York City parent company pumps in £50k to cover call-off costs

York City parent company pumps in £50k to cover call-off costs

York City parent company pumps in £50k to cover call-off costs

First published in Sport York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Sports reporter

YORK City’s postponed game with Gillingham means parent company JM Packaging will need to sink around £50,000 into the club.

With the Minstermen without a home game until Burton Albion’s visit on New Year’s Day and with staff and players’ salaries to be paid, the club’s owners will need to cover costs which would have been met by gate receipts had the match gone ahead.

Football League rules mean City must also pay Gillingham’s travel and overnight expenses – another burden on the Bootham Crescent finances.

“It is really disappointing for everyone as we were looking forward to a good Christmas atmosphere,” said City communications and community director Sophie Hicks.

“The groundstaff, Wayne and Kevin, worked tirelessly over the past few days to try to make sure the game went ahead, but sadly the pitch just wasn’t playable.

“We are pleased that the referee was able to call the game off as early as possible so fans, especially those travelling, weren’t too inconvenienced.

“We kept Gillingham closely informed of the situation throughout the last few days. They had to travel up. You can’t call off a game the day before (in these circumstances).

“Their assistant manager came in on Saturday morning and met with Gary Mills and the referee. York City will have to cover their travel costs and overnight stay.

“Gillingham have been very co-operative and helpful throughout this process.”

Hicks added: “Most of all, we are disappointed that we weren’t able to play this great fixture just before Christmas.

“We were expecting a big crowd for this hotly anticipated game and it obviously hits the club finances. The players and staff are paid on the 29th of the month and obviously the proceeds of this game would have covered their salaries.

“That’s difficult but, fortunately, the parent company – JM Packaging – is able to assist with the cash flow difficulty.

“We hope people will come out and show the team their support on New Year’s Day.”

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:54am Mon 24 Dec 12

Dr Brian says...

Another 11 per cent of interest to pay to JMP when they get the pay back from the City!
Another 11 per cent of interest to pay to JMP when they get the pay back from the City! Dr Brian
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Mon 24 Dec 12

YCFC115 says...

Dr Brian wrote:
Another 11 per cent of interest to pay to JMP when they get the pay back from the City!
I'm sick and tired of hearing sob stories announced through the press from JM Packaging. We don't hear a bean from them when we get a windfall from promotion, TV revenue, Wembley appearances and most of all transfer fees.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: Another 11 per cent of interest to pay to JMP when they get the pay back from the City![/p][/quote]I'm sick and tired of hearing sob stories announced through the press from JM Packaging. We don't hear a bean from them when we get a windfall from promotion, TV revenue, Wembley appearances and most of all transfer fees. YCFC115
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Mon 24 Dec 12

PhilipInYork says...

WTF is this story. We made about 900,000 pounds like season. In one story I suddenly became VERY concerned about how this club is run.

I'd ask the trust, but they are completely useless.
WTF is this story. We made about 900,000 pounds like season. In one story I suddenly became VERY concerned about how this club is run. I'd ask the trust, but they are completely useless. PhilipInYork
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Mon 24 Dec 12

RooBeck says...

In having to comply with the Football League rules over the home club having to meet opponents costs/expenses for travel/overnight accomodation for any cancellations, isn't there available and don't clubs' take out, a relevant travel/cancellation insurance policy?? And couldn't this be tailored to say a four month period, covering the months Nov-Feb?
In having to comply with the Football League rules over the home club having to meet opponents costs/expenses for travel/overnight accomodation for any cancellations, isn't there available and don't clubs' take out, a relevant travel/cancellation insurance policy?? And couldn't this be tailored to say a four month period, covering the months Nov-Feb? RooBeck
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Daley Mayall says...

Any publicity for JMP is good....

....as long as it's good publicity, eh?
Any publicity for JMP is good.... ....as long as it's good publicity, eh? Daley Mayall
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Some old bloke says...

This is vague journalism at best. The headline seems to suggest that the money is a donation but at the end of the article it says it's just a cash flow problem, which presumably means the cash will be returned to JM Packaging within a few weeks (so what's the story exactly?)
This is vague journalism at best. The headline seems to suggest that the money is a donation but at the end of the article it says it's just a cash flow problem, which presumably means the cash will be returned to JM Packaging within a few weeks (so what's the story exactly?) Some old bloke
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Dr Brian says...

