1,200 speak out on Monks Cross scheme (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
1,200 speak out on Monks Cross scheme
10:00am Wednesday 15th February 2012 in Community stadium news
Susie Cawood
MORE than 1,200 people have spoken out about plans for a new community stadium and shopping complex on the edge of York as decision-day on the scheme draws nearer.
Oakgate (Monks Cross) Ltd’s planning application for a John Lewis and Marks & Spencer stores alongside a 6,000-seater home for York City FC and York City Knights is expected to be debated by City of York Council’s planning committee next month – and the proposals have drawn an overwhelming but splintered response.
Of the comments over the Monks Cross plans which have been submitted to the council, 693 have backed the project, while 413 objections have been logged and a further 129 people have made general observations. It is the largest response to a single planning application in the council’s recent history.
Supporters of the proposals say it would be an economic boost for the city and would safeguard the future of professional sport in York, as well as creating new community facilities.
However, the scheme faces fierce opposition from city-centre businesses who fear for its commercial impact on the heart of York. Concerns have also been raised about the effect of extra traffic which would be created.
Among the organisations calling for the scheme to be approved is the York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce.
Susie Cawood, the chamber’s head, said: “I cannot over-emphasise the economic benefit of this development, especially at a time when the public sector is shedding jobs and the country is facing huge economic challenges.
“The Government has charged the private sector with growing the economy and this development provides a perfect opportunity to do this. York cannot afford to be complacent and has to show it is pro-growth, pro-business and pro-development.”
Recent objectors include York Environment Forum, which has warned the Oakgate proposals and separate plans to revamp the neighbouring Monks Cross Shopping Park would lead to seven years of public consultation over York’s planning future being “thrown overboard”.
Philip Crowe, the forum’s spokesman, said: “There is widespread recognition that out-of-town retail developments have had a detrimental effect on the viability of nearby town centres, and the council recognised this and has consistently opposed further significant out-of-town expansion.
“If it is determined to drive this project forward regardless of the consequences, it would call into question the purpose of the planning system.”
Oakgate has said the scheme would create 1,000 new jobs as well as 275 local construction roles and bring £12 million a year into York’s economy, but the owners of the Coppergate Centre – LaSalle UK Ventures Fund – recently revealed they would abandon their redevelopment plans for the Castle Piccadilly site if the Monks Cross schemes were approved.
Comments(128)
Sillybillies
says...
10:11am Wed 15 Feb 12
Even AndyD
says...
10:17am Wed 15 Feb 12
But a poll of sorts at last (albeit a lazy one, lifted from the COYC planning stats), glad to see Mark Stead at last has tried for some balance. Even though I'm not entirely convinced - note the language used; supporters of the proposal only 'say' things, whilst opposition is 'fierce'.
meme
says...
10:40am Wed 15 Feb 12
Planning is going to be granted yet our stadium Guru says he hopes to provide the details of the supposed business plan AFTER its heard at planning
Who's fooling who here? Sophie hicks says there is a business plan that allows the footie club to break even but that does not tell anyone what that would cost york ratepayers and we should be told before we spend the money what we are letting ourselves in for financially in capital terms and in terms of return on the capital spent.
When CoYC refuse to reveal this information that should have been one of the initial problems tackled, I start to smell a rat as i suspect there is no viable return to us taxpayers but I hope CoYC can prove me wrong and quickly
The Great Buda
says...
10:48am Wed 15 Feb 12
Elphaba3
says...
10:56am Wed 15 Feb 12
jimmy120883
says...
11:54am Wed 15 Feb 12
meme
says...
12:11pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
12:53pm Wed 15 Feb 12
They don't represent small business.
They are just regurgetating the Oakgate lines. No real analysis.
Think if you actually analyse the quality of the objections rather than the quantity you might see a different picture.
The weight of the organisations / fact and figures will outweigh 'I want a stadium' comments.
This isn't about numbers of people who want / don't want.
It's about transparency, reasonable competition and sustainable progress countering shady deals, non-existent plans, greed and desperation.
This is an unsustainable and unnecessary overdevelopment.
meme
says...
1:17pm Wed 15 Feb 12
IF THE COUNCIL WOULD ANSWER SOME OF THESE POINTS THEY MAY GET MORE SUPPORT
Von_Dutch
says...
1:19pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Search for 'York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce' came up with an official website and lots of mentions on other websites , or in meeting minutes etc. All above board and seems like a credible group.
Search for 'York Chamber of Trade' came up with NO website and no other mentions of such a 'chamber' other than several hits on just one particular site... yes, you guessed it... YorkPress website.
Which gets me wondering... does YCofT even exist? Or is it simply a name Adam Sinclair & a few other cronies have given themselves to try to give their biased views a bit more weight?
I'm proposing calling myself the Chair of the 'Chamber for the advancement of York against vested interests' - just me and my dog at the moment... anyone else wanna join me?
Maybe that way we'd get our names in the Press everyday...
The Great Buda
says...
1:19pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Sarah York
says...
1:22pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Oh dear. Another 'it's just city fans' myth squashed
Von_Dutch
says...
1:22pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Sarah York
says...
1:24pm Wed 15 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
1:26pm Wed 15 Feb 12
2) you've obviously analysed the objections and support comments then to make that assumption. I look forward to hearing your results, ss. Don't forget to let us know how many of these objection moments are based around your tear off slip which have so much detail included... By the way, were these people primed what to write by the biased leaflet that came with it? Yes, I'd love to see the quality over quantity statistics...
Greed and desperation appear to be themes on both sides
Septimius Severus
says...
1:41pm Wed 15 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:400 plus objections says you're wrong.
This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.
johnabostock
says...
1:50pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Don`t forget the other side of your argument: how many said yes, and of course those who just made general comments.
The Great Buda wrote:400 plus objections says you're wrong.
This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.
693 in support of the scheme
413 against
129 making general comments
You`re doing, with your comments, exactly what you have accused those in favour of doing, not giving the other side of the argument. Poor!! School teenagers can do better in their debates.
alfie
says...
1:51pm Wed 15 Feb 12
johnabostock
says...
1:58pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Just to add, if you had said "............ though 693 are for it with 129 general comments ....." then maybe your comment would have stood up as a valid point.
The Great Buda wrote:400 plus objections says you're wrong.
This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.
The Great Buda
says...
2:09pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Only 400 objections.
The Great Buda wrote:400 plus objections says you're wrong.
This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.
After all the money that has been spent: Only 400 objections.
After all the free press they've had: Only 400 objections.
After all the time they've had: Only 400 objections.
After all the scaremongering they've done: Only 400 objections.
After all the posters they hung up: Only 400 objections.
After the thousands of leaflets they've put through peoples letter boxes: Only 400 objections.
After not having a campaign running in support of the development to counter their "claims": Only 400 objections.
The people of York have spoken Septimus. They support the development.
yorkonafork
says...
2:14pm Wed 15 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:http://www.youtube.c
Septimius Severus wrote:Only 400 objections. After all the money that has been spent: Only 400 objections. After all the free press they've had: Only 400 objections. After all the time they've had: Only 400 objections. After all the scaremongering they've done: Only 400 objections. After all the posters they hung up: Only 400 objections. After the thousands of leaflets they've put through peoples letter boxes: Only 400 objections. After not having a campaign running in support of the development to counter their "claims": Only 400 objections. The people of York have spoken Septimus. They support the development.The Great Buda wrote: This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.400 plus objections says you're wrong.
om/watch?v=Qvp37o1jZ
Uo
Great post Buda.
The Campaign for York has taken one hell of beating!
Dr Brian
says...
2:22pm Wed 15 Feb 12
With so many objections I would be certainly surprised if the Council do not put this to a public enquiry, If they don't I am sure like me many people who are Labour voters who don't support the scheme will certainly remember when the local council elections are next held.
With such vast numbers saying both Yes and No to the scheme the only way forward HAS to be a public enquiry taking the decision out of the hands of the Council.
johnabostock
says...
2:24pm Wed 15 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:Well said that man. SS needs to take a step back before making any more comments. And by the way there is nothing wrong with my comprehension as I read from top to bottom with regards to comments being made so I knew exactly what you had said previously. But, you made the point in an incomplete sentence "400+ objections says you`re wrong".
Septimius Severus wrote:Only 400 objections.
The Great Buda wrote:400 plus objections says you're wrong.
This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.
After all the money that has been spent: Only 400 objections.
After all the free press they've had: Only 400 objections.
After all the time they've had: Only 400 objections.
After all the scaremongering they've done: Only 400 objections.
After all the posters they hung up: Only 400 objections.
After the thousands of leaflets they've put through peoples letter boxes: Only 400 objections.
After not having a campaign running in support of the development to counter their "claims": Only 400 objections.
The people of York have spoken Septimus. They support the development.
Septimius Severus
says...
2:28pm Wed 15 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:YCFC have 3000 fans and only 693 letters of support!
Septimius Severus wrote:Only 400 objections.
The Great Buda wrote:400 plus objections says you're wrong.
This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.
After all the money that has been spent: Only 400 objections.
After all the free press they've had: Only 400 objections.
After all the time they've had: Only 400 objections.
After all the scaremongering they've done: Only 400 objections.
After all the posters they hung up: Only 400 objections.
After the thousands of leaflets they've put through peoples letter boxes: Only 400 objections.
After not having a campaign running in support of the development to counter their "claims": Only 400 objections.
The people of York have spoken Septimus. They support the development.
After the massive campaign on Red/Blue only 693 support letters.
After all the campaigning by YCST - only 693 letters.
Come on.. we can all play the 'ooh that's not very good' game.
Childish!
YorkOnAFork:
More childish humour here
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=pk4MSaH30
bk
AngryandFrustrated
says...
2:30pm Wed 15 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:Great Buda, you are talking rubbish!
