Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
8:40am Friday 3rd February 2012 in Community stadium news
By Mark Stead, Political Reporter
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.
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)
Even AndyD
says...
6:46pm Thu 2 Feb 12
The Great Buda
says...
6:48pm Thu 2 Feb 12
dave1989
says...
6:52pm Thu 2 Feb 12
The Great Buda
says...
6:58pm Thu 2 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
6:59pm Thu 2 Feb 12
bolero
says...
7:20pm Thu 2 Feb 12
Justinheaven
says...
7:22pm Thu 2 Feb 12
Captain Grimble
says...
7:22pm Thu 2 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
7:25pm Thu 2 Feb 12
Captain Grimble wrote: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!!
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.
Waspish1
says...
7:27pm Thu 2 Feb 12
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.
redrrr
says...
7:47pm Thu 2 Feb 12
The Great Buda
says...
7:48pm Thu 2 Feb 12
Waspish1 wrote:The only reason they've sat on it is too stop anyone else developing it. Its a very common tactic.
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.
Torycouncil2015
says...
7:52pm Thu 2 Feb 12
Back and Beyond
says...
8:03pm Thu 2 Feb 12
Sawday2
says...
8:11pm Thu 2 Feb 12
micky moodys hat
says...
8:22pm Thu 2 Feb 12
eldewsio
says...
8:49pm Thu 2 Feb 12
rogue84
says...
10:14pm Thu 2 Feb 12
mickrick
says...
10:35pm Thu 2 Feb 12
eldewsio wrote:Is he big mates with Richard ?
Sunil patel more like Son of Guildford
Magicman!
says...
12:31am Fri 3 Feb 12
pedalling paul
says...
8:39am Fri 3 Feb 12
Sawday2 wrote:Only a few....tch...tch...t
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.
MaisieMol
says...
9:05am Fri 3 Feb 12
meme
says...
9:14am Fri 3 Feb 12
Zetkin
says...
9:15am Fri 3 Feb 12
lezyork1966
says...
9:48am Fri 3 Feb 12
Head of Bomber Command
says...
9:58am Fri 3 Feb 12
Mike Oxuge
says...
10:01am Fri 3 Feb 12
OLD - HEAD
says...
10:06am Fri 3 Feb 12
OLD - HEAD
says...
10:06am Fri 3 Feb 12
Sawday2
says...
10:10am Fri 3 Feb 12
MaisieMol wrote:I'll second that!
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.
roskoboskovic
says...
10:11am Fri 3 Feb 12
The Legend Of Keith
says...
10:13am Fri 3 Feb 12
Mike Oxuge wrote:Dragged yourself back out from under the rock?
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!
roskoboskovic
says...
10:16am Fri 3 Feb 12
milkybarkid
says...
10:24am Fri 3 Feb 12
mickrick wrote: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.
eldewsio wrote:Is he big mates with Richard ?
Sunil patel more like Son of Guildford
Not long ago they lived 20yds from each other. !!!
Mike Oxuge
says...
10:25am Fri 3 Feb 12
The Legend Of Keith wrote: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?
Mike Oxuge wrote:Dragged yourself back out from under the rock?
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!
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?!
Woody Mellor
says...
10:31am Fri 3 Feb 12
OLD - HEAD wrote:When will you people ever learn???
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.
The Great Buda
says...
10:36am Fri 3 Feb 12
Woody Mellor wrote:Quite right.
OLD - HEAD wrote:When will you people ever learn???
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.
The tourist trade "IS" one of the major needs of the local community. Sheesh!
Woody Mellor
says...
10:55am Fri 3 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:Quite right. York Residents clearly need more tourists visiting York city centre spending their money, whether it be spent on tat, or not.
Woody Mellor wrote:Quite right.
OLD - HEAD wrote:When will you people ever learn???
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.
The tourist trade "IS" one of the major needs of the local community. Sheesh!
York Residents clearly need more niche boutiques selling over-priced tat.
Tug job
says...
11:01am Fri 3 Feb 12
redrrr wrote: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.
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?
Tug job
says...
11:05am Fri 3 Feb 12
Woody Mellor wrote: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.
The Great Buda wrote: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.Woody Mellor wrote:Quite right. York Residents clearly need more niche boutiques selling over-priced tat.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!
Woody Mellor
says...
11:12am Fri 3 Feb 12
Tug job wrote:Spot On!
Woody Mellor wrote: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.
The Great Buda wrote: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.Woody Mellor wrote:Quite right. York Residents clearly need more niche boutiques selling over-priced tat.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!
Shouter
says...
11:14am Fri 3 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
11:27am Fri 3 Feb 12
topumpire1
says...
11:39am Fri 3 Feb 12
PKH
says...
11:39am Fri 3 Feb 12
The Great Buda
says...
11:45am Fri 3 Feb 12
wolfie66
says...
12:05pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
12:11pm Fri 3 Feb 12
yorky1979
says...
12:40pm Fri 3 Feb 12
metsaagain
says...
1:29pm Fri 3 Feb 12
The Great Buda
says...
1:33pm Fri 3 Feb 12
meme
says...
1:34pm Fri 3 Feb 12
The Great Buda
says...
1:45pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
2:09pm Fri 3 Feb 12
johnabostock
says...
2:23pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote: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.
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.
speaks99
says...
2:26pm Fri 3 Feb 12
meme wrote:1) I don't doubt. I do doubt that they ever intend to develop the land in the next 5-10 years.
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
johnabostock
says...
2:40pm Fri 3 Feb 12
johnabostock wrote: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.
Septimius Severus wrote: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.
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.
long distance depressive
says...
2:42pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
2:53pm Fri 3 Feb 12
redbluelion
says...
2:59pm Fri 3 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
3:05pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote: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.
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.
johnabostock
says...
3:17pm Fri 3 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote: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 wrote: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.
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.
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)
Septimius Severus
says...
3:27pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Even AndyD
says...
3:33pm Fri 3 Feb 12
ReginaldBiscuit
says...
3:34pm Fri 3 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
3:35pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:We can agree on that - would like to hear more from the ST.
The ST have been v quiet on this.
Who is in charge?
They're on the board.
johnabostock
says...
3:41pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Their website can be found at:
The ST have been v quiet on this.
Who is in charge?
They're on the board.
johnabostock
says...
3:47pm Fri 3 Feb 12
ReginaldBiscuit
says...
3:52pm Fri 3 Feb 12
johnabostock wrote:Hello.
Who is this ReginaldBiscuit that has clearly thought out an answer to all of this?
TheTruthHurts
says...
4:08pm Fri 3 Feb 12
McArthur Crown
says...
4:18pm Fri 3 Feb 12
meme
says...
4:37pm Fri 3 Feb 12
JONNYGOODSHOES
says...
6:43pm Fri 3 Feb 12
redbluelion wrote:IDIOT.
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...
6:59pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Dave Taylor
says...
7:07pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Zetkin wrote: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.
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.
the butler
says...
7:23pm Fri 3 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
7:30pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Dave Taylor wrote:1) Why would the council "gift" £2m to YCFC?
Zetkin wrote: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.
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.
arglemcgee
says...
8:48pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Justinheaven wrote:No, it's an ultimatum. Not at all the same as blackmail. Doesn't anyone on this site understand the difference?
Blackmail !
The Great Buda
says...
10:54pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Malcolm
says...
10:58pm Fri 3 Feb 12
McArthur Crown
says...
12:22am Sat 4 Feb 12
Malcolm wrote:Ditto
I am a *resident* of York and I endorse the Monk Cross development scheme.
city_view
says...
12:45am Sat 4 Feb 12
facepalm
says...
2:24am Sat 4 Feb 12
Steve,
says...
4:05am Sat 4 Feb 12
Mike Oxuge wrote:This chap sounds like a man with an ounce of common sense... hows about you use it?
The Legend Of Keith wrote: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?
Mike Oxuge wrote:Dragged yourself back out from under the rock?
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!
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?!
Keep up the good fight people!
Steve,
says...
4:11am Sat 4 Feb 12
arglemcgee wrote: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...
Justinheaven wrote:No, it's an ultimatum. Not at all the same as blackmail. Doesn't anyone on this site understand the difference?
Blackmail !
Dr Douglas Burrows
says...
8:51am Sat 4 Feb 12
Even AndyD
says...
9:15am Sat 4 Feb 12
Eric Bartholomew
says...
2:29pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Tug job
says...
11:33pm Sat 4 Feb 12
TerryYork
says...
11:54pm Sat 4 Feb 12
TerryYork
says...
11:57pm Sat 4 Feb 12
redrrr wrote: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.
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?
joejamestom
says...
10:54pm Mon 6 Feb 12
emsypemsy
says...
10:35am Thu 9 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
11:15am Thu 9 Feb 12
Looking for a new career? Find a job in York and all around North Yorkshire
Search Now »
Love and friendship - find your perfect match.
Search Now »
Find properties for sale and rent in and around York.
Search Now »
Find used vehicles for sale all over Yorkshire and the North.
Search Now »
Sillybillies says...
6:45pm Thu 2 Feb 12
Byee, it always was a white elephant no one really wanted.