same as blackmail. Doesn't anyone on this site understand the difference?

The Great Buda says...
10:54pm Fri 3 Feb 12

It fills my heart with glee that certain people are happy for a public body, who have a clear mandate from the people, should be bullied by a business that has no interest in this city.

Malcolm says...
10:58pm Fri 3 Feb 12

I am a *resident* of York and I endorse the Monk Cross development scheme.

McArthur Crown says...
12:22am Sat 4 Feb 12

Malcolm wrote:
I am a *resident* of York and I endorse the Monk Cross development scheme.
Ditto

city_view says...
12:45am Sat 4 Feb 12

For what it's worth, I'm a resident of York, have been for 40 plus years, thought the 'anti Monks Cross development' people were overstating their case, think those championing the plans have been doing the same of late.

Started 'neutral', still neutral, but more leaning towards the anti-MX2 side.

Not that it matters unless I've commented via the proper planning system channels... hope those who really care all have ...

facepalm says...
2:24am Sat 4 Feb 12

As I've said before, the vested interests that object to the expansion of Monks X are the same shower who object to the redevelopment of Coppergate.

Steve, says...
4:05am Sat 4 Feb 12

Mike Oxuge wrote:
The Legend Of Keith wrote:
Mike Oxuge wrote:
Keep the comments coming people, you're all doing a great job. Comments on sites like this really make a difference to any decisions, especially one for such large sums of money. People power!
Dragged yourself back out from under the rock?

LaSalle just threw their dummy out of the pram as they see their asset devaluing. How about you appreciate the value of your asset by actually developing it?!
I've got an idea, lets all get together and flood the comments section of the Press, we could all have loads of user names, it doesn't matter, that's totally irrelevant. If they see loads of us with the same viewpoint, they're BOUND to take notice, aren't they? Aren't they?

Keep up the good fight people!
This chap sounds like a man with an ounce of common sense... hows about you use it?

These dodgy deals are done behind the residents' backs, I have never been informed where I can go to have my say on any of these plans, and believe me, I have views.

I'm quite for the MXII plans, unless LaSelle offer to actually help the city why on earth should we care if they stay? Profitable brands and land are always bank-rolled, I know several coppergate shop managers and none of them are against MXII, I agree with a BC halt, would be just what the ground needs IF it stays there. Why can't we get investment like a combined stadium, public pool and retail in one deal? We have the land... infact the 'teardrop' next to York Station is still sat empty. I did work experiene at Cycle Heaven, Andy is a sound guy, really, not sure why he's gone anti-MXII but it's a bad decision.

This whole shennanigan SHOULD be about what WE want, rather than who get's to give or take a few million and toy with land/premises in our city.

Mike, since you mock this channel of expression (the only one we're give) why don't you make it easy for us all, and setup an open event with counsillors, developers and financiers so we can actually thrash this whole thing out properly like people who actually have a vested interest? don't you have the power?... if not, I'd suggest you quite politely wind ya neck in.

Steve, says...
4:11am Sat 4 Feb 12

arglemcgee wrote:
Justinheaven wrote:
Blackmail !
No, it's an ultimatum. Not at all the same as blackmail. Doesn't anyone on this site understand the difference?
Sometimes it appears a select amount JUST look for a conspiray theory. The stuff posted about accounts and Companies House records is info that shouldn't be ignored if anything...

Dr Douglas Burrows says...
8:51am Sat 4 Feb 12

Absolute blackmail, totaly agree with all comments relating to Picadilly 2, parking charges, La Selle's insolvencies recorded at companies house etc.
Fully support creating more arts and historical sites for our tourism industry, after all we are a city with a significant Roman connection, the Romans were renowned for building straight roads, how many corner shops is Mr Patel planning to build and when?

Even AndyD says...
9:15am Sat 4 Feb 12

Huge own goal by La Salle - never seen so much agreement on this forum People don't like to be blackmailed.

Eric Bartholomew says...
2:29pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Interesting photo there of the meeting against MX2.Clearly visible is an owner of an out of town shop at McArthur Glen.

This is the very same person who on Look North in November stated in an interview, "out of town shopping is very bad for City Centres regardless of the retailer"

How hypocritical can you get,but there again we know what this is all about don't we?

As for the developer(?)La Salle,they bought the site expecting to make a huge profit.

Anyone who lives in York knows the area would always be a big problem to re-develop,with it's close proximity to Cliffords Tower and the nimby traders,many of who helped stop it being developed 1st time round.

Now another developer has stolen a march on them elsewhere they want to influence the planning decision by threating to pull out.

Well tough,maybe they should look at themselves and their own decisions in getting involved in the site in the first place.

As for John Lewis,they were never going to take up any of Piccadilly.They recognised themselves in their submission on the MX2 planning process that the area isn't big enough,and isn't likely to happen in the forseeable future.This means Piccadilly can't fit in with their current business plan.

Tug job says...
11:33pm Sat 4 Feb 12

As someone who was born and educated in York, and who returned here after living and working away for a while, I am wholheartedly in favour of the Monk's Cross II proposals. I cannot believe that CYC or the Green Party would seriously consider "capping" the Foss to increase the proposed retail space; if they did, they should hang their heads in shame.

TerryYork says...
11:54pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Wow, a meeting of 10 people - most of which look over 60 - are the so-called "Campaign for York"? Hilarious. Terrible name, they are nimbys, former tourists who moved here and want only gift shops. Shun them and shun any shops displaying their stupid leaflet.

TerryYork says...
11:57pm Sat 4 Feb 12

redrrr wrote:
What I would like to know is who is really behind these coppergate proposals? LaSalle’s UK ventures Fund is listed as dormant according to companycheck.co.uk. The site also reveals that the company has only one listed director, a Mister Sunil Patel. A quick check on Google shows that according to company-director-che

ck.co.uk Mister Patel has listed directorships of 85 companies! Two of those companies sound vaguely familiar. The first, Lasalle UK ventures property UK1, is listed as, ‘in administration.’ The second, Lasalle UK ventures property UK2, is listed as dissolved. Is it only me who is wondering what this is all about?
Amazing isn't it. These Nimbys are backing a ghost company! What was in their coffee during that meeting, that's what I want to know.

These fools think two stores at Monks Cross are going to destroy the City Centre. Give me a break.

We're York and proud of it.

joejamestom says...
10:54pm Mon 6 Feb 12

Seems to me like another spoiler news story to make our council dither hither and thither while the owners of this real estate who will probably do nothing constructive for at least 5 years maximise the land value.
If they were serious about protecting their £200m investment then they could easily contribute to a stadium for York without the enabling shopping development but its so much cheaper to blackmail the people of York isn't it?

emsypemsy says...
10:35am Thu 9 Feb 12

Why would the creation of a new John Lewis be a problem for the city centre? This is one of the shops that York is crying out for!

Septimius Severus says...
11:15am Thu 9 Feb 12

emsy. Please read the critique of the economic impact assessment produced by one of the UK's leading property consultants and CYC former retail experts, GVA for full details.

In a nutshell...

It explains the potential effect of taking away from the city centre almost £100m per year, every year.

And the same again from shops in the 'rest of York'.

Other people on here believe the propaganda that the developer Oakgate is peddling that it will only be £40m and that whatever it is will cost jobs that are 'collateral damage' because other jobs will be created.

That way a stadium can be built for YCFC.

All numbers are estimated. No-one has any proof. But common-sense says to make it work for the developer and the retailers the money must come from somewhere and that somewhere is out of existing customers of the small businesses in the city and in the neighbourhood shopping precincts.

Unlike the money spent in those businesses and recycled through the local economy the money will leave to go south the the shareholders of JL and M&S.

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

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

I agree