Septimius Severus wrote:Only 400 objections. After all the money that has been spent: Only 400 objections. After all the free press they've had: Only 400 objections. After all the time they've had: Only 400 objections. After all the scaremongering they've done: Only 400 objections. After all the posters they hung up: Only 400 objections. After the thousands of leaflets they've put through peoples letter boxes: Only 400 objections. After not having a campaign running in support of the development to counter their "claims": Only 400 objections. The people of York have spoken Septimus. They support the development.The Great Buda wrote: This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.400 plus objections says you're wrong.
"The people of York have spoken Septimus. They support the development.” No, the people of York haven't spoken and no they haven't supported the development.
400 people have objected. 613 have supported the plans. By my reckoning, that leaves at least 99,000 other residents that have not expressed a definitive view. Out of a total population of at least 100,000 that means only 1.1% have commented and only 0.6% have felt strongly enough to support the plans. Not by any stretch of the imagination, even the Great Buda's stretch of imagination, does that equate to the people of York speaking and supporting the application!
I have no vested interest in this scheme, nor do I shop regularly at MX as I live in the city centre. I do, however, have grave concerns about the scheme in its present form and in particular, the use of local taxpayers money to line the pockets of private businesses(or should I say prop them up?) such as the rugby and football teams in a time at a time when front line services are being cut. If the rugby and footy team want a new home, good for them. If John Lewis want to move to York, good for them. Let them bloody well pay for it so that tax raised in this area can continue to support frontline services and assisting charities. Last time I looked, YCFY, the Knights and John Lewis were not charitable organisations and therefore, if they cannot afford to build and pay for the new development themselves, they should wait until they could.
johnabostock
says...
2:38pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Septimus, just to answer your point about YCFC having 3000 supporters but only 693 on the council site. There is also a huge petition of over 1,000 - not quite certain of the numbers but it is way, way over a thousand which many YCFC supporters have signed and which is, I believe, being handed in over the Stadium. I, for one, did not write on the council website as I signed the petition before a match, like many others.
The Great Buda wrote:YCFC have 3000 fans and only 693 letters of support!
Septimius Severus wrote:Only 400 objections.
The Great Buda wrote:400 plus objections says you're wrong.
This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.
After all the money that has been spent: Only 400 objections.
After all the free press they've had: Only 400 objections.
After all the time they've had: Only 400 objections.
After all the scaremongering they've done: Only 400 objections.
After all the posters they hung up: Only 400 objections.
After the thousands of leaflets they've put through peoples letter boxes: Only 400 objections.
After not having a campaign running in support of the development to counter their "claims": Only 400 objections.
The people of York have spoken Septimus. They support the development.
After the massive campaign on Red/Blue only 693 support letters.
After all the campaigning by YCST - only 693 letters.
Come on.. we can all play the 'ooh that's not very good' game.
Childish!
YorkOnAFork:
More childish humour here
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=pk4MSaH30
bk
johnabostock
says...
2:39pm Wed 15 Feb 12
www.astadiumforyork.
com/
yorkonafork
says...
2:39pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Haha.
The Great Buda wrote:YCFC have 3000 fans and only 693 letters of support! After the massive campaign on Red/Blue only 693 support letters. After all the campaigning by YCST - only 693 letters. Come on.. we can all play the 'ooh that's not very good' game. Childish! YorkOnAFork: More childish humour here http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=pk4MSaH30 bkSeptimius Severus wrote:Only 400 objections. After all the money that has been spent: Only 400 objections. After all the free press they've had: Only 400 objections. After all the time they've had: Only 400 objections. After all the scaremongering they've done: Only 400 objections. After all the posters they hung up: Only 400 objections. After the thousands of leaflets they've put through peoples letter boxes: Only 400 objections. After not having a campaign running in support of the development to counter their "claims": Only 400 objections. The people of York have spoken Septimus. They support the development.The Great Buda wrote: This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.400 plus objections says you're wrong.
You think a few people posting on an online messageboard which a few hundred use is a massive campaign compared to having 1,000s of leaflets and posters printed!
Bless.
You also forget that, there was also a petition for the Stadium and retail developments which 4,500+ people signed in favour of so if we're going to manipulte number it's actually 5,100 in support which plays 400.
Also Dr Brian, the names and addresses have to be given in the letters so by all mean check yourself if they live in York rather than second guessing before making a statment.
johnabostock
says...
2:41pm Wed 15 Feb 12
johnabostock wrote:Wrong website address given. It is the following:
Go to:
www.astadiumforyork.
com/
http://www.petitionb
uzz.com/petitions/st
adiumyork
yorkonafork
says...
2:42pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
2:45pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Btw York's population broke 200,000 last month.
So you could halve those numbers.
693/200,000 = 0.3465% have spoken.
Even if all 693 are YCFC fans then only 23% (I've given them the benefit of 3000 regular suporters) can be assumed to object by the same rationale.
It's a nonesense to claim victory on these so few numbers.
But the story is that this is the biggest number of total letters in recent history.
Bigger than Germany Beck, than Derwentthorppe, than the Barbican etc.
What that shows is that this is important to be looked at in depth and properly balanced.
When it is shown that there is no net benefit. That 'truth' will set us free.
The Great Buda
says...
2:46pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
2:54pm Wed 15 Feb 12
What else they gonna do.
Hardly the same comparison and how long did it take to gather that number?
The people of York haven't spoken, the people of York City Football Club, maybe..
Thank goodness we have local, regional and national planning policies in place to prevent 'people' swaying planning officers.
Thank goodness a public enquiry can be called when 'people' are ignored.
Septimius Severus
says...
3:06pm Wed 15 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:How can 400 objections be a failure?
No one is claiming victory Septimus; just pointing out that the "campaign for York" has failed.
You obviously underestimate the complexity of the argument.
On the one hand:
'Want a free stadium to rescue a failed football club and have a nice big John Lewis on your doorstep'...
(Nice and simple)
versus
'the huge economic and environmental impact of job losses and promoting more car use'.
(Not easy to explain how)
YCFC have had the time, desperation and infrastructure, and Oakgate the promise of £gazillions profit to do better than 693 letters of support - on which this article is based.
Putting up a few posters, handing out a few 1000 leaflets and balancing the press spin since the middle of December when the 'Campaign' started is, I would say, not bad.
Far from 'failed'.
This isn't over till the fat lady (Pickles) sings.
Dr Brian
says...
3:08pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Quite true and if such a small percentage of the YCFC fan base support the scheme then it chould be pointed out that the majority of YCFC fans are NOT supporting the sceme!
Asking city fans to sign a petition to 'save our club' is like asking Turkey to vote to cancel Christmas.
What else they gonna do.
Hardly the same comparison and how long did it take to gather that number?
The people of York haven't spoken, the people of York City Football Club, maybe..
Thank goodness we have local, regional and national planning policies in place to prevent 'people' swaying planning officers.
Thank goodness a public enquiry can be called when 'people' are ignored.
Somebody pointed out earlier that the FC and RL clubs would be paying rent for the new stadium - what happens if they go bust - as both teams have in recent years? Who pays then? If a big club like Rangers can go to the wall a small non league outfit that has a chairman who is continually saying how much he is pumping into the FC because it is losing (was it £300,000 a year?) massive amount of money each year will once again be on the brink of oblivion before very long leaving the people of York with a stadium and an asset it has to pay for - look at Darlington as an example!
Sorry the bleating "we won we won" by York City fans does make me hope they never do get that stadium unless it is paid for by a private individual and not us the rate payer, and if they do get that stadium paid for by rate payers including the City centre trader, I hope the businesses of York remember that when the FC are going cap in hand for sponsorship and advertising.
david_york
says...
3:09pm Wed 15 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:Council's limited investment? Are you for real? The only great return will be to the developers! The Council will be giving up at least £4 million, probably more (as much as £6-7 million possibly) if recent talk of the true value of Bootham Crescent is anything to go by to essentially support privately owned professional sports clubs.
The "real cost" meme which you've consistently ignored is that the Kights and the FC will be paying rent directly into Council Coffers. I'm sorry you see this as a bad thing; personally I think it will be a great return on the Councils limited investment.
Don't get me wrong, want to see York City FC and The Knights do well but they cannot afford to pay commercial rents (their income doesn't cover costs now) so they will only ever be being peppercorns to the City Council. The application doesn't even make clear how much they will pay. In effect the Council taxpayer is likely to be subsidising them.
TheTruthHurts
says...
3:31pm Wed 15 Feb 12
When it is shown that there is no net benefit. That 'truth' will set us free.”
'
No it wont im firmly on the fence on this one. Sorry all.
again
says...
3:40pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Nevertheless, for the general population of the city and those living round about it's excellent news. At the moment York is at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to shops and only schemes of this sort will change that.
Septimius Severus
says...
3:58pm Wed 15 Feb 12
for the general population who want their hard earned taxes going into a white elephant it's really bad news.
York is not at the bottom of any chain. It's doing alright for shops at the moment. And a potential £200million development in the city is threatened by the greed / need of the few.
If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
chameleon
says...
4:11pm Wed 15 Feb 12
ReginaldBiscuit
says...
4:14pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Two events happened yesterday. Firstly, Moodys gave notice of it's intention to downgrade the UK economy if Osborne and co don't start taking real cuts to reduce the nation's debt. Any downgrade will not happen before the Olympics (this would threaten the Olympics, the most globally prestigious and farcical event) but thereafter, we're fair game and it WILL happen, without a doubt. The 50 billion QE undertaken by the Bank of England will only serve to start devaluation of the pound - too much money in circulation. Austerity measures in this country have not been anywhere near enough so far. Austerity will come, it hasn't event hit the 'A' yet. Building shops is not the way forward if no-one has the disposable income to spend in them.
Secondly, Rangers FC went bust yesterday. They are not the first club to do so and will not be the last. It's rumoured that 4 premier league clubs and 10 championship clubs are nearly i the same boat. Football players and clubs have suffered the same fate as housing - overvalue. The labour b*ll-sh*t years of talking up an economy and sense of value up have gone. The UK is worth nowhere near as much as it would like to be thought of. Probably 507% less in fact. A new stadium now would signal the death of York City. For now, consolidate and save. Pay your debts off. Head above water. Keep going. Failure to do so means endgame. Football will soon be back to a part-time occupation for the lower leagues.
*sigh* That is all.
Septimius Severus
says...
4:22pm Wed 15 Feb 12
chameleon wrote:Really?
Does someone keep mentioning vested interests? Funny that the President of this Chamber organisation is also the partner of a practice employed by Oakgate who stand to profit massively from this development!
Please confirm.
Susie Cawood and Richard Flannagan are partners?
Love that. If true?
chameleon
says...
4:30pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:I think you got the wrong end of the stick!
chameleon wrote:Really?
Does someone keep mentioning vested interests? Funny that the President of this Chamber organisation is also the partner of a practice employed by Oakgate who stand to profit massively from this development!
Please confirm.
Susie Cawood and Richard Flannagan are partners?
Love that. If true?
Mr. Flanagan is President of the Chamber. His business is also employed by Oakgate!
Septimius Severus
says...
4:41pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Lol.
I misunderstood.
That's bad enough.
Totally undermines anything the Chamber say about the development.
yorky1979
says...
4:42pm Wed 15 Feb 12
McArthur Crown
says...
4:53pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Even AndyD
says...
4:57pm Wed 15 Feb 12
As we all know, one tends to voice complaints far quicker than issues we are happy with, so I'd say to get this significant majority just shows how self-serving and off-beat the likes of Septimius and the York Chamber of Trade are. People want this, four traders and their hangers on don't. It will get built - trade won't be detrimentally affected just as it wasn't after MX1, Clifton Moor, and D.Outlet. Time for all this silliness to stop!
jimmy120883
says...
4:59pm Wed 15 Feb 12
I say lets just wait and see what happens .
Even AndyD
says...
5:03pm Wed 15 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:Absolutely. A huge campaign, 40,000 leaflets and almost daily Press publicity and still only 400 objections. Priceless! York Chamber of Trade have been found out for what it is; a tiny group of self-interested businessmen trying to make a big noise through old-boys influence. The residents want this and the Council know it. Roll on March.
No one is claiming victory Septimus; just pointing out that the "campaign for York" has failed.
city_view
says...
5:18pm Wed 15 Feb 12
sorry to interrupt and be a bit off-topic, but could you pop over to the Adam Sinclair 'Out-of-town complex critic ...' article and clarify that you're not Councillor Andy D'Agorne, as unless I've completely misunderstood, 'Mr Crabtree' on there thinks you are?
AngryandFrustrated
says...
5:23pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Even AndyD wrote:*SIGH*
The Great Buda wrote: No one is claiming victory Septimus; just pointing out that the "campaign for York" has failed.Absolutely. A huge campaign, 40,000 leaflets and almost daily Press publicity and still only 400 objections. Priceless! York Chamber of Trade have been found out for what it is; a tiny group of self-interested businessmen trying to make a big noise through old-boys influence. The residents want this and the Council know it. Roll on March.
At the risk of repeating myself, "The residents want this and the Council know it" - no they don't. You cannot say that the Residents want it thereby insinuating that everyone agrees with your point of view. You can accurately say that 613 residents want it as well as accurately stating that 400 residents don't want it. We have, however, established in previous postings that the responses represent less than 1% of the population of York and in respect of the "yes" votes, less than 0.4%.
"Only 400 objections" - not the most attractive argument given that the "yes" camp only manged 613 letters of support. In some circles, it would be called finely balanced. However, it is completely disingenuous of you to try to claim that the "yes" campaigners have it in the bag and that the people of York want the development with your less than convincing 613 letters of support!
AngryandFrustrated
says...
5:26pm Wed 15 Feb 12
ReginaldBiscuit wrote:Couldn't agree more!
You're all missing the point here. Presumably the retailers are as well. The UK is in a financial crisis. Again figures speak for themselves - total public and private debt in the UK is 507% of GDP. Two events happened yesterday. Firstly, Moodys gave notice of it's intention to downgrade the UK economy if Osborne and co don't start taking real cuts to reduce the nation's debt. Any downgrade will not happen before the Olympics (this would threaten the Olympics, the most globally prestigious and farcical event) but thereafter, we're fair game and it WILL happen, without a doubt. The 50 billion QE undertaken by the Bank of England will only serve to start devaluation of the pound - too much money in circulation. Austerity measures in this country have not been anywhere near enough so far. Austerity will come, it hasn't event hit the 'A' yet. Building shops is not the way forward if no-one has the disposable income to spend in them. Secondly, Rangers FC went bust yesterday. They are not the first club to do so and will not be the last. It's rumoured that 4 premier league clubs and 10 championship clubs are nearly i the same boat. Football players and clubs have suffered the same fate as housing - overvalue. The labour b*ll-sh*t years of talking up an economy and sense of value up have gone. The UK is worth nowhere near as much as it would like to be thought of. Probably 507% less in fact. A new stadium now would signal the death of York City. For now, consolidate and save. Pay your debts off. Head above water. Keep going. Failure to do so means endgame. Football will soon be back to a part-time occupation for the lower leagues. *sigh* That is all.
Caecilius
says...
5:41pm Wed 15 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:Not that I care either way but to claim that "the people of York" support the development is something of an exaggeration. Only about 0.4% of the people of York who are aged 15 or above (based on the council's 2010 population estimate) have expressed their support. 99.6% haven't.
Septimius Severus wrote:Only 400 objections. After all the money that has been spent: Only 400 objections. After all the free press they've had: Only 400 objections. After all the time they've had: Only 400 objections. After all the scaremongering they've done: Only 400 objections. After all the posters they hung up: Only 400 objections. After the thousands of leaflets they've put through peoples letter boxes: Only 400 objections. After not having a campaign running in support of the development to counter their "claims": Only 400 objections. The people of York have spoken Septimus. They support the development.The Great Buda wrote: This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.400 plus objections says you're wrong.
Even AndyD
says...
6:18pm Wed 15 Feb 12
city_view wrote:Cheers. No, I can say I'm not that chap. Even Andy D. Even handed? Gerrit? Not the greatest joke ever I admit, but obviously too much for Mr Crabtree!
Even AndyD -
sorry to interrupt and be a bit off-topic, but could you pop over to the Adam Sinclair 'Out-of-town complex critic ...' article and clarify that you're not Councillor Andy D'Agorne, as unless I've completely misunderstood, 'Mr Crabtree' on there thinks you are?
Even AndyD
says...
6:32pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Caecilius wrote:Fair enough - I was being a little tongue in cheek. But you could argue that 99.7% don't object so they must support it. Stats are wonderful that way and I can tell you this; if the anti-brigade had a 2/3rds majority, they'd be singing it from the roof tops. Or the front page of the Press.
The Great Buda wrote:Not that I care either way but to claim that "the people of York" support the development is something of an exaggeration. Only about 0.4% of the people of York who are aged 15 or above (based on the council's 2010 population estimate) have expressed their support. 99.6% haven't.
Septimius Severus wrote:Only 400 objections. After all the money that has been spent: Only 400 objections. After all the free press they've had: Only 400 objections. After all the time they've had: Only 400 objections. After all the scaremongering they've done: Only 400 objections. After all the posters they hung up: Only 400 objections. After the thousands of leaflets they've put through peoples letter boxes: Only 400 objections. After not having a campaign running in support of the development to counter their "claims": Only 400 objections. The people of York have spoken Septimus. They support the development.The Great Buda wrote: This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.400 plus objections says you're wrong.
speaks99
says...
6:58pm Wed 15 Feb 12
jimmy120883 wrote:The current government follow a policy of localism, which puts decisions firmly in the hands of the local councils. Not sure whether or not this would make it to public enquiry, should the planning be passed.
In Harrogate Tesco wanted to build a new superstore the last post code in the country with out one if i'm correct, and the town folk of harrogate were against it, a poll was 55% against, and the council still passed planning so they tried to get the the secretary of state to call it in for a public inquiry which he didn't because the current goverment are for new developments out of town.
I say lets just wait and see what happens .
speaks99
says...
7:19pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Septimus, I would be careful what you believe.
Aah.
Lol.
I misunderstood.
That's bad enough.
Totally undermines anything the Chamber say about the development.
Richard Flanaghan is actually a non executive director of the Leeds, York and North Yorkshire chamber of commerce, among 11 non executive directors, 2 ex-officio directors and 2 executive directors. Don't get carried away over this - he's not really got that much power. Obviously if you'd spent two minutes on google just like I have you'd have known this, and wouldn't make remarks about it undermining what the chamber say.
speaks99
says...
7:38pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
7:44pm Wed 15 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:He's the President!
Septimius Severus wrote:Septimus, I would be careful what you believe.
Aah.
Lol.
I misunderstood.
That's bad enough.
Totally undermines anything the Chamber say about the development.
Richard Flanaghan is actually a non executive director of the Leeds, York and North Yorkshire chamber of commerce, among 11 non executive directors, 2 ex-officio directors and 2 executive directors. Don't get carried away over this - he's not really got that much power. Obviously if you'd spent two minutes on google just like I have you'd have known this, and wouldn't make remarks about it undermining what the chamber say.
Eric Bartholomew
says...
7:46pm Wed 15 Feb 12
again wrote:Sums it all up nicely I'd say,and I would hazard a guess this is what most of the residents of York think about it all.
Cutting through the smoke generated by a few, it seems to me that the chief opponents to this are a few established city centre businesses. They don't want the competition and it is quite understandable they will raise a din to stop it. Nevertheless, for the general population of the city and those living round about it's excellent news. At the moment York is at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to shops and only schemes of this sort will change that.
It's been mentioned about the C4Y and their posters and campaining.Well I see their twitter page has a total of 9 followers,bizarrely one of those is York Neighbourhood watch...
Septimius Severus
says...
7:47pm Wed 15 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:Sorry I will clarify... we are both right.
Septimius Severus wrote:Septimus, I would be careful what you believe.
Aah.
Lol.
I misunderstood.
That's bad enough.
Totally undermines anything the Chamber say about the development.
Richard Flanaghan is actually a non executive director of the Leeds, York and North Yorkshire chamber of commerce, among 11 non executive directors, 2 ex-officio directors and 2 executive directors. Don't get carried away over this - he's not really got that much power. Obviously if you'd spent two minutes on google just like I have you'd have known this, and wouldn't make remarks about it undermining what the chamber say.
He is a non exec of LYNYCC you're right, but as the article is quoting York & North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce I feel it is right to remind you he is the President of that sub brand and Susie works for them.
Even AndyD
says...
7:53pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Eric Bartholomew wrote:Agreed. Most sensible post in this thread.
again wrote:Sums it all up nicely I'd say,and I would hazard a guess this is what most of the residents of York think about it all.
Cutting through the smoke generated by a few, it seems to me that the chief opponents to this are a few established city centre businesses. They don't want the competition and it is quite understandable they will raise a din to stop it. Nevertheless, for the general population of the city and those living round about it's excellent news. At the moment York is at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to shops and only schemes of this sort will change that.
It's been mentioned about the C4Y and their posters and campaining.Well I see their twitter page has a total of 9 followers,bizarrely one of those is York Neighbourhood watch...
speaks99
says...
7:55pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:There is no such organisation as the York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce. It merged with the Leeds chamber of commerce in 2008 to form one entity - The Leeds, York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce. But that's the press for you, they probably haven't updated there records since 1983.
speaks99 wrote:Sorry I will clarify... we are both right.
Septimius Severus wrote:Septimus, I would be careful what you believe.
Aah.
Lol.
I misunderstood.
That's bad enough.
Totally undermines anything the Chamber say about the development.
Richard Flanaghan is actually a non executive director of the Leeds, York and North Yorkshire chamber of commerce, among 11 non executive directors, 2 ex-officio directors and 2 executive directors. Don't get carried away over this - he's not really got that much power. Obviously if you'd spent two minutes on google just like I have you'd have known this, and wouldn't make remarks about it undermining what the chamber say.
He is a non exec of LYNYCC you're right, but as the article is quoting York & North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce I feel it is right to remind you he is the President of that sub brand and Susie works for them.
Yorkie41
says...
8:13pm Wed 15 Feb 12
LWWitch
says...
8:49pm Wed 15 Feb 12
On my way to work this morning, I noticed all the shops on Gillygate have posters in their windows objecting to this scheme. I'm sick to death of hearing from these traders that only open 10am to 4pm, for tourist shoppers.
I never hear about them campaigning for better access to the city centre for residents, cheaper buses or car parks perhaps anyone?
I'm for the scheme, but haven't stated my preference formally because I'm not too bothered either way. The extra jobs will be great for York, but we all know CYC will only do what it wants anyway!
Omega Point
says...
9:35pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Yorkie41 wrote:Have you not been reading? Just no evidence
I think people have got to think very hard about this project, as if there are many more objections, York could loose the John Lewis & Marks & Spencer and all the jobs that goes with it, and York will be the poorer for it.
Septimius Severus
says...
11:41pm Wed 15 Feb 12
LWWitch wrote:Campaign for York has been campaigning for a level playing field.
The city centre traders have long since made their choice between tourists and York Residents.
On my way to work this morning, I noticed all the shops on Gillygate have posters in their windows objecting to this scheme. I'm sick to death of hearing from these traders that only open 10am to 4pm, for tourist shoppers.
I never hear about them campaigning for better access to the city centre for residents, cheaper buses or car parks perhaps anyone?
I'm for the scheme, but haven't stated my preference formally because I'm not too bothered either way. The extra jobs will be great for York, but we all know CYC will only do what it wants anyway!
We would love more and cheaper car parking. The council have refused.
There are other groups campaigning for this too.
Most shops are open 9 till 5.30.
There are a few more touristy places that open at 10, but that's only because tourists don't get out of bed early.
Plus, the council have set pedestrianisation at 11 - 4 most days so the city isn't really open for business till the trucks disappear.
That's not the 'traders' fault.
Magicman!
says...
12:28am Thu 16 Feb 12
The Great Buda
says...
7:36am Thu 16 Feb 12
Even AndyD wrote:Indeed had the shoe been on the other foot they would have been crowing about it something rotten.
Caecilius wrote:Fair enough - I was being a little tongue in cheek. But you could argue that 99.7% don't object so they must support it. Stats are wonderful that way and I can tell you this; if the anti-brigade had a 2/3rds majority, they'd be singing it from the roof tops. Or the front page of the Press.
The Great Buda wrote:Not that I care either way but to claim that "the people of York" support the development is something of an exaggeration. Only about 0.4% of the people of York who are aged 15 or above (based on the council's 2010 population estimate) have expressed their support. 99.6% haven't.
Septimius Severus wrote:Only 400 objections. After all the money that has been spent: Only 400 objections. After all the free press they've had: Only 400 objections. After all the time they've had: Only 400 objections. After all the scaremongering they've done: Only 400 objections. After all the posters they hung up: Only 400 objections. After the thousands of leaflets they've put through peoples letter boxes: Only 400 objections. After not having a campaign running in support of the development to counter their "claims": Only 400 objections. The people of York have spoken Septimus. They support the development.The Great Buda wrote: This is a development the people of York want Septimus. Its time to accept that fact and move on.400 plus objections says you're wrong.
Instead they try to devalue the facts and paint everyone who is for the development as a football fan. Its quite pathetic of them to slur their fellow residents in such a way.
Even AndyD
says...
8:39am Thu 16 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Level playing field doesn't wash. There are no tourist attractions at MX, the council doesn't spend money keeping the place looking neat and tidy for the tourists, the council doesn't hold festivals, Viking Celebrations etc to attract visitors. The list goes on.
LWWitch wrote:Campaign for York has been campaigning for a level playing field.
The city centre traders have long since made their choice between tourists and York Residents.
On my way to work this morning, I noticed all the shops on Gillygate have posters in their windows objecting to this scheme. I'm sick to death of hearing from these traders that only open 10am to 4pm, for tourist shoppers.
I never hear about them campaigning for better access to the city centre for residents, cheaper buses or car parks perhaps anyone?
I'm for the scheme, but haven't stated my preference formally because I'm not too bothered either way. The extra jobs will be great for York, but we all know CYC will only do what it wants anyway!
We would love more and cheaper car parking. The council have refused.
There are other groups campaigning for this too.
Most shops are open 9 till 5.30.
There are a few more touristy places that open at 10, but that's only because tourists don't get out of bed early.
Plus, the council have set pedestrianisation at 11 - 4 most days so the city isn't really open for business till the trucks disappear.
That's not the 'traders' fault.
I have some sympathy re the parking, it is costly. But to look at the situation in such a one-eyed was as you have, isn't right either. A lot of footfall is generated by things the Council provide and certainly the queues outside Betty's reflect the beautiful tourist Mecca that is central York. This costs taxpayers money to maintain and parking charges balance this. You don't hear MX traders asking for the Minster to be moved, or a Viking festival to be held there.
I think its time on these threads both sides showed balance, otherwise we just keep repeating the same entrenched views. Am not saying I've not done this in the past, but there are limits and one or two posters seem to cross the boundaries imho.
johnabostock
says...
9:02am Thu 16 Feb 12
Omega Point wrote:JL have stated quite openly that they will not come to York if MX does not go ahead, NOR do they want to move into the City Centre as it does not suit their design of shops. M&S have also stated quite openly that they want to leave the larger (and what was their flagship) shop open opposite the splash centre but want to close their smaller shop in the centre, and move it out to MX for a larger area.
Yorkie41 wrote:Have you not been reading? Just no evidence
I think people have got to think very hard about this project, as if there are many more objections, York could loose the John Lewis & Marks & Spencer and all the jobs that goes with it, and York will be the poorer for it.
Septimius Severus
says...
9:10am Thu 16 Feb 12
I was commenting on a comment to address the balance.
LWWitch made a point about 'parking' and 'shop opening hours'. I was commenting on / clarifying on that. She brought it up. Not me.
But you mention cleaning and festivals.
So dragging in 'another thing'.
You can't drag into a point someone counters another challenge and then say let's stop and show balance without looking a bit daft.
NB CYC generate around £8 - £10m a year on parking fees from residents and tourists. They do not spend £8 - £10m on festivals etc. Or a 10th of that. Or a 100th of that.
NB A level playing field is about status quo. There is status quo at the moment. MX2 would unbalance that. That's changing the rules / expanding the goal posts / not a level playing field.
NB CYC will have to pay for street cleaning around any MX2 development.
NB The Viking Festival is a private business run to promote the Jorvik Centre, which is a business.
The Food & Drink Festival is a business run to promote the restaurants and bars and supply chain.
Only the festivals run to promote just the city (Rivers / Illuminate / St Nicks Fair etc) have some CYC assistance, but rely on private sponsorship to exist.
There is nothing stopping JL or M&S running a'Shopping Festival' (aka retailing) if they want. Nothing to stop YKRL running a Festival of RL... I think they do.
Is that a balanced view?
Buda: You too show that you only understand balance when it is in your favour. The article is about 693 v 413. Yet somehow you try to say that it is the campaign objecting to the development 'crowing'. But the thread is much more strongly favoured towards the 693 ahead of that. The supporters claiming 'York has spoken', claiming 'victory', claiming 413 is not a significant number.
An entrenched view if ever there was one.
The Great Buda
says...
10:06am Thu 16 Feb 12
johnabostock
says...
10:52am Thu 16 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:SS, even though I openly support YCFC and whilst I am or was, until a knee injury stopped me, a very sporty person (playing all types of sport during lunchtimes and after school whilst teaching (though that was not the subject I taught) I think you can say that the views I have given are also `balanced`. I use all available resources when shopping, including Clifton Moor, MX, Designer Outlet AND more importantly, the City Centre. I often go to Barnitts for items for my home but look to B&Q for cheaper ones, to Bettys for a drink and something to eat (when I can afford it and when the queues are not too long), Browns when my wife is looking for something she needs for herself or for our home. However, we DO NOT park in the City Centre but somewhere where there are no yellow lines and parking fees (not far from BC) and walk into York. This Saturday, before the match, we are going into York for lunch. So, for us, the FC moving to MX is going to make our life more difficult even though there will be shops and cafes but, at the same time, will have to accept the downside of the move. We will still go into the City Centre if time allows or if there is something we can`t get at MX. If the City Centre traders are so concerned about the `balance` why don`t they offer voluntary help to a chosen pro-Club by sponshipship deals and inject some cash into them. Then they will be Community Clubs: for the community of York helped by the community of York. Work with the owners of the pro-Clubs instead of against them and see what enormous benefits might appear through advertising, etc in The Press, on TV and on radio.
Even Andy. I think you make a sound point about 'balance', but at the risk of sounding unbalanced.
I was commenting on a comment to address the balance.
LWWitch made a point about 'parking' and 'shop opening hours'. I was commenting on / clarifying on that. She brought it up. Not me.
But you mention cleaning and festivals.
So dragging in 'another thing'.
You can't drag into a point someone counters another challenge and then say let's stop and show balance without looking a bit daft.
NB CYC generate around £8 - £10m a year on parking fees from residents and tourists. They do not spend £8 - £10m on festivals etc. Or a 10th of that. Or a 100th of that.
NB A level playing field is about status quo. There is status quo at the moment. MX2 would unbalance that. That's changing the rules / expanding the goal posts / not a level playing field.
NB CYC will have to pay for street cleaning around any MX2 development.
NB The Viking Festival is a private business run to promote the Jorvik Centre, which is a business.
The Food & Drink Festival is a business run to promote the restaurants and bars and supply chain.
Only the festivals run to promote just the city (Rivers / Illuminate / St Nicks Fair etc) have some CYC assistance, but rely on private sponsorship to exist.
There is nothing stopping JL or M&S running a'Shopping Festival' (aka retailing) if they want. Nothing to stop YKRL running a Festival of RL... I think they do.
Is that a balanced view?
Buda: You too show that you only understand balance when it is in your favour. The article is about 693 v 413. Yet somehow you try to say that it is the campaign objecting to the development 'crowing'. But the thread is much more strongly favoured towards the 693 ahead of that. The supporters claiming 'York has spoken', claiming 'victory', claiming 413 is not a significant number.
An entrenched view if ever there was one.
johnabostock
says...
10:57am Thu 16 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
11:36am Thu 16 Feb 12
johnabostock wrote:John: I don't think I was criticising you specifically for being unbalanced.
Just to add, helping the Pro-clubs may stop YCFC moving to MX, bring the Knights back into York, itself. Therefore, all are happy.
And a better commercial sponsorship programme is not a bad idea.
Very sensible. If the clubs could manage to produce a joint / sustainable business value proposal I'm sure there are 'entities' that might share the load.
The problem might be convincing them that the clubs are being run in a viable manner.
If (IF) I had money to put in I would want to know that JMcG wasn't using it to subsidise the £300,000 he 'loaned' YCFC this season and there's the problem.
I don't think the general business sector trusts the current owners.
They trusted the Trust. but they seem to be as in the dark and out of decision making as anyone.
I'm sorry if that sounded like a negative to finish off, but I am optimistic a positive solution can be found. Just one that doesn't incude MX2.
meme
says...
11:58am Thu 16 Feb 12
I have asked for confirmation of this time after time on every blog on this subject but nobody appears to actually have one that shows what it will cost york ratepayers and what the returns will be.
This must have been a pre-requisite to any potential assessment of the scheme so why cannot we see the basics of it so we know what as ratepayers we may be letting ourselves in for
johnabostock
says...
12:36pm Thu 16 Feb 12
meme wrote:I can`t answer that as I`m not privy to what the YCFC Board or Council discuss. But I have put your question on the R&B thread that deals with the stadium in the hope that it stirs some answers for you. It seems a very sensible question to ask and one that every new business is asked to provide when applying for financial assistance.
I keep harping on about this but people representing the Council and the footie club say there is a robust business plan
I have asked for confirmation of this time after time on every blog on this subject but nobody appears to actually have one that shows what it will cost york ratepayers and what the returns will be.
This must have been a pre-requisite to any potential assessment of the scheme so why cannot we see the basics of it so we know what as ratepayers we may be letting ourselves in for
Septimius Severus
says...
12:40pm Thu 16 Feb 12
meme wrote:I understand and agree with this.
I keep harping on about this but people representing the Council and the footie club say there is a robust business plan
I have asked for confirmation of this time after time on every blog on this subject but nobody appears to actually have one that shows what it will cost york ratepayers and what the returns will be.
This must have been a pre-requisite to any potential assessment of the scheme so why cannot we see the basics of it so we know what as ratepayers we may be letting ourselves in for
Unfortunately a need (for the requirement of a business plan) is yet to be decided by the planning officers before a decision is made.
LWWitch
says...
2:15pm Thu 16 Feb 12
LWWitch wrote:
The city centre traders have long since made their choice between tourists and York Residents.
On my way to work this morning, I noticed all the shops on Gillygate have posters in their windows objecting to this scheme. I'm sick to death of hearing from these traders that only open 10am to 4pm, for tourist shoppers.
I never hear about them campaigning for better access to the city centre for residents, cheaper buses or car parks perhaps anyone?
I'm for the scheme, but haven't stated my preference formally because I'm not too bothered either way. The extra jobs will be great for York, but we all know CYC will only do what it wants anyway!
Campaign for York has been campaigning for a level playing field.
We would love more and cheaper car parking. The council have refused.
There are other groups campaigning for this too.
Most shops are open 9 till 5.30.
There are a few more touristy places that open at 10, but that's only because tourists don't get out of bed early.
Plus, the council have set pedestrianisation at 11 - 4 most days so the city isn't really open for business till the trucks disappear.
That's not the 'traders' fault.
I disagree with what you have said here. Gillygate is not within the Pedestrian zone. However, even those within that zone still tend to open at 9am and close at 5:30pm. My point about Gillygate was that I walk down there twice a day at 9 and 5 with many other commuters. These shops are never open at this time, so I have to presume that they don't want my trade.
I have no idea what 'Campaign for York' is and I have lived here my entire life. I don't recall ever being asked to sign a petition or even seeing a leaflet about this??
Surely, the point here is how many residents are for or against this scheme? I was coming from the standpoint of a general resident. I'm not a sports fan, so this doesn't bias my view. I was merely pointing out that most residents aren't too bothered either way.
I shop in the town centre and Monks Cross. I can't really see this changing as I work in the town centre and live near Monks Cross. However, if I don't have to come into town, I don't. This is because buses are expensive and the town centre aimed at residents is basically Coney Street and Parliament street. In recent years, CYC has actively enhanced the tourist side of York without doing a great deal for residents in the town centre.
Septimius Severus
says...
2:38pm Thu 16 Feb 12
I understand your points and thank you for the further points. I was trying to provide some reasons, but not excuses.
Gillygate is a special case. Most of it's shops target visitors (from the coach park) or students. Neither audience 'arrive' much before 10.
I was generalising about the whole of the city centre, most of which is foot streets between 11 and 4.
Of course out of town shopping is more convenient for some people for some products at certain times of day and days of the week.
The problem for many shops is that 'later or earlier' hours are not as commercially viable as the rest of the day.
Most shopping starts at 10 and finishes (when the market begins to pack up around 4 - 4.30) because vans etc don't make it a pleasant experience and people avoid York. A very small minority of people actually use the shops in the centre outside these hours. e.g. smaller shops would have to pay wages to staff with no customers to serve.
There have been experiments with late night opening (when car parking is cheaper), but because of the relaxation of Sunday hours trading most people would rather use that day than 7pm on a Thursday night and so they aren't that successful.
That said, shops of a certain size (e.g. the new JL or M&S) could only open for a limited number of hours on a Sunday anyway. I think it's 5 hours e.g. 11 till 4. Like the big supermarkets do now.
The buses into town are expensive and the car parking extortionately so. The 'traders' have no way of changing that though. Much as they would wish to.
Re 'Campaign for York', I understand it was named to reflect an aim to represent the majority of people and the buildings in the area. To protect existing jobs of the 10 - 12,000 people who work in retail and the ancient buildings being traded from.
You probably haven't heard of it before because it was only 'created' around the beginning of December last year.
There are leaflets around describing it's aims, which organisations are involved. I understand a website is under development with more info.
www.campaign4york.co
.uk has a holding page up at the moment.
The Great Buda
says...
3:10pm Thu 16 Feb 12
johnabostock
says...
3:13pm Thu 16 Feb 12
Off the subject slightly: where delivery vans and lorries are concerned, I have often felt that it would be better if the delivery firms had large warehouses on the outskirts of York and then transport their products in much smaller vehicles to the city centre. Coney Street must be one of the worst areas for being forced onto the road when walking round those huge lorries as they hug the pavements, and then to have to run as another vehicle tries to pass them so a pedestrian is squashed between stationary and a moving vehicles. It might work out more expensive but it might pull in more residents. The city centre of York cannot and has never been able to take these large articulated lorries or large vans because of its narrow roads. and as you say many people are put off from coming into York once the city centre is open to traffic of any type - it is too dangerous.
rogue84
says...
3:37pm Thu 16 Feb 12
it's been proved that this was due to incredibly bad management on behalf of their chief exec who was mortgaging season tickets sales over the course of 4 years, bringing in loans left-right and centre and running the club with incomings at £35mil a year, compared to outgoings of at least £45mil a year (just rough figures provided by the BBC).
York City are completely different. They have made and lost money in recent years but any deficit has been covered by the owners from their own pocket, and this has lead to a small increase in ticket prices over the last 10 years or so.
Rangers' plight is not a good example on how YCFC could end up. There have been many clubs in the same division as York that are punching well above their means, such as Fleetwood this season and particularly Crawley the season before.
They were paying massive wages to players (rumours of around £10,000 a week to former striker Matt Tubbs) despite having crowds that barely broke 1,000. The losses they are inevitably making will catch up with them eventually.
Compare this to York who have a strict wage structure and are getting crowds on average of about 2,800-3,000 then you can see that the McGills are doing a good job keeping the club going.
The main reason why York have struggled so much to get back into the league is due to the fact that they haven't splashed cash on players to gamble on promotion as many have done previously.....Weymo
uth, Histon, Salisbury etc.
johnabostock
says...
3:52pm Thu 16 Feb 12
rogue84 wrote:ReginaldBiscuit: Just to add to rogue84`s comments above and to reiterate once more that it was a businessman (opposite of Michael Sinclair, father of Adam Sinclair) who created the problems 8 years ago by trying to walk off with £4 million which the ground and all on it was worth at that time. The McGills have done a very good job keeping the Club going with a limited budget. However, the ground dates back to 1932 and needs a heck of a lot spent on it to bring it up to modern day health and safety standards. It used to be ond of the best FL 3rd / 4th Division grounds but is too costly to maintain in today`s world.
sorry but the example of Rangers going into administration (not gone bust) is fairly extreme.
it's been proved that this was due to incredibly bad management on behalf of their chief exec who was mortgaging season tickets sales over the course of 4 years, bringing in loans left-right and centre and running the club with incomings at £35mil a year, compared to outgoings of at least £45mil a year (just rough figures provided by the BBC).
York City are completely different. They have made and lost money in recent years but any deficit has been covered by the owners from their own pocket, and this has lead to a small increase in ticket prices over the last 10 years or so.
Rangers' plight is not a good example on how YCFC could end up. There have been many clubs in the same division as York that are punching well above their means, such as Fleetwood this season and particularly Crawley the season before.
They were paying massive wages to players (rumours of around £10,000 a week to former striker Matt Tubbs) despite having crowds that barely broke 1,000. The losses they are inevitably making will catch up with them eventually.
Compare this to York who have a strict wage structure and are getting crowds on average of about 2,800-3,000 then you can see that the McGills are doing a good job keeping the club going.
The main reason why York have struggled so much to get back into the league is due to the fact that they haven't splashed cash on players to gamble on promotion as many have done previously.....Weymo
uth, Histon, Salisbury etc.
Septimius Severus
says...
3:57pm Thu 16 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:1-0 to Buda! Keeping score are you?
If your quick you can be the 10th person to "like" the "campaign for York" on facebook.
Septimius Severus
says...
4:06pm Thu 16 Feb 12
johnabostock wrote:Here's the rub...
rogue84 wrote:ReginaldBiscuit: Just to add to rogue84`s comments above and to reiterate once more that it was a businessman (opposite of Michael Sinclair, father of Adam Sinclair) who created the problems 8 years ago by trying to walk off with £4 million which the ground and all on it was worth at that time. The McGills have done a very good job keeping the Club going with a limited budget. However, the ground dates back to 1932 and needs a heck of a lot spent on it to bring it up to modern day health and safety standards. It used to be ond of the best FL 3rd / 4th Division grounds but is too costly to maintain in today`s world.
sorry but the example of Rangers going into administration (not gone bust) is fairly extreme.
it's been proved that this was due to incredibly bad management on behalf of their chief exec who was mortgaging season tickets sales over the course of 4 years, bringing in loans left-right and centre and running the club with incomings at £35mil a year, compared to outgoings of at least £45mil a year (just rough figures provided by the BBC).
York City are completely different. They have made and lost money in recent years but any deficit has been covered by the owners from their own pocket, and this has lead to a small increase in ticket prices over the last 10 years or so.
Rangers' plight is not a good example on how YCFC could end up. There have been many clubs in the same division as York that are punching well above their means, such as Fleetwood this season and particularly Crawley the season before.
They were paying massive wages to players (rumours of around £10,000 a week to former striker Matt Tubbs) despite having crowds that barely broke 1,000. The losses they are inevitably making will catch up with them eventually.
Compare this to York who have a strict wage structure and are getting crowds on average of about 2,800-3,000 then you can see that the McGills are doing a good job keeping the club going.
The main reason why York have struggled so much to get back into the league is due to the fact that they haven't splashed cash on players to gamble on promotion as many have done previously.....Weymo
uth, Histon, Salisbury etc.
"York City are completely different. They have made and lost money in recent years but any deficit has been covered by the owners from their own pocket, and this has lead to a small increase in ticket prices over the last 10 years or so."
They have not 'covered it', they have lent it to the club, with massive compound interest.
£100k p.a. at first, then nearly £200k...
This season the supporters trust did not approve the £300,000 'loan' before the season started (as they are meant to by the terms of the arrangement) nor did they see the budgets before players wages and 'staff or Directors remuneration costs were agreed. But then I believe they don't see regular management accounts either (even though these were also promised / guaranteed).
Which brings us to... if the club needs £300,000 p.a. loan to break even now, how much is it going to need if it has to pay £300,000 p.a. rent?
rogue84
says...
4:20pm Thu 16 Feb 12
they have put £1.3mil of their own cash into the club and are due to receive that back eventually, but they've already confirmed that they won't be taking any more on top of that.
johnabostock
says...
4:21pm Thu 16 Feb 12
Simples ..... YCFC won`t have the massive outlay they now have (1932 ground which to maintain now is £250,000 every month and FF loan which is turned into a grant).
Septimius Severus
says...
4:34pm Thu 16 Feb 12
If they set a budget £300k over what their income is why should the club pay 1p interest.
I think they offered to waive the interest if... the YCST agreed amended elements of the agreement.
Those elements would be interesting to know. wonder if it was anything to do with 'not profiting' from the sale of BC?
Bostock: So the 'crumbling stadium' was costing £120k - £150k p.a. to maintain and now it's £250k a month? That's £6m p.a.
What?
johnabostock
says...
4:50pm Thu 16 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:I do apologise SS, fingers in gear before brain. Figure should be £50,000 a year. On top of that the FF loan to buy BC back from the businessman. But the following are also vital points to remember:
Rogue: you implied they gave the club the money lost by saying 'covered it'.
If they set a budget £300k over what their income is why should the club pay 1p interest.
I think they offered to waive the interest if... the YCST agreed amended elements of the agreement.
Those elements would be interesting to know. wonder if it was anything to do with 'not profiting' from the sale of BC?
Bostock: So the 'crumbling stadium' was costing £120k - £150k p.a. to maintain and now it's £250k a month? That's £6m p.a.
What?
•Crippling interest rates.
•Lack of corporate facilities.
•No facilities to provide income beyond match days.
Septimius Severus
says...
5:06pm Thu 16 Feb 12
I knew something was wrong.
Hey, please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that YCFC have it cushy.
I was merely pointing out a viable plan needs to be in place before an enabling development can be proven.
With £300k rent on the cost minus existing maintenance plus further revenue from better corporate facilities could work, but no-one knows. It's all guess work.
Not sure why you think there is an FF loan to pay though. Think it's well documented that this will be 'granted' at sometime either way.
Crippling interest rates from where?
johnabostock
says...
5:08pm Thu 16 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
5:25pm Thu 16 Feb 12
I'm a Pantheonist, as were all good Romans before bloody Constantine.
bloodaxe
says...
5:27pm Thu 16 Feb 12
Even AndyD
says...
6:08pm Thu 16 Feb 12
COYC has a budget for sport and leisure - it can spend that on what it thinks will benefit the York Community. I for one think a stadium falls within that bracket, as seen at most other towns and cities up and down the country. You can throw the old 'public money for private business' cliche into the ring as many times as you wish, it still won't make it valid.
city_view
says...
7:20pm Thu 16 Feb 12
Also, am curious about how much value is being put on the potential 'corporate facilities' a new venue would offer. Was out at Monk's Cross today, near the intended development site. It's a bit remote and soulless out there, isn't it. Can't really see where the demand would come from for new facilities for corporate entertaining etc?
I suppose I could go and scrutinise the available documents for answers, but I'm lazy and hoping someone who's already read them can tell me instead.
speaks99
says...
7:49pm Thu 16 Feb 12
There has been a deficit in running the club for quite a few years now - several hundred thousand per year, which is the main reason we need to move out of Bootham Crescent and into a new stadium, with the ever popular "income streams" which this will create. The club cannot count on selling a Brodie or drawing a Bolton in the FA cup every year, and certainly cannot continue paying crippling maintenance costs to upkeep a 1930's stadium never designed for the rigours of a 21st century health and safety environment.
I'm not sure whether the supporters trust did or did not veto a further loan to the club. If it did, it didn't make it into the press, however, I would be surprised with the levels of signings we have made this year should that statement be true. I'll ask around to find out, unless any YCFC supporters out there can confirm this??
The whole debate about football clubs management in general is quite an interesting one. All the rules seem to go out the window where football club owners are concerned (sometimes). I don't know what it is but very good businessmen turn into stupid children at the prospect of moving up a division. I heard on the radio yesterday that there are 9 clubs in the Championship who's wage bill alone is higher than the entire income of the club. This can't be sustainable, which is why there are so many clubs going into administration. I don't think York are in that category.
speaks99
says...
8:24pm Thu 16 Feb 12
city_view wrote:The last annual accounts which listed maintenance had the figure of £80k there. I think that was 5 years ago in 2007, so its entirely feasible that this will have crept over the £100k mark. Not sure where I heard £120k - think I read it in the press...
Where have the figures on the maintenance costs for Bootham Crescent come from, and have they been somewhat simplified/averaged out for a monthly figure? The away end has clearly had fairly major work done on it at some point recently - from the outside metal plates are visible which look as if they may be stabilising the outer wall so it doesn't collapse into the street ... But that was presumably a one-off cost.
Also, am curious about how much value is being put on the potential 'corporate facilities' a new venue would offer. Was out at Monk's Cross today, near the intended development site. It's a bit remote and soulless out there, isn't it. Can't really see where the demand would come from for new facilities for corporate entertaining etc?
I suppose I could go and scrutinise the available documents for answers, but I'm lazy and hoping someone who's already read them can tell me instead.
The difference is the scale of maintenance work required on an old stadium. It's not like rewiring your house. There is general work required for H&S (PAT testing, Keeping the floodlights maintained, 1930's plumbing issues etc) which will run into several thousands per year. Then you can get hit by the big stuff, like underpinning the away end. I wonder also if they have to have this regularly inspected. Plus the tunnel under the pop stand is closed off - is this due to maintenance issues? Plus this is only the areas that we see, which is a rectangle of grass, and the front of four stands. I can well imagine that behind what we see is a very tired looking stadium.
A new venue would instantly attract corporate sponsorship just for being new and there. This will tail off, but maybe businesses would not be as embarrassed taking clients to a purpose built stadium, rather than an embarrassing BC. Plus it would open up other corporate options - 3 course meal before match instead of buffet, etc, which both clubs could charge more for. Plus, more stadium advertising boards up, again charging more for being involved in a new stadium, rather than a crumvling down one.
johnabostock
says...
9:56pm Thu 16 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:I knew my figures were way out as I couldn`t find any info on the official Club site apart from AStadiumforYork.com but but no date on it and reading 85 pages on the R&B stadium thread was daunting. The £50,000 I mentioned must have been on a much earlier version of AStadiumforYork.com
city_view wrote:The last annual accounts which listed maintenance had the figure of £80k there. I think that was 5 years ago in 2007, so its entirely feasible that this will have crept over the £100k mark. Not sure where I heard £120k - think I read it in the press...
Where have the figures on the maintenance costs for Bootham Crescent come from, and have they been somewhat simplified/averaged out for a monthly figure? The away end has clearly had fairly major work done on it at some point recently - from the outside metal plates are visible which look as if they may be stabilising the outer wall so it doesn't collapse into the street ... But that was presumably a one-off cost.
Also, am curious about how much value is being put on the potential 'corporate facilities' a new venue would offer. Was out at Monk's Cross today, near the intended development site. It's a bit remote and soulless out there, isn't it. Can't really see where the demand would come from for new facilities for corporate entertaining etc?
I suppose I could go and scrutinise the available documents for answers, but I'm lazy and hoping someone who's already read them can tell me instead.
The difference is the scale of maintenance work required on an old stadium. It's not like rewiring your house. There is general work required for H&S (PAT testing, Keeping the floodlights maintained, 1930's plumbing issues etc) which will run into several thousands per year. Then you can get hit by the big stuff, like underpinning the away end. I wonder also if they have to have this regularly inspected. Plus the tunnel under the pop stand is closed off - is this due to maintenance issues? Plus this is only the areas that we see, which is a rectangle of grass, and the front of four stands. I can well imagine that behind what we see is a very tired looking stadium.
A new venue would instantly attract corporate sponsorship just for being new and there. This will tail off, but maybe businesses would not be as embarrassed taking clients to a purpose built stadium, rather than an embarrassing BC. Plus it would open up other corporate options - 3 course meal before match instead of buffet, etc, which both clubs could charge more for. Plus, more stadium advertising boards up, again charging more for being involved in a new stadium, rather than a crumvling down one.
Septimius Severus
says...
12:03am Fri 17 Feb 12
A community hall / gallery / pool / park / library / etc can be hired / used by any individual in the community.
A community running track could.
But a community stadium?
When was the last time members of the public were allowed to hire a community football / rugby pitch?
(Unless you mean on the Knavesmire.)
The Barbican is a community facility. Can you hire that?
Council budget isn't for people to watch people doing community activities. It's to allow community activities through facilities.
Speaks: Even selling Brodie and drawing Bolton they still needed a loan from the Malton Mafia of £300,000 this season.
The supporters trust would not have vetoed the loan otherwise the contracts committed to would have had to be breached leading to a catastrophic collapse.
city_view
says...
12:04am Fri 17 Feb 12
Would be interested to know how many older 'traditional' grounds are still in use.
speaks99
says...
6:59am Fri 17 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:I'm glad you have a good handle on the YCFC accounts. Please tell me what there bottom line figure was this year. Oh, I forgot, you can't. Thats because they haven't been published yet.
Even Andy: bloodaxe's point is valid.
A community hall / gallery / pool / park / library / etc can be hired / used by any individual in the community.
A community running track could.
But a community stadium?
When was the last time members of the public were allowed to hire a community football / rugby pitch?
(Unless you mean on the Knavesmire.)
The Barbican is a community facility. Can you hire that?
Council budget isn't for people to watch people doing community activities. It's to allow community activities through facilities.
Speaks: Even selling Brodie and drawing Bolton they still needed a loan from the Malton Mafia of £300,000 this season.
The supporters trust would not have vetoed the loan otherwise the contracts committed to would have had to be breached leading to a catastrophic collapse.
So don't try and tell me what is going on in MY football club, a club which you appear to have very little knowledge, and a source who appears to be telling you rubbish which you repeat on here ad verbatim. You are taking an (unconfirmed) situation, and painting it any way you want. Lies Lies Lies. But if that's how you want to run your camaign then carry on. I've caught you several times repeating lies, I'll just keep on doing it.
johnabostock
says...
7:30am Fri 17 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:I have to say Speaks that even if I don`t agree with the views of SS and bloodaxe I can see their point of view. It would be nice if not only the Council but the McGills and ST were more transparent with their figures, estimations and business plan for all to see. Even before the McGills took over the running of the Club, the ST weren`t as transparent as they should have been with supporters otherwise an `inner sanctum` would not have been established working behind the scenes with the McGills. I put in quite a bit of my hard earned cash to save YCFC after DC and JB did the `dirty` on us and even now the ST are far too quiet on important issues, yet they are trying to increase their member numbers. They still own 25%-1% (why they can`t just say 24%) of the shares of the Club and yet the silence is deafening with very, very important decisions that make me ask `why should my wife or myself join them?`
Septimius Severus wrote:I'm glad you have a good handle on the YCFC accounts. Please tell me what there bottom line figure was this year. Oh, I forgot, you can't. Thats because they haven't been published yet.
Even Andy: bloodaxe's point is valid.
A community hall / gallery / pool / park / library / etc can be hired / used by any individual in the community.
A community running track could.
But a community stadium?
When was the last time members of the public were allowed to hire a community football / rugby pitch?
(Unless you mean on the Knavesmire.)
The Barbican is a community facility. Can you hire that?
Council budget isn't for people to watch people doing community activities. It's to allow community activities through facilities.
Speaks: Even selling Brodie and drawing Bolton they still needed a loan from the Malton Mafia of £300,000 this season.
The supporters trust would not have vetoed the loan otherwise the contracts committed to would have had to be breached leading to a catastrophic collapse.
So don't try and tell me what is going on in MY football club, a club which you appear to have very little knowledge, and a source who appears to be telling you rubbish which you repeat on here ad verbatim. You are taking an (unconfirmed) situation, and painting it any way you want. Lies Lies Lies. But if that's how you want to run your camaign then carry on. I've caught you several times repeating lies, I'll just keep on doing it.
windowlicker
says...
8:14am Fri 17 Feb 12
( anyone remember the Wasps? Moving from Clarence street helped them not at all)
Ive listened to all the arguments for moving, and still can't see how in any way this will help either club!
rogue84
says...
9:13am Fri 17 Feb 12
I wish that we could stay at Bootham Crescent as it's a ground seeping with some great memories for me, but it's just not possible with the money needed to keep it going. If a City fan had a lottery win and could hand over £10mil (roughly!) then am sure the club could stay and develop it to bring it up to a decent standard.....unless this happens, the only way is to move.
johnabostock
says...
9:32am Fri 17 Feb 12
rogue84 wrote:Don`t you think it would make the decision to move or not to move a lot easier if everyone was transparent, and it didn`t look as though there were hidden agendas. Plus, if a new stadium has to be built there are much better areas in the City area itself than rather feel as though you are being pushed to MX, which is what DC tried to do. But, we all know what those areas are being used for!
windowlicker I am the same as you, i'm a York fan, have been since the age of 5 and have seen them through the thin and even thinner years.
I wish that we could stay at Bootham Crescent as it's a ground seeping with some great memories for me, but it's just not possible with the money needed to keep it going. If a City fan had a lottery win and could hand over £10mil (roughly!) then am sure the club could stay and develop it to bring it up to a decent standard.....unless this happens, the only way is to move.