Some old bloke wrote:
This is vague journalism at best. The headline seems to suggest that the money is a donation but at the end of the article it says it's just a cash flow problem, which presumably means the cash will be returned to JM Packaging within a few weeks (so what's the story exactly?)
Can't blame the journalists though - there would be an empty gap to fill (no match report postponed game) and to be fair to the journalist they would not know without the McGills telling them - look what saints we are loaning some money and getting a high interest return for doing so.

Or could it just be a ploy by the McGills to highlight there is no money (where has the Wembley money gone?) as the January transfer window opens?
[quote][p][bold]Some old bloke[/bold] wrote: This is vague journalism at best. The headline seems to suggest that the money is a donation but at the end of the article it says it's just a cash flow problem, which presumably means the cash will be returned to JM Packaging within a few weeks (so what's the story exactly?)[/p][/quote]Can't blame the journalists though - there would be an empty gap to fill (no match report postponed game) and to be fair to the journalist they would not know without the McGills telling them - look what saints we are loaning some money and getting a high interest return for doing so. Or could it just be a ploy by the McGills to highlight there is no money (where has the Wembley money gone?) as the January transfer window opens? Dr Brian
  • Score: 0

7:55pm Mon 24 Dec 12

YO1 says...

Dr Brian wrote:
Some old bloke wrote:
This is vague journalism at best. The headline seems to suggest that the money is a donation but at the end of the article it says it's just a cash flow problem, which presumably means the cash will be returned to JM Packaging within a few weeks (so what's the story exactly?)
Can't blame the journalists though - there would be an empty gap to fill (no match report postponed game) and to be fair to the journalist they would not know without the McGills telling them - look what saints we are loaning some money and getting a high interest return for doing so.

Or could it just be a ploy by the McGills to highlight there is no money (where has the Wembley money gone?) as the January transfer window opens?
Jeez talk about festive cheer! If you are a real Doctor and don't like it, then do something else. It's your life, just stop trying to make everyone else miserable.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Some old bloke[/bold] wrote: This is vague journalism at best. The headline seems to suggest that the money is a donation but at the end of the article it says it's just a cash flow problem, which presumably means the cash will be returned to JM Packaging within a few weeks (so what's the story exactly?)[/p][/quote]Can't blame the journalists though - there would be an empty gap to fill (no match report postponed game) and to be fair to the journalist they would not know without the McGills telling them - look what saints we are loaning some money and getting a high interest return for doing so. Or could it just be a ploy by the McGills to highlight there is no money (where has the Wembley money gone?) as the January transfer window opens?[/p][/quote]Jeez talk about festive cheer! If you are a real Doctor and don't like it, then do something else. It's your life, just stop trying to make everyone else miserable. YO1
  • Score: 0

9:51am Tue 25 Dec 12

redwhiteblue says...

Once again the McGills are the bad boys - we have them to thank we have a Club - remember every year we budget for £300K loss. McGill's also stated sometime ago they would not be implementing the 11% - Doctor F.... get your facts right, how about you putting your hand in your pocket mate
Once again the McGills are the bad boys - we have them to thank we have a Club - remember every year we budget for £300K loss. McGill's also stated sometime ago they would not be implementing the 11% - Doctor F.... get your facts right, how about you putting your hand in your pocket mate redwhiteblue
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Tue 25 Dec 12

YCFC115 says...

redwhiteblue wrote:
Once again the McGills are the bad boys - we have them to thank we have a Club - remember every year we budget for £300K loss. McGill's also stated sometime ago they would not be implementing the 11% - Doctor F.... get your facts right, how about you putting your hand in your pocket mate
The McGills need to remember who saved the CLUB in the first place. No sign of the McGills then until it was all sorted out by the Beck and the trust - get your facts right redwhiteblue. Sick of hearing that the McGills saved the club, NO THEY DID NOT - i have £300 shares that are as much use as toilet paper to prove it.
[quote][p][bold]redwhiteblue[/bold] wrote: Once again the McGills are the bad boys - we have them to thank we have a Club - remember every year we budget for £300K loss. McGill's also stated sometime ago they would not be implementing the 11% - Doctor F.... get your facts right, how about you putting your hand in your pocket mate[/p][/quote]The McGills need to remember who saved the CLUB in the first place. No sign of the McGills then until it was all sorted out by the Beck and the trust - get your facts right redwhiteblue. Sick of hearing that the McGills saved the club, NO THEY DID NOT - i have £300 shares that are as much use as toilet paper to prove it. YCFC115
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Tue 25 Dec 12

YO1 says...