Also, another important point that is being heard this morning via radio news: city centre shops are being dramatically closed all over the country, so it is not just York (just a few comments found:
An average of 14 town centre shops a day were shut by store chains last year as shoppers increasingly desert high streets for online and out-of-town retailers, new figures show.
and
Stores selling books, electrical items, home furnishings, menswear and holidays were the hardest hit, along with off-licences, bars and pubs. And in a reflection of austerity Britain, pound stores, charity shops, credit unions, supermarkets and retailers selling convenience food all increased their store numbers.
and
Christine Cross, chief retail adviser to PwC, said: "Inevitably, the reduction in consumer confidence and growth in online spend has placed pressure on retail return on space. There is no point in paying for space that is not earning its keep."
TerryYork
says...
11:10am Fri 17 Feb 12
What a pointless and pathetic campaign they are.
only human
says...
11:23am Fri 17 Feb 12
I lived in Clifton when my children were small and we used to take a stroll along Bootham to the city centre and into woollies and C&A etc which was very convenient and we got exercise and no parking costs incurred.
One of the major downsides to attempting to go into town are the silly parking charges,but another is the fact that the big supestores are a more time effective way to shop as so many of them have the majority of what you need all under one roof.
The kids are grown up now and we have long since moved across to Huntington and i am looking forward to the leisurely stroll to the shops again,only this time it will be the grandkids in tow and the route will be along the cycle/footpath which runs between New Lane and Monks Cross.
With additional plans for recreation areas this could even have a knock on effect on local residential property prices.
talking of which,does anyone have any idea what happened to plans to build on land along New Lane Huntington as that has been in the pipeline since we moved across to Huntington.
Septimius Severus
says...
12:28pm Fri 17 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:It's not a lie, just because you just believe it no not be true. Big difference.
Septimius Severus wrote:I'm glad you have a good handle on the YCFC accounts. Please tell me what there bottom line figure was this year. Oh, I forgot, you can't. Thats because they haven't been published yet.
Even Andy: bloodaxe's point is valid.
A community hall / gallery / pool / park / library / etc can be hired / used by any individual in the community.
A community running track could.
But a community stadium?
When was the last time members of the public were allowed to hire a community football / rugby pitch?
(Unless you mean on the Knavesmire.)
The Barbican is a community facility. Can you hire that?
Council budget isn't for people to watch people doing community activities. It's to allow community activities through facilities.
Speaks: Even selling Brodie and drawing Bolton they still needed a loan from the Malton Mafia of £300,000 this season.
The supporters trust would not have vetoed the loan otherwise the contracts committed to would have had to be breached leading to a catastrophic collapse.
So don't try and tell me what is going on in MY football club, a club which you appear to have very little knowledge, and a source who appears to be telling you rubbish which you repeat on here ad verbatim. You are taking an (unconfirmed) situation, and painting it any way you want. Lies Lies Lies. But if that's how you want to run your camaign then carry on. I've caught you several times repeating lies, I'll just keep on doing it.
All you have to do is ask a director of YCST how much the loan was and why they passed it.
Septimius Severus
says...
2:35pm Fri 17 Feb 12
johnabostock wrote:The 25% - 1% is to do with Shareholders Rights. Essentially if you have 25% or more you can 'block' resolutions made by the other Shareholders.
speaks99 wrote:I have to say Speaks that even if I don`t agree with the views of SS and bloodaxe I can see their point of view. It would be nice if not only the Council but the McGills and ST were more transparent with their figures, estimations and business plan for all to see. Even before the McGills took over the running of the Club, the ST weren`t as transparent as they should have been with supporters otherwise an `inner sanctum` would not have been established working behind the scenes with the McGills. I put in quite a bit of my hard earned cash to save YCFC after DC and JB did the `dirty` on us and even now the ST are far too quiet on important issues, yet they are trying to increase their member numbers. They still own 25%-1% (why they can`t just say 24%) of the shares of the Club and yet the silence is deafening with very, very important decisions that make me ask `why should my wife or myself join them?`
Septimius Severus wrote:I'm glad you have a good handle on the YCFC accounts. Please tell me what there bottom line figure was this year. Oh, I forgot, you can't. Thats because they haven't been published yet.
Even Andy: bloodaxe's point is valid.
A community hall / gallery / pool / park / library / etc can be hired / used by any individual in the community.
A community running track could.
But a community stadium?
When was the last time members of the public were allowed to hire a community football / rugby pitch?
(Unless you mean on the Knavesmire.)
The Barbican is a community facility. Can you hire that?
Council budget isn't for people to watch people doing community activities. It's to allow community activities through facilities.
Speaks: Even selling Brodie and drawing Bolton they still needed a loan from the Malton Mafia of £300,000 this season.
The supporters trust would not have vetoed the loan otherwise the contracts committed to would have had to be breached leading to a catastrophic collapse.
So don't try and tell me what is going on in MY football club, a club which you appear to have very little knowledge, and a source who appears to be telling you rubbish which you repeat on here ad verbatim. You are taking an (unconfirmed) situation, and painting it any way you want. Lies Lies Lies. But if that's how you want to run your camaign then carry on. I've caught you several times repeating lies, I'll just keep on doing it.
With only 24% you can't.
Steve,
says...
4:20pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Dr Brian wrote:I had to laugh at this, I think before declaring how big an amount 400 is givent the size and scale of York you need to reconsider how to deliver a dramatic response in text. 400 against is less than a drop in an ocean. It is barely 'big' nevermind 'massive'.
400 objecters is a MASSIVE amount of people against it - Remember the football club have been publicising it around their 2500 fan base to say YES telling their fans to write to the Council so many of the people who are supporting supporting the scheme merely because they want a new stadium and not looking at the bigger picture. I wonder how many of these York City fans ACTUALLY live in York and how many of them ACTUALLY pay York Council tax? Surely they have NO right to make any comments in a decision that will affect the local York economy?
With so many objections I would be certainly surprised if the Council do not put this to a public enquiry, If they don't I am sure like me many people who are Labour voters who don't support the scheme will certainly remember when the local council elections are next held.
With such vast numbers saying both Yes and No to the scheme the only way forward HAS to be a public enquiry taking the decision out of the hands of the Council.
Steve,
says...
5:17pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:I haven't had any leaflets thru the door, and if I did I would be delivering it back to either the deliverer or wherever they set their 'HQ'.
The Great Buda wrote:How can 400 objections be a failure?
No one is claiming victory Septimus; just pointing out that the "campaign for York" has failed.
You obviously underestimate the complexity of the argument.
On the one hand:
'Want a free stadium to rescue a failed football club and have a nice big John Lewis on your doorstep'...
(Nice and simple)
versus
'the huge economic and environmental impact of job losses and promoting more car use'.
(Not easy to explain how)
YCFC have had the time, desperation and infrastructure, and Oakgate the promise of £gazillions profit to do better than 693 letters of support - on which this article is based.
Putting up a few posters, handing out a few 1000 leaflets and balancing the press spin since the middle of December when the 'Campaign' started is, I would say, not bad.
Far from 'failed'.
This isn't over till the fat lady (Pickles) sings.
CYC will indeed be cleaning roads round any MX2 site, but the companies up there altogether (new and old) will be paying rent, a portion of which covers road cleaning, no?
I like how none of the typical city shops will be affected but they're kicking up a fuss. Betty's threaten to close; how many cafe's and tea rooms are at MX1 now? and how many have shown interest to move up for MX2? - none?
I went to Anti-Gravity yesterday but saw the campaign sign in their window so walked past and shopped at Argos instead. City Centre tourist shops are not going to lose anything with the success of MX2 yet no-one has informed me of why they're against it. Are they just stomping their feet for sake of having something to moan about? - Septimius wrote:
"Re 'Campaign for York', I understand it was named to reflect an aim to represent the majority of people and the buildings in the area. To protect existing jobs of the 10 - 12,000 people who work in retail and the ancient buildings being traded from.
" - the reality is that NONE of the shops you aim that at are affected. So why such a stink?
I worked from 2006 til 2010 for a company based on Micklegate - they sponsored York's reserve team for a time as did 'Nycom', YCFC would be in a better position if the traders of it's own city actually sponsored their club.
City_View mentioned that the MX P&R area is a bit soundless, which is fine for 'other uses'(conference cetre) within a new club ground; where else provides conferences services in york right now? Only the Science Park?
I'm sorry Sept but "community facilities" are venues which benefit a community, not necesarily owned by. A new stadium benefitting both clubs in one is a community facility and should be thought so.
I'm for it, because jobs and new facilities are good for York, add to that there is realistic points against; it's a no brainer.
Malcolm
says...
8:24pm Fri 17 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
8:29pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Just because you say it happened, certainly doesn't make it true!
Steve,
says...
11:11pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Even AndyD
says...
6:32pm Sun 19 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
10:56pm Sun 19 Feb 12
Even AndyD wrote:Point me at the insult above. Please.
You know Septimius has lost it when he/she starts hurling insults around. For the umpteenth time, can we keep things within civilised boundaries.
slapshot-armo
says...
12:40pm Mon 20 Feb 12
We have football grounds.
We dont have an Ice Rink - build an Ice Rink allready!
long distance depressive
says...
4:37pm Mon 20 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
5:20pm Mon 20 Feb 12
Catwoman1970
says...
7:26pm Mon 20 Feb 12
The Great Buda
says...
8:12am Tue 21 Feb 12
city_view
says...
8:52am Tue 21 Feb 12
Jazzper
says...
3:59pm Tue 21 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
2:02pm Wed 22 Feb 12
o.uk)
There's a simple form that links directly to the planning department at the council you can submit.
Eric Bartholomew
says...
5:52pm Wed 22 Feb 12
There's a simple form that you can fill in to support the new Community Stadium Project.
The Great Buda says...
10:09am Wed 15 Feb 12
They don't speak for the people of York.