Generous gesture that it was, your £300 didn't save the club I'm afraid, it needed a group of people willing to invest time and business acumen to sort the mess out and cut a deal with the Administrators. Many people contributed to saving the club, many of whom will not get full acknowledgement in the history books. However to say the McGills were not a big part of saving the club or for continuing to save the club is naive and rather ignorant.
Generous gesture that it was, your £300 didn't save the club I'm afraid, it needed a group of people willing to invest time and business acumen to sort the mess out and cut a deal with the Administrators. Many people contributed to saving the club, many of whom will not get full acknowledgement in the history books. However to say the McGills were not a big part of saving the club or for continuing to save the club is naive and rather ignorant. YO1
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Tue 25 Dec 12

redwhiteblue says...

YO1 - well said - we all put money into saving the Club and continue to pay our fair share - but the major share was contributed by the McGills and they continue to do so on a day to day basis - they also supported the ambitions of Gary Mills with funds to build the side that put our great Club back in the Football League
YO1 - well said - we all put money into saving the Club and continue to pay our fair share - but the major share was contributed by the McGills and they continue to do so on a day to day basis - they also supported the ambitions of Gary Mills with funds to build the side that put our great Club back in the Football League redwhiteblue
  • Score: 0

6:03am Wed 26 Dec 12

YCFC115 says...

Its all very well putting funds into the club when there is no risk whats so ever and another putting their own money in without any guarantees of a return. All they have done is invest their companies money into a business that could not fail because of the assets attached to it and to supplement that they attached a whopping 11% interest rate to their invest. Its a very sound business plan and not just out of sheer love of the club. That love was shown by all the true supporters that backed the trust when we needed them most. Thats who saved the club and NOT the McGills.
Its all very well putting funds into the club when there is no risk whats so ever and another putting their own money in without any guarantees of a return. All they have done is invest their companies money into a business that could not fail because of the assets attached to it and to supplement that they attached a whopping 11% interest rate to their invest. Its a very sound business plan and not just out of sheer love of the club. That love was shown by all the true supporters that backed the trust when we needed them most. Thats who saved the club and NOT the McGills. YCFC115
  • Score: 0

8:16am Wed 26 Dec 12

south bronx red 2 says...

Lost £50k ?
Big crowd ?
Two things .... The game hasn't been cancelled.
The last saturday prior christmas usually has the worst gate of the season . Sometimes used as an excuse in the past as to why the gate dropped.
Surprised we didn't get some waffle about how important the monks folly move was. But there again , the gridlock around there without a ground was bad enough.
Lost £50k ? Big crowd ? Two things .... The game hasn't been cancelled. The last saturday prior christmas usually has the worst gate of the season . Sometimes used as an excuse in the past as to why the gate dropped. Surprised we didn't get some waffle about how important the monks folly move was. But there again , the gridlock around there without a ground was bad enough. south bronx red 2
  • Score: 0

8:20am Wed 26 Dec 12

south bronx red 2 says...

redwhiteblue wrote:
YO1 - well said - we all put money into saving the Club and continue to pay our fair share - but the major share was contributed by the McGills and they continue to do so on a day to day basis - they also supported the ambitions of Gary Mills with funds to build the side that put our great Club back in the Football League
A football club is nothing without paying customers.
What would have the loss been to JMP had the support gone ?
Answer : Damaged ego.
[quote][p][bold]redwhiteblue[/bold] wrote: YO1 - well said - we all put money into saving the Club and continue to pay our fair share - but the major share was contributed by the McGills and they continue to do so on a day to day basis - they also supported the ambitions of Gary Mills with funds to build the side that put our great Club back in the Football League[/p][/quote]A football club is nothing without paying customers. What would have the loss been to JMP had the support gone ? Answer : Damaged ego. south bronx red 2
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree