York City take charge of operation of new Community Stadium

York City will operate the new Community Stadium when it is constructed

York City will operate the new Community Stadium when it is constructed

First published in Sport
Last updated
by

YORK CITY will be the masters of their own destiny in their new home - after announcing they will be responsible for operating and managing the Community Stadium.

The Minstermen will take charge of the Monks Cross ground, when it is completed in time for the 2016/17 season, on behalf of GLL, the company heading up the design, build and operation of the site.

City will be responsible for the general maintenance of the stadium, the upkeep of the pitch, spectator safety, stewarding, ticketing and the new venue’s conferencing and hospitality offering for an initial 13 year contract.

The club's board of directors presented a proposal to operate the stadium to the firms looking to win preferred bidder status from City of York Council and were subsequently approached by GLL to manage the new ground and be part of their overall bid.

Chiefs at Bootham Crescent today said that overture was made because of their "comprehensive experience" operating a sports stadium and the club's "strong local knowledge and understanding of sports fans in York".

A thrilled York City chairman Jason McGill said: "We are delighted to be operating the new community stadium on behalf of GLL, who are a charitable social enterprise and share our strong community ethos.

"The agreement will allow the football club to access stadium income on non-match days, as well as match days themselves, which we will in turn be able to reinvest in the team to further our footballing aspirations.

"The arrangement also helps with security of tenure and allows the club to maintain our close relationship with our supporters, something which may have diminished should a third party have been responsible for operating the stadium instead."

He added: “We are looking forward to welcoming York City Knights to Bootham Crescent while the new stadium is being built. Hopefully during this period, we will also get to know their supporters well and fully understand their stadium requirements to ensure a successful partnership.

"It is an exciting time for sport in York and we look forward to continuing our excellent working relationship with GLL and City of York Council.”

Chris Symons, GLL's director of development, said: "We are delighted to have been selected as the preferred bidder for the community stadium development in York in partnership with York City and City of York Council.

"The plans for the new stadium, leisure centre and community hub will no doubt become a unique, flagship project that will thrive in the heart of the city.”

McGill confirmed that the club's £2 million Football Foundation loan, which was awarded to ensure they could buy Bootham Crescent a decade ago, would now be converted into a grant for the new project.

McGill added: "York City will be eternally grateful to the Football Stadia Improvement Fund and the Football Foundation for their fantastic support over the years.

"Without them, the football club, in its current form, would not be here today and we certainly would not have been a Football League club looking forward to life in a new purpose built, 8,000 capacity community stadium.

"We also extend our thanks to the City of York Council and their officers for all their hard work in recent months to reach this very positive stage of the project.”

McGill and his fellow directors, along with a GLL representative and council chiefs, will be at Pitchside Bar, at BoothamCresent, on Monday between 3pm and 7pm.

Those interested will be able to view the proposed community stadium plans and ask questions about the scheme.

Comments (42)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:25am Sat 30 Aug 14

bill bailey says...

They are the obvious choice, Keep it in house I say , the club handling other parts of the stadium and making the profits from them will mean that they will be able to cover the rental they would have had to pay, Good all round for everybody, bring it on.
They are the obvious choice, Keep it in house I say , the club handling other parts of the stadium and making the profits from them will mean that they will be able to cover the rental they would have had to pay, Good all round for everybody, bring it on. bill bailey
  • Score: 14

8:27am Sat 30 Aug 14

yorkandproud says...

Good news that COYC will not have anything to do with the running of the stadium. Can't wait personally, but will be sad leaving Bootham Crescent after supporting City since 1959. Hopefully the Knights will prosper further at the new ground too. They are doing well and it will be great to see them back in the Championship .
Good news that COYC will not have anything to do with the running of the stadium. Can't wait personally, but will be sad leaving Bootham Crescent after supporting City since 1959. Hopefully the Knights will prosper further at the new ground too. They are doing well and it will be great to see them back in the Championship . yorkandproud
  • Score: 21

9:02am Sat 30 Aug 14

Zetkin says...

Good news for City's financial future!

Two hopes:

1) A fair share of conferencing revenue goes to the Knights.
2) Pressure is put on GLL to keep all its staff in employment throughout the transition period.
Good news for City's financial future! Two hopes: 1) A fair share of conferencing revenue goes to the Knights. 2) Pressure is put on GLL to keep all its staff in employment throughout the transition period. Zetkin
  • Score: 21

9:12am Sat 30 Aug 14

Daley Mayall says...

BoothamCresent? Give your head a shake whoever typed that report out.
BoothamCresent? Give your head a shake whoever typed that report out. Daley Mayall
  • Score: 8

9:18am Sat 30 Aug 14

Oaklands Resident says...

While York City were always -because of Football League rules - likely to be the principal tenant for the stadium, I thought that the Knights were guaranteed not to be worse off under the new arrangements at Huntington. They currently get a lot of their income form non match-day hospitality.

A joint statement from Knights/City would have been more convincing.

...and where does the money come from to pay off the debts secured against Bootham Crescent? Will there really be £2 million left to put into Huntington?

Still too many unanswered questions for a project which is already behind schedule and over budget.
While York City were always -because of Football League rules - likely to be the principal tenant for the stadium, I thought that the Knights were guaranteed not to be worse off under the new arrangements at Huntington. They currently get a lot of their income form non match-day hospitality. A joint statement from Knights/City would have been more convincing. ...and where does the money come from to pay off the debts secured against Bootham Crescent? Will there really be £2 million left to put into Huntington? Still too many unanswered questions for a project which is already behind schedule and over budget. Oaklands Resident
  • Score: -14

9:32am Sat 30 Aug 14

mark sertori says...

The bootham crescent site is worth far more than 2 million, oaklands resident. The football stadia improvement grant can also only be used to expand or build new stadia, this is stipulated in the agreement. If managed correctly, this has the potential to catapult York City to championship level, just look at Rotherham United. I am aware they have a wealthy chairman, but Mr Stewart has himself stated that the stadium is now fully funding the club's wage bill. Pretty impressive in a few years at the New York Stadium. It will also stand the Knights in good stead for a super league bid in the future. We need to dream big, York has great potential as a sporting city if we all get behind it. Come on York!
The bootham crescent site is worth far more than 2 million, oaklands resident. The football stadia improvement grant can also only be used to expand or build new stadia, this is stipulated in the agreement. If managed correctly, this has the potential to catapult York City to championship level, just look at Rotherham United. I am aware they have a wealthy chairman, but Mr Stewart has himself stated that the stadium is now fully funding the club's wage bill. Pretty impressive in a few years at the New York Stadium. It will also stand the Knights in good stead for a super league bid in the future. We need to dream big, York has great potential as a sporting city if we all get behind it. Come on York! mark sertori
  • Score: 21

9:54am Sat 30 Aug 14

windowlicker says...

It's not that many years ago Mcgoo was wanting to stay at BC, and not that many years ago his sister said the club want terracing.

Where's the terracing?
It's not that many years ago Mcgoo was wanting to stay at BC, and not that many years ago his sister said the club want terracing. Where's the terracing? windowlicker
  • Score: -27

10:01am Sat 30 Aug 14

windowlicker says...

Also regarding the £2 million ff loan being converted to a grant, that's misleading as the club has already had the money, it means it doesn't have to be paid back (one of the reasons we have to have an unnecessary all seater to comply with their terms, even though an all seater isn't a legal obligation)

The 2 million loan allowed the club to buy the ground from the last owner.
Also regarding the £2 million ff loan being converted to a grant, that's misleading as the club has already had the money, it means it doesn't have to be paid back (one of the reasons we have to have an unnecessary all seater to comply with their terms, even though an all seater isn't a legal obligation) The 2 million loan allowed the club to buy the ground from the last owner. windowlicker
  • Score: -18

10:07am Sat 30 Aug 14

mark sertori says...

Yes, I am aware we have already spent it. However, once Bootham crescent is sold, the mcgills will receive their loan back and we will still have some money left over. Just support the club and sport in the city as a whole. Stop looking for the negative and appreciate that it is happening. Surely the survival of the club is more important than if you get to stand up or not. I am pretty sure most in the main home end will just stand anyway.
Yes, I am aware we have already spent it. However, once Bootham crescent is sold, the mcgills will receive their loan back and we will still have some money left over. Just support the club and sport in the city as a whole. Stop looking for the negative and appreciate that it is happening. Surely the survival of the club is more important than if you get to stand up or not. I am pretty sure most in the main home end will just stand anyway. mark sertori
  • Score: 27

10:22am Sat 30 Aug 14

Paddycat says...

Do York City own Bootham Crescent at the moment or is it a shared ownership with someone else?
Do York City own Bootham Crescent at the moment or is it a shared ownership with someone else? Paddycat
  • Score: -9

10:27am Sat 30 Aug 14

Monks Boss says...

windowlicker wrote:
It's not that many years ago Mcgoo was wanting to stay at BC, and not that many years ago his sister said the club want terracing.

Where's the terracing?
It wasn't THAT long ago that the club nearly folded,get a grip and stop moaning ya big jessy.
[quote][p][bold]windowlicker[/bold] wrote: It's not that many years ago Mcgoo was wanting to stay at BC, and not that many years ago his sister said the club want terracing. Where's the terracing?[/p][/quote]It wasn't THAT long ago that the club nearly folded,get a grip and stop moaning ya big jessy. Monks Boss
  • Score: 28

11:13am Sat 30 Aug 14

Zetkin says...

Paddycat wrote:
Do York City own Bootham Crescent at the moment or is it a shared ownership with someone else?
City own the huge majority of shares in Bootham Crescent Holdings which owns the ground. There are other shareholders, including individual supporters who had shares in the old YCFC, me included. I'm not sure if the likes of Douglas Craig and Persimmon still have some shares.
[quote][p][bold]Paddycat[/bold] wrote: Do York City own Bootham Crescent at the moment or is it a shared ownership with someone else?[/p][/quote]City own the huge majority of shares in Bootham Crescent Holdings which owns the ground. There are other shareholders, including individual supporters who had shares in the old YCFC, me included. I'm not sure if the likes of Douglas Craig and Persimmon still have some shares. Zetkin
  • Score: 6

12:01pm Sat 30 Aug 14

duffy says...

Fantastic news, well done the board, the anti York City brigade will be fuming.
Fantastic news, well done the board, the anti York City brigade will be fuming. duffy
  • Score: 14

12:14pm Sat 30 Aug 14

speaks99 says...

Zetkin wrote:
Good news for City's financial future!

Two hopes:

1) A fair share of conferencing revenue goes to the Knights.
2) Pressure is put on GLL to keep all its staff in employment throughout the transition period.
Depends re the fair share of conferencing revenues. If they were paying a proportionate amount of rent then I would agree, but the knights have a drastically reduced rental compared to YCFC therefore they shouldn't receive the same benefits.
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Good news for City's financial future! Two hopes: 1) A fair share of conferencing revenue goes to the Knights. 2) Pressure is put on GLL to keep all its staff in employment throughout the transition period.[/p][/quote]Depends re the fair share of conferencing revenues. If they were paying a proportionate amount of rent then I would agree, but the knights have a drastically reduced rental compared to YCFC therefore they shouldn't receive the same benefits. speaks99
  • Score: 13

12:20pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Paddycat says...

Zetkin wrote:
Paddycat wrote:
Do York City own Bootham Crescent at the moment or is it a shared ownership with someone else?
City own the huge majority of shares in Bootham Crescent Holdings which owns the ground. There are other shareholders, including individual supporters who had shares in the old YCFC, me included. I'm not sure if the likes of Douglas Craig and Persimmon still have some shares.
Thanks, am just trying to follow the suggestion that once the ground has been sold there will be money left over for the Club.
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paddycat[/bold] wrote: Do York City own Bootham Crescent at the moment or is it a shared ownership with someone else?[/p][/quote]City own the huge majority of shares in Bootham Crescent Holdings which owns the ground. There are other shareholders, including individual supporters who had shares in the old YCFC, me included. I'm not sure if the likes of Douglas Craig and Persimmon still have some shares.[/p][/quote]Thanks, am just trying to follow the suggestion that once the ground has been sold there will be money left over for the Club. Paddycat
  • Score: 5

12:38pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Justin7 says...

Brilliant news! York City FC are the obvious the big player at this ground and the Knights, who I hope will do well, should be thankful they get to be involved with this as the much smaller club out of the two.

We can both make great progress together under this.

Wonderful decision. Forza York City!
Brilliant news! York City FC are the obvious the big player at this ground and the Knights, who I hope will do well, should be thankful they get to be involved with this as the much smaller club out of the two. We can both make great progress together under this. Wonderful decision. Forza York City! Justin7
  • Score: 4

1:06pm Sat 30 Aug 14

DavidBu says...

mark sertori wrote:
Yes, I am aware we have already spent it. However, once Bootham crescent is sold, the mcgills will receive their loan back and we will still have some money left over. Just support the club and sport in the city as a whole. Stop looking for the negative and appreciate that it is happening. Surely the survival of the club is more important than if you get to stand up or not. I am pretty sure most in the main home end will just stand anyway.
If supporters who are expected to sit down, so those behind them can see as well, intend to stand up, then I would have thought that we definitely need some terracing for them.
[quote][p][bold]mark sertori[/bold] wrote: Yes, I am aware we have already spent it. However, once Bootham crescent is sold, the mcgills will receive their loan back and we will still have some money left over. Just support the club and sport in the city as a whole. Stop looking for the negative and appreciate that it is happening. Surely the survival of the club is more important than if you get to stand up or not. I am pretty sure most in the main home end will just stand anyway.[/p][/quote]If supporters who are expected to sit down, so those behind them can see as well, intend to stand up, then I would have thought that we definitely need some terracing for them. DavidBu
  • Score: -3

1:08pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Dr Brian says...

Zetkin wrote:
Good news for City's financial future!

Two hopes:

1) A fair share of conferencing revenue goes to the Knights.
2) Pressure is put on GLL to keep all its staff in employment throughout the transition period.
Why should York City give the Knights a fair share of the conferencing revenue? York City are investing 2 million pounds in the stadium YCK investing nothing. York City will be running the stadium it will be their job to maximise revenue from conferencing facilities etc. YCFC therefore will be employing staff in these tasks paying wages to them etc. YCK will not be doing anything commercially to encourage conferencing etc. Basically what you are suggesting is a hand out for the RL club from the FC? Commercially I cannot see why that should happen?
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Good news for City's financial future! Two hopes: 1) A fair share of conferencing revenue goes to the Knights. 2) Pressure is put on GLL to keep all its staff in employment throughout the transition period.[/p][/quote]Why should York City give the Knights a fair share of the conferencing revenue? York City are investing 2 million pounds in the stadium YCK investing nothing. York City will be running the stadium it will be their job to maximise revenue from conferencing facilities etc. YCFC therefore will be employing staff in these tasks paying wages to them etc. YCK will not be doing anything commercially to encourage conferencing etc. Basically what you are suggesting is a hand out for the RL club from the FC? Commercially I cannot see why that should happen? Dr Brian
  • Score: 7

3:03pm Sat 30 Aug 14

dsom73 says...

York knights giving nothing?

Clearly don't know the history of the stadium or this project pr the fact its being built on the knights home ground.

Knights have and are giving plenty. Beside the politics, part of the new stadium will be the bit of the old stadium that York RL paid for with money from the sale of Clarence st.

Fair dos city running it, but the knights deserve more than a few gate receipts. And I suspect they'll get it.
York knights giving nothing? Clearly don't know the history of the stadium or this project pr the fact its being built on the knights home ground. Knights have and are giving plenty. Beside the politics, part of the new stadium will be the bit of the old stadium that York RL paid for with money from the sale of Clarence st. Fair dos city running it, but the knights deserve more than a few gate receipts. And I suspect they'll get it. dsom73
  • Score: 5

11:50pm Sat 30 Aug 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

So, Monks Cross is in the heart of York?
"The plans for the new stadium, leisure centre and community hub will no doubt become a unique, flagship project that will thrive in the heart of the city.”
Somebody needs to learn local geography, both before and after the local plan.
But come on, we have lost our Athletics stadium in order to save York City and in any case, if City were that good at stadium management then why did BC fall into decay? I hope they do a better job than they did at BC.
I don't see much community about this, just York City FC and CoYC.
So, Monks Cross is in the heart of York? "The plans for the new stadium, leisure centre and community hub will no doubt become a unique, flagship project that will thrive in the heart of the city.” Somebody needs to learn local geography, both before and after the local plan. But come on, we have lost our Athletics stadium in order to save York City and in any case, if City were that good at stadium management then why did BC fall into decay? I hope they do a better job than they did at BC. I don't see much community about this, just York City FC and CoYC. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -12

7:14am Sun 31 Aug 14

mark sertori says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
So, Monks Cross is in the heart of York?
"The plans for the new stadium, leisure centre and community hub will no doubt become a unique, flagship project that will thrive in the heart of the city.”
Somebody needs to learn local geography, both before and after the local plan.
But come on, we have lost our Athletics stadium in order to save York City and in any case, if City were that good at stadium management then why did BC fall into decay? I hope they do a better job than they did at BC.
I don't see much community about this, just York City FC and CoYC.
The athletics club has been rehoused! Why shouldn't professional sport in this city be supported, it is in many other towns and cities. It is well researched that having successful sports teams helps to encourage future generations and gives the city as a whole a big boost. My interpretation of "heart of the city" was not a geographical one, simply that it would be important to the whole community, therefore placing it at the heart of the community. With regards to Booth am Crescent falling into decay, it is an old stadium designed and built with old techniques. This makes it extremely difficult to maintain it. Bit of a poor argument really! So a library, swimming pool, gym, nhs centre, university sport facility and 3g sports pitches for public hire are not a community facility? Blimey, I must be missing something then.
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: So, Monks Cross is in the heart of York? "The plans for the new stadium, leisure centre and community hub will no doubt become a unique, flagship project that will thrive in the heart of the city.” Somebody needs to learn local geography, both before and after the local plan. But come on, we have lost our Athletics stadium in order to save York City and in any case, if City were that good at stadium management then why did BC fall into decay? I hope they do a better job than they did at BC. I don't see much community about this, just York City FC and CoYC.[/p][/quote]The athletics club has been rehoused! Why shouldn't professional sport in this city be supported, it is in many other towns and cities. It is well researched that having successful sports teams helps to encourage future generations and gives the city as a whole a big boost. My interpretation of "heart of the city" was not a geographical one, simply that it would be important to the whole community, therefore placing it at the heart of the community. With regards to Booth am Crescent falling into decay, it is an old stadium designed and built with old techniques. This makes it extremely difficult to maintain it. Bit of a poor argument really! So a library, swimming pool, gym, nhs centre, university sport facility and 3g sports pitches for public hire are not a community facility? Blimey, I must be missing something then. mark sertori
  • Score: 14

8:15am Sun 31 Aug 14

york central says...

mark sertori wrote:
Yes, I am aware we have already spent it. However, once Bootham crescent is sold, the mcgills will receive their loan back and we will still have some money left over. Just support the club and sport in the city as a whole. Stop looking for the negative and appreciate that it is happening. Surely the survival of the club is more important than if you get to stand up or not. I am pretty sure most in the main home end will just stand anyway.
So for years of grandstanding by the McGills about their Investment.
In fact it was only a loan.
Where is the pay back for the thousands of pounds for those supporters who invested in their loan notes ?
Nice little earner , control of the club on the cheap, move to a new facility and control of running the new 'community' facility .
Maybe that's why for the last number of years a grubby deal has been done and we haven't been told how all this is going to work.
From refusing Huntington and staying put to total control of a tax payers funded cash raising entity.
[quote][p][bold]mark sertori[/bold] wrote: Yes, I am aware we have already spent it. However, once Bootham crescent is sold, the mcgills will receive their loan back and we will still have some money left over. Just support the club and sport in the city as a whole. Stop looking for the negative and appreciate that it is happening. Surely the survival of the club is more important than if you get to stand up or not. I am pretty sure most in the main home end will just stand anyway.[/p][/quote]So for years of grandstanding by the McGills about their Investment. In fact it was only a loan. Where is the pay back for the thousands of pounds for those supporters who invested in their loan notes ? Nice little earner , control of the club on the cheap, move to a new facility and control of running the new 'community' facility . Maybe that's why for the last number of years a grubby deal has been done and we haven't been told how all this is going to work. From refusing Huntington and staying put to total control of a tax payers funded cash raising entity. york central
  • Score: -1

11:19am Sun 31 Aug 14

windowlicker says...

windowlicker wrote:
It's not that many years ago Mcgoo was wanting to stay at BC, and not that many years ago his sister said the club want terracing.

Where's the terracing?
People keep making the terracing posts with a thumbs down, fair enough but you can't be part of the 89% a straw poll identified as wanting a terrace in the new ground.

just saying uncle ;) ...
[quote][p][bold]windowlicker[/bold] wrote: It's not that many years ago Mcgoo was wanting to stay at BC, and not that many years ago his sister said the club want terracing. Where's the terracing?[/p][/quote]People keep making the terracing posts with a thumbs down, fair enough but you can't be part of the 89% a straw poll identified as wanting a terrace in the new ground. just saying uncle ;) ... windowlicker
  • Score: -1

11:21am Sun 31 Aug 14

windowlicker says...

Sorry, read making as marking in my last post...
Sorry, read making as marking in my last post... windowlicker
  • Score: -1

11:34am Sun 31 Aug 14

23rdApril1966 says...

I for one just hope that when I first see the stadium that I am as impressed as I was when I first saw Shrewsbury Town's, Chesterfield's and Rotherham United's new stadiums. ..... accepting that it will be smaller capacity-wise.
Also I really do hope that something is being worked on for traffic access because I fear that the fickle City fan base will soon be eroded still further if the traffic jams are as bad as I fear. Having visited the new shopping centre at around about match time on a Saturday in the close season then God help us all on a match day.
All those still harping on about the McGills the for Gods sake give it a rest. Where else was the investment to keep the club afloat theses last ten years or so ? Their commitment to YCFC cannot be in doubt. And why shouldn't their BUSINESS recoup the money that it has LOANED?
I truly do hope that he new stadium gives both YCFC and YCK the stadium needed to allow both clubs to prosper. I remain hugely concerned about the location but it is what it is, I really do hope that traffic congestion does not kill off both clubs. And I will be fascinated to see just how the additional income from a 24x7x 365 stadium transpires, I have never been convinced though I have no experience in these things so I hope that the estimates around significant opportunities do indeed prove to be well founded.
I for one just hope that when I first see the stadium that I am as impressed as I was when I first saw Shrewsbury Town's, Chesterfield's and Rotherham United's new stadiums. ..... accepting that it will be smaller capacity-wise. Also I really do hope that something is being worked on for traffic access because I fear that the fickle City fan base will soon be eroded still further if the traffic jams are as bad as I fear. Having visited the new shopping centre at around about match time on a Saturday in the close season then God help us all on a match day. All those still harping on about the McGills the for Gods sake give it a rest. Where else was the investment to keep the club afloat theses last ten years or so ? Their commitment to YCFC cannot be in doubt. And why shouldn't their BUSINESS recoup the money that it has LOANED? I truly do hope that he new stadium gives both YCFC and YCK the stadium needed to allow both clubs to prosper. I remain hugely concerned about the location but it is what it is, I really do hope that traffic congestion does not kill off both clubs. And I will be fascinated to see just how the additional income from a 24x7x 365 stadium transpires, I have never been convinced though I have no experience in these things so I hope that the estimates around significant opportunities do indeed prove to be well founded. 23rdApril1966
  • Score: 7

1:12pm Sun 31 Aug 14

DavidBu says...

york central wrote:
mark sertori wrote:
Yes, I am aware we have already spent it. However, once Bootham crescent is sold, the mcgills will receive their loan back and we will still have some money left over. Just support the club and sport in the city as a whole. Stop looking for the negative and appreciate that it is happening. Surely the survival of the club is more important than if you get to stand up or not. I am pretty sure most in the main home end will just stand anyway.
So for years of grandstanding by the McGills about their Investment.
In fact it was only a loan.
Where is the pay back for the thousands of pounds for those supporters who invested in their loan notes ?
Nice little earner , control of the club on the cheap, move to a new facility and control of running the new 'community' facility .
Maybe that's why for the last number of years a grubby deal has been done and we haven't been told how all this is going to work.
From refusing Huntington and staying put to total control of a tax payers funded cash raising entity.
Surely the grubby deal was when the Craig/Swallow regime nearly cost us our beloved Club? Football ownership is a delicate combination of altruism and self-interest, is it not. I don't think we should be too critical of every situation where this dichotomy plays out.
[quote][p][bold]york central[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark sertori[/bold] wrote: Yes, I am aware we have already spent it. However, once Bootham crescent is sold, the mcgills will receive their loan back and we will still have some money left over. Just support the club and sport in the city as a whole. Stop looking for the negative and appreciate that it is happening. Surely the survival of the club is more important than if you get to stand up or not. I am pretty sure most in the main home end will just stand anyway.[/p][/quote]So for years of grandstanding by the McGills about their Investment. In fact it was only a loan. Where is the pay back for the thousands of pounds for those supporters who invested in their loan notes ? Nice little earner , control of the club on the cheap, move to a new facility and control of running the new 'community' facility . Maybe that's why for the last number of years a grubby deal has been done and we haven't been told how all this is going to work. From refusing Huntington and staying put to total control of a tax payers funded cash raising entity.[/p][/quote]Surely the grubby deal was when the Craig/Swallow regime nearly cost us our beloved Club? Football ownership is a delicate combination of altruism and self-interest, is it not. I don't think we should be too critical of every situation where this dichotomy plays out. DavidBu
  • Score: 3

1:16pm Sun 31 Aug 14

DavidBu says...

DavidBu wrote:
mark sertori wrote:
Yes, I am aware we have already spent it. However, once Bootham crescent is sold, the mcgills will receive their loan back and we will still have some money left over. Just support the club and sport in the city as a whole. Stop looking for the negative and appreciate that it is happening. Surely the survival of the club is more important than if you get to stand up or not. I am pretty sure most in the main home end will just stand anyway.
If supporters who are expected to sit down, so those behind them can see as well, intend to stand up, then I would have thought that we definitely need some terracing for them.
What's to dislike about my comment, here? Is it the people who want to stand who dislike it, or those who would rather sit? For those with the itchy fingers, it makes no sense.
[quote][p][bold]DavidBu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark sertori[/bold] wrote: Yes, I am aware we have already spent it. However, once Bootham crescent is sold, the mcgills will receive their loan back and we will still have some money left over. Just support the club and sport in the city as a whole. Stop looking for the negative and appreciate that it is happening. Surely the survival of the club is more important than if you get to stand up or not. I am pretty sure most in the main home end will just stand anyway.[/p][/quote]If supporters who are expected to sit down, so those behind them can see as well, intend to stand up, then I would have thought that we definitely need some terracing for them.[/p][/quote]What's to dislike about my comment, here? Is it the people who want to stand who dislike it, or those who would rather sit? For those with the itchy fingers, it makes no sense. DavidBu
  • Score: 1

1:18pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

Oaklands Resident wrote:
While York City were always -because of Football League rules - likely to be the principal tenant for the stadium, I thought that the Knights were guaranteed not to be worse off under the new arrangements at Huntington. They currently get a lot of their income form non match-day hospitality. A joint statement from Knights/City would have been more convincing. ...and where does the money come from to pay off the debts secured against Bootham Crescent? Will there really be £2 million left to put into Huntington? Still too many unanswered questions for a project which is already behind schedule and over budget.
From Press 7th March 2012:

Oakgate would contribute £14.85 million, with the council adding £4 million, and an expected £800,000 coming from York City once their Bootham Crescent ground is sold.

Conservative councillor Paul Healey told last night’s meeting: “We were originally told York City would be contributing in excess of £2 million, then up to £2 million, but now this is likely to be a maximum of £800,000 and the business case only assumes it will be £350,000.

“The club received a £2 million loan from the Football Stadium Improvement Fund (FSIF), so where has that money gone? The report about the business case talks about the upside of the new stadium and increased attendances, but the implications of a downside, such as relegation and falling attendances, is not there.”

Council leader James Alexander said the authority hoped as much as possible of City’s £2 million FSIF loan – which will be converted into a grant if the community stadium goes ahead – could be put into the project, but the figure would depend on how much Bootham Crescent was sold for.

He said that, in order for the project to be delivered under the existing business case, it only had to assume a £350,000 contribution from the club, and added: “Nobody has raised questions about the fact the rugby club are not coming in with any funding.”


I think clarification is needed here?
[quote][p][bold]Oaklands Resident[/bold] wrote: While York City were always -because of Football League rules - likely to be the principal tenant for the stadium, I thought that the Knights were guaranteed not to be worse off under the new arrangements at Huntington. They currently get a lot of their income form non match-day hospitality. A joint statement from Knights/City would have been more convincing. ...and where does the money come from to pay off the debts secured against Bootham Crescent? Will there really be £2 million left to put into Huntington? Still too many unanswered questions for a project which is already behind schedule and over budget.[/p][/quote]From Press 7th March 2012: [quote] Oakgate would contribute £14.85 million, with the council adding £4 million, and an expected £800,000 coming from York City once their Bootham Crescent ground is sold. Conservative councillor Paul Healey told last night’s meeting: “We were originally told York City would be contributing in excess of £2 million, then up to £2 million, but now this is likely to be a maximum of £800,000 and the business case only assumes it will be £350,000. “The club received a £2 million loan from the Football Stadium Improvement Fund (FSIF), so where has that money gone? The report about the business case talks about the upside of the new stadium and increased attendances, but the implications of a downside, such as relegation and falling attendances, is not there.” Council leader James Alexander said the authority hoped as much as possible of City’s £2 million FSIF loan – which will be converted into a grant if the community stadium goes ahead – could be put into the project, but the figure would depend on how much Bootham Crescent was sold for. He said that, in order for the project to be delivered under the existing business case, it only had to assume a £350,000 contribution from the club, and added: “Nobody has raised questions about the fact the rugby club are not coming in with any funding.” [/quote] I think clarification is needed here? Badgers Drift
  • Score: 3

1:43pm Sun 31 Aug 14

york central says...

23rdApril1966 wrote:
I for one just hope that when I first see the stadium that I am as impressed as I was when I first saw Shrewsbury Town's, Chesterfield's and Rotherham United's new stadiums. ..... accepting that it will be smaller capacity-wise.
Also I really do hope that something is being worked on for traffic access because I fear that the fickle City fan base will soon be eroded still further if the traffic jams are as bad as I fear. Having visited the new shopping centre at around about match time on a Saturday in the close season then God help us all on a match day.
All those still harping on about the McGills the for Gods sake give it a rest. Where else was the investment to keep the club afloat theses last ten years or so ? Their commitment to YCFC cannot be in doubt. And why shouldn't their BUSINESS recoup the money that it has LOANED?
I truly do hope that he new stadium gives both YCFC and YCK the stadium needed to allow both clubs to prosper. I remain hugely concerned about the location but it is what it is, I really do hope that traffic congestion does not kill off both clubs. And I will be fascinated to see just how the additional income from a 24x7x 365 stadium transpires, I have never been convinced though I have no experience in these things so I hope that the estimates around significant opportunities do indeed prove to be well founded.
So was it a loan or an investment ?
I could have loaned the club £50k and sold some of the assets and used fund raising money. Whilst going to a bank for an extended loan deal.
With a guarantee to the bank that all the money would be coming back when the club moved.
The fact is, the McGills made sure they were in the box seat from day one.
Firstly by having Sophie Hick (then McGill) sitting on the Supporters Club board feeding every bit of info she could to the self appointed MD, soon to be self proclaimed Chairman.
The wider range of supporters have chucked as much money as they could during those early days, and it's the McGills are the only ones that appear to be beneficiaries.
It would have been far more palatable if they had just been honest from day one, and stop telling everyone with the Press's help, I add.
That they have been INVESTING, INVESTING isn't LOANING last time I checked.
All this after they themselves had stated they were under no circumstances were moving to Monks X.
The idiot Batchelor had even drawn plans for the move, these were rubbished by Sophie McGill. All because McGill's didn't invent the wheel is my view.
The vast majority , if not all , of City supporters don't want to go to Monks X and never have.
I haven't seen one item built into the planning which has considered the supporters.
If so, can some one name them ?
This development is a gruby deal done by the City of York Council since the Liberals were in , the developers , and the McGills own self interest to get there £1million + back and a cash honeypot for the future.
The community includes YCK but it seems that part of the "community" doesn't have any say, due to money reasons.
What a lovely nice "community" York has become.
[quote][p][bold]23rdApril1966[/bold] wrote: I for one just hope that when I first see the stadium that I am as impressed as I was when I first saw Shrewsbury Town's, Chesterfield's and Rotherham United's new stadiums. ..... accepting that it will be smaller capacity-wise. Also I really do hope that something is being worked on for traffic access because I fear that the fickle City fan base will soon be eroded still further if the traffic jams are as bad as I fear. Having visited the new shopping centre at around about match time on a Saturday in the close season then God help us all on a match day. All those still harping on about the McGills the for Gods sake give it a rest. Where else was the investment to keep the club afloat theses last ten years or so ? Their commitment to YCFC cannot be in doubt. And why shouldn't their BUSINESS recoup the money that it has LOANED? I truly do hope that he new stadium gives both YCFC and YCK the stadium needed to allow both clubs to prosper. I remain hugely concerned about the location but it is what it is, I really do hope that traffic congestion does not kill off both clubs. And I will be fascinated to see just how the additional income from a 24x7x 365 stadium transpires, I have never been convinced though I have no experience in these things so I hope that the estimates around significant opportunities do indeed prove to be well founded.[/p][/quote]So was it a loan or an investment ? I could have loaned the club £50k and sold some of the assets and used fund raising money. Whilst going to a bank for an extended loan deal. With a guarantee to the bank that all the money would be coming back when the club moved. The fact is, the McGills made sure they were in the box seat from day one. Firstly by having Sophie Hick (then McGill) sitting on the Supporters Club board feeding every bit of info she could to the self appointed MD, soon to be self proclaimed Chairman. The wider range of supporters have chucked as much money as they could during those early days, and it's the McGills are the only ones that appear to be beneficiaries. It would have been far more palatable if they had just been honest from day one, and stop telling everyone with the Press's help, I add. That they have been INVESTING, INVESTING isn't LOANING last time I checked. All this after they themselves had stated they were under no circumstances were moving to Monks X. The idiot Batchelor had even drawn plans for the move, these were rubbished by Sophie McGill. All because McGill's didn't invent the wheel is my view. The vast majority , if not all , of City supporters don't want to go to Monks X and never have. I haven't seen one item built into the planning which has considered the supporters. If so, can some one name them ? This development is a gruby deal done by the City of York Council since the Liberals were in , the developers , and the McGills own self interest to get there £1million + back and a cash honeypot for the future. The community includes YCK but it seems that part of the "community" doesn't have any say, due to money reasons. What a lovely nice "community" York has become. york central
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Sun 31 Aug 14

23rdApril1966 says...

Listen it's the last place I want to go to as well. But bucket collections, greyhound racing trips and raffles were never going to run a pro club. The villains in this were Craig and his cronies compounded by that clown Batchelor. We can all see that the location of BC means that expansion isn't an option. So a Monks Cross has been selected - I guess as the site within budget - so we have to get on with it.
Listen it's the last place I want to go to as well. But bucket collections, greyhound racing trips and raffles were never going to run a pro club. The villains in this were Craig and his cronies compounded by that clown Batchelor. We can all see that the location of BC means that expansion isn't an option. So a Monks Cross has been selected - I guess as the site within budget - so we have to get on with it. 23rdApril1966
  • Score: 9

4:24pm Sun 31 Aug 14

bill bailey says...

23rdApril1966 wrote:
Listen it's the last place I want to go to as well. But bucket collections, greyhound racing trips and raffles were never going to run a pro club. The villains in this were Craig and his cronies compounded by that clown Batchelor. We can all see that the location of BC means that expansion isn't an option. So a Monks Cross has been selected - I guess as the site within budget - so we have to get on with it.
I don't profess to know all historical financial points about the club, what is clear, whatever people say and speaking to other supporters of years under their belt if the present McGill family hadn't stepped in this club would have ended up like Rushden and Diamonds. your previous comments summed up the situation, I see this as a new history for the club
people seem to be stirring up trouble about financial points that they themselves have no personal financial involvement other than that through what might have been the supporters club, am I right.?
[quote][p][bold]23rdApril1966[/bold] wrote: Listen it's the last place I want to go to as well. But bucket collections, greyhound racing trips and raffles were never going to run a pro club. The villains in this were Craig and his cronies compounded by that clown Batchelor. We can all see that the location of BC means that expansion isn't an option. So a Monks Cross has been selected - I guess as the site within budget - so we have to get on with it.[/p][/quote]I don't profess to know all historical financial points about the club, what is clear, whatever people say and speaking to other supporters of years under their belt if the present McGill family hadn't stepped in this club would have ended up like Rushden and Diamonds. your previous comments summed up the situation, I see this as a new history for the club people seem to be stirring up trouble about financial points that they themselves have no personal financial involvement other than that through what might have been the supporters club, am I right.? bill bailey
  • Score: 0

6:18pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Some old bloke says...

There have been a lot of comments on here and I've lost track a little but earlier someone asked about fans' ownership of the club (i.e. shares). Unless things have changed behind everyone's back, the fans (in the form of the Supporters' Trust) still own 25% of the shares. This was built into the original agreement with the McGills at the take-over. Although the Trust has a lower profile these days it is vital, in my opinion, to encourage development of the Trust, since there is no other way, realistically, that fans can own part of their own club (I suppose individual fans could ask Mr McGill to hand over a few shares for nothing but I won't be holding my breath).
Someone else mentioned loan notes. I'm afraid, in practical terms, we all said goodbye to them a long time ago, for the good of the club.
There was much about the takeover that could have been done better in my view but now isn't the time to drag it all up again. Now is a very positive time for the club and I think we should all keep the momentum going as far as possible, even if it means burying the hatchet in some instances. We have a wonderful club, which will be here long after the present players, management and board have gone, so long as true fans have the desire to make that happen.
There have been a lot of comments on here and I've lost track a little but earlier someone asked about fans' ownership of the club (i.e. shares). Unless things have changed behind everyone's back, the fans (in the form of the Supporters' Trust) still own 25% of the shares. This was built into the original agreement with the McGills at the take-over. Although the Trust has a lower profile these days it is vital, in my opinion, to encourage development of the Trust, since there is no other way, realistically, that fans can own part of their own club (I suppose individual fans could ask Mr McGill to hand over a few shares for nothing but I won't be holding my breath). Someone else mentioned loan notes. I'm afraid, in practical terms, we all said goodbye to them a long time ago, for the good of the club. There was much about the takeover that could have been done better in my view but now isn't the time to drag it all up again. Now is a very positive time for the club and I think we should all keep the momentum going as far as possible, even if it means burying the hatchet in some instances. We have a wonderful club, which will be here long after the present players, management and board have gone, so long as true fans have the desire to make that happen. Some old bloke
  • Score: 11

8:29pm Sun 31 Aug 14

calmdownyork says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Oaklands Resident wrote:
While York City were always -because of Football League rules - likely to be the principal tenant for the stadium, I thought that the Knights were guaranteed not to be worse off under the new arrangements at Huntington. They currently get a lot of their income form non match-day hospitality. A joint statement from Knights/City would have been more convincing. ...and where does the money come from to pay off the debts secured against Bootham Crescent? Will there really be £2 million left to put into Huntington? Still too many unanswered questions for a project which is already behind schedule and over budget.
From Press 7th March 2012:

Oakgate would contribute £14.85 million, with the council adding £4 million, and an expected £800,000 coming from York City once their Bootham Crescent ground is sold.

Conservative councillor Paul Healey told last night’s meeting: “We were originally told York City would be contributing in excess of £2 million, then up to £2 million, but now this is likely to be a maximum of £800,000 and the business case only assumes it will be £350,000.

“The club received a £2 million loan from the Football Stadium Improvement Fund (FSIF), so where has that money gone? The report about the business case talks about the upside of the new stadium and increased attendances, but the implications of a downside, such as relegation and falling attendances, is not there.”

Council leader James Alexander said the authority hoped as much as possible of City’s £2 million FSIF loan – which will be converted into a grant if the community stadium goes ahead – could be put into the project, but the figure would depend on how much Bootham Crescent was sold for.

He said that, in order for the project to be delivered under the existing business case, it only had to assume a £350,000 contribution from the club, and added: “Nobody has raised questions about the fact the rugby club are not coming in with any funding.”


I think clarification is needed here?
Basically, the FSIF loaned £2million to the club who used it to purchase a majority shareholding in Bootham Crescent Holdings. In otherwords it went to Douglas Craig et al.

Upon the sale of Bootham Crescent, the FSIF will be repaid (plus interest) and will then provide a grant of £2 million towards the new stadium. Any remaining balance from the sale will go to repay the loan interest (but not capital) provided by JMP (the McGills company) as per the agreement with the Supporters' Trust. It's quite possible that even after legal costs, a 10% discount on the sale of Bootham Crescent to Persimmon, paying off the other shareholders there will be some left in the kitty.

I just hope that the McGills stick to their promise and a) leave their capital investment in and b) put any profits back into the long-term future of the club rather than make a fair whack out of the deal.

Perhaps turn the Trust into a CIC and giftaid it?

It's now over 20 years since the FSIF set aside that money for York City. It's a shame it's all taken so long as that's equivalent to £3.6million in today's money.

According to legal contracts, The Supporters Trust now has to approve the overall deal and I hope they conduct a full due diligence process and don't just rubber stamp it. With a 25% shareholding, the Trust should seek a dividend of 25% of any excess profits from the deal and hold onto it as a crisis fund to protect the club in the future.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oaklands Resident[/bold] wrote: While York City were always -because of Football League rules - likely to be the principal tenant for the stadium, I thought that the Knights were guaranteed not to be worse off under the new arrangements at Huntington. They currently get a lot of their income form non match-day hospitality. A joint statement from Knights/City would have been more convincing. ...and where does the money come from to pay off the debts secured against Bootham Crescent? Will there really be £2 million left to put into Huntington? Still too many unanswered questions for a project which is already behind schedule and over budget.[/p][/quote]From Press 7th March 2012: [quote] Oakgate would contribute £14.85 million, with the council adding £4 million, and an expected £800,000 coming from York City once their Bootham Crescent ground is sold. Conservative councillor Paul Healey told last night’s meeting: “We were originally told York City would be contributing in excess of £2 million, then up to £2 million, but now this is likely to be a maximum of £800,000 and the business case only assumes it will be £350,000. “The club received a £2 million loan from the Football Stadium Improvement Fund (FSIF), so where has that money gone? The report about the business case talks about the upside of the new stadium and increased attendances, but the implications of a downside, such as relegation and falling attendances, is not there.” Council leader James Alexander said the authority hoped as much as possible of City’s £2 million FSIF loan – which will be converted into a grant if the community stadium goes ahead – could be put into the project, but the figure would depend on how much Bootham Crescent was sold for. He said that, in order for the project to be delivered under the existing business case, it only had to assume a £350,000 contribution from the club, and added: “Nobody has raised questions about the fact the rugby club are not coming in with any funding.” [/quote] I think clarification is needed here?[/p][/quote]Basically, the FSIF loaned £2million to the club who used it to purchase a majority shareholding in Bootham Crescent Holdings. In otherwords it went to Douglas Craig et al. Upon the sale of Bootham Crescent, the FSIF will be repaid (plus interest) and will then provide a grant of £2 million towards the new stadium. Any remaining balance from the sale will go to repay the loan interest (but not capital) provided by JMP (the McGills company) as per the agreement with the Supporters' Trust. It's quite possible that even after legal costs, a 10% discount on the sale of Bootham Crescent to Persimmon, paying off the other shareholders there will be some left in the kitty. I just hope that the McGills stick to their promise and a) leave their capital investment in and b) put any profits back into the long-term future of the club rather than make a fair whack out of the deal. Perhaps turn the Trust into a CIC and giftaid it? It's now over 20 years since the FSIF set aside that money for York City. It's a shame it's all taken so long as that's equivalent to £3.6million in today's money. According to legal contracts, The Supporters Trust now has to approve the overall deal and I hope they conduct a full due diligence process and don't just rubber stamp it. With a 25% shareholding, the Trust should seek a dividend of 25% of any excess profits from the deal and hold onto it as a crisis fund to protect the club in the future. calmdownyork
  • Score: 13

8:48pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Some old bloke says...

'Calmdownyork' makes some excellent points, especially in his last paragraph. Many of us are still members of the Supporters' Trust and I hope that the Trust board can find a way of doing as you suggest, i.e. claim 25% of any profit in order to help safeguard the club's future. I just think that trying to establish how the phrase 'any excess profits' is defined could keep the lawyers busy (and rich) for a long time.
'Calmdownyork' makes some excellent points, especially in his last paragraph. Many of us are still members of the Supporters' Trust and I hope that the Trust board can find a way of doing as you suggest, i.e. claim 25% of any profit in order to help safeguard the club's future. I just think that trying to establish how the phrase 'any excess profits' is defined could keep the lawyers busy (and rich) for a long time. Some old bloke
  • Score: 4

9:01pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Tug job says...

I find it strange that York City Knights have still to comment publicly on the announcements of preferred bidder/stadium operators. All I have been able to find are some rather obscure comments from Mr Guildford, on Twitter, and a dozen or so comments on the Knights forum asking why the club has not made any statement. Will anyone from the Knights be in attendance at tomorrow's meeting? Have the Knights even been invited to the meeting?
I find it strange that York City Knights have still to comment publicly on the announcements of preferred bidder/stadium operators. All I have been able to find are some rather obscure comments from Mr Guildford, on Twitter, and a dozen or so comments on the Knights forum asking why the club has not made any statement. Will anyone from the Knights be in attendance at tomorrow's meeting? Have the Knights even been invited to the meeting? Tug job
  • Score: 11

9:30am Mon 1 Sep 14

Dr Brian says...

dsom73 wrote:
York knights giving nothing?

Clearly don't know the history of the stadium or this project pr the fact its being built on the knights home ground.

Knights have and are giving plenty. Beside the politics, part of the new stadium will be the bit of the old stadium that York RL paid for with money from the sale of Clarence st.

Fair dos city running it, but the knights deserve more than a few gate receipts. And I suspect they'll get it.
Your post is 100 per cent off target. The York Knight own NOTHING of the new stadium, Hence they are contributing nothing. The move to the new stadium will mean they are in the same position they are in now. They have no assetts in the stadium and no debt there. They will merely pay rent for the privildge of playing there. They are getting a good deal though. The current stadium they play at is like a graveyard with a running pitch around it. The new stadium will see them playing in a brand new facility paid for by the council, YCFC and the companies who have paid the council blood money to build on green belt land at Monks Cross. The new stadium is likely to help the Knights though it will encourage people to go to see them - the current home is dreary and lacks atmosphere - a factor why they have an average gate of about 7 or 800. The RL team used to be better supported than the FC when they played at Clarence Street, but as the crowds show not that many people care about the YCK these days which is a shame - hopefully the new stadium will rekindle interest in them.
[quote][p][bold]dsom73[/bold] wrote: York knights giving nothing? Clearly don't know the history of the stadium or this project pr the fact its being built on the knights home ground. Knights have and are giving plenty. Beside the politics, part of the new stadium will be the bit of the old stadium that York RL paid for with money from the sale of Clarence st. Fair dos city running it, but the knights deserve more than a few gate receipts. And I suspect they'll get it.[/p][/quote]Your post is 100 per cent off target. The York Knight own NOTHING of the new stadium, Hence they are contributing nothing. The move to the new stadium will mean they are in the same position they are in now. They have no assetts in the stadium and no debt there. They will merely pay rent for the privildge of playing there. They are getting a good deal though. The current stadium they play at is like a graveyard with a running pitch around it. The new stadium will see them playing in a brand new facility paid for by the council, YCFC and the companies who have paid the council blood money to build on green belt land at Monks Cross. The new stadium is likely to help the Knights though it will encourage people to go to see them - the current home is dreary and lacks atmosphere - a factor why they have an average gate of about 7 or 800. The RL team used to be better supported than the FC when they played at Clarence Street, but as the crowds show not that many people care about the YCK these days which is a shame - hopefully the new stadium will rekindle interest in them. Dr Brian
  • Score: 2

9:57am Mon 1 Sep 14

milkybarkid says...

Some old bloke wrote:
There have been a lot of comments on here and I've lost track a little but earlier someone asked about fans' ownership of the club (i.e. shares). Unless things have changed behind everyone's back, the fans (in the form of the Supporters' Trust) still own 25% of the shares. This was built into the original agreement with the McGills at the take-over. Although the Trust has a lower profile these days it is vital, in my opinion, to encourage development of the Trust, since there is no other way, realistically, that fans can own part of their own club (I suppose individual fans could ask Mr McGill to hand over a few shares for nothing but I won't be holding my breath).
Someone else mentioned loan notes. I'm afraid, in practical terms, we all said goodbye to them a long time ago, for the good of the club.
There was much about the takeover that could have been done better in my view but now isn't the time to drag it all up again. Now is a very positive time for the club and I think we should all keep the momentum going as far as possible, even if it means burying the hatchet in some instances. We have a wonderful club, which will be here long after the present players, management and board have gone, so long as true fans have the desire to make that happen.
'Some old bloke' Hopefully this will help and this is how I understand it:

Jason McGills Group of companies and his last public accounts:

- York City Football Club have liabilities due of over £3million, with a net worth of minus £1.2million. JM Packaging own 75% of York City Football Club shares and the supporters trust own 25%

- Bootham Crescent holdings have a net worth of £4.5million and York City Football Club own 85% of the shares of the ground.

- JM Packaging have liabilities due of over £2.5million plus their net worth has gone up to over £2.5million in a year or so after planning approval on the new stadium. This suggest York City Football Club owes JM Packaging around £2.5million, whats this for??? Mr McGill owns 95% of JM Packaging.

- It suggests that the ground will sell for £4.5 million. York City FC will get 85% of this, but JM Packaging own 75% of York City Football Club, so pays off the money due to JMP around 2.5million, for what??? BINGO!!!!! its a great deal and makes loads of money and still owns 75% of YCFC club, by paying nothing, so got the club for free.

All this info is in the public accounts, you just need to put the group of companies together to see the whole master plan.

- York City Football Club will still be in debt, even if the liabilities get written off, JMP accounts would ow suffer. Also there will not be sufficient money left to turn the Football Foundation money into a grant and pay City of York Council.

Simply put: Sell Bootham Crescent for £4.5million, pay City of York Council £2million towards the stadium. This leaves £2.5 million to share, so even if say £2million went to York City Football Club, it would not leave enough money to pay off the liabilities of £3m plus. York City Football Club will still be in debt.

Complicated?? Its meant to be, as fans would not be happy if they knew? City of York Council have said in the press that they will be getting the £2million grant, it may be that a new £2million grant will be provided? Hope so to help York City Football club survive and clear the debts. Its all in Jason's hands now.

Please explain Mr McGill:

This info is all available on public accounts, to which you can have a look for yourselves on the links below:



http://companycheck.
co.uk/company/046893
38/YORK-CITY-FOOTBAL
L-CLUB-LIMITED/finan
cial-accounts

http://companycheck.
co.uk/company/035767
56/BOOTHAM-CRESCENT-
HOLDINGS-LIMITED/fin
ancial-accounts#fina
ncials

http://companycheck.
co.uk/company/035611
25/JM-PACKAGING-LIMI
TED/financial-accoun
ts#financials
[quote][p][bold]Some old bloke[/bold] wrote: There have been a lot of comments on here and I've lost track a little but earlier someone asked about fans' ownership of the club (i.e. shares). Unless things have changed behind everyone's back, the fans (in the form of the Supporters' Trust) still own 25% of the shares. This was built into the original agreement with the McGills at the take-over. Although the Trust has a lower profile these days it is vital, in my opinion, to encourage development of the Trust, since there is no other way, realistically, that fans can own part of their own club (I suppose individual fans could ask Mr McGill to hand over a few shares for nothing but I won't be holding my breath). Someone else mentioned loan notes. I'm afraid, in practical terms, we all said goodbye to them a long time ago, for the good of the club. There was much about the takeover that could have been done better in my view but now isn't the time to drag it all up again. Now is a very positive time for the club and I think we should all keep the momentum going as far as possible, even if it means burying the hatchet in some instances. We have a wonderful club, which will be here long after the present players, management and board have gone, so long as true fans have the desire to make that happen.[/p][/quote]'Some old bloke' Hopefully this will help and this is how I understand it: Jason McGills Group of companies and his last public accounts: - York City Football Club have liabilities due of over £3million, with a net worth of minus £1.2million. JM Packaging own 75% of York City Football Club shares and the supporters trust own 25% - Bootham Crescent holdings have a net worth of £4.5million and York City Football Club own 85% of the shares of the ground. - JM Packaging have liabilities due of over £2.5million plus their net worth has gone up to over £2.5million in a year or so after planning approval on the new stadium. This suggest York City Football Club owes JM Packaging around £2.5million, whats this for??? Mr McGill owns 95% of JM Packaging. - It suggests that the ground will sell for £4.5 million. York City FC will get 85% of this, but JM Packaging own 75% of York City Football Club, so pays off the money due to JMP around 2.5million, for what??? BINGO!!!!! its a great deal and makes loads of money and still owns 75% of YCFC club, by paying nothing, so got the club for free. All this info is in the public accounts, you just need to put the group of companies together to see the whole master plan. - York City Football Club will still be in debt, even if the liabilities get written off, JMP accounts would ow suffer. Also there will not be sufficient money left to turn the Football Foundation money into a grant and pay City of York Council. Simply put: Sell Bootham Crescent for £4.5million, pay City of York Council £2million towards the stadium. This leaves £2.5 million to share, so even if say £2million went to York City Football Club, it would not leave enough money to pay off the liabilities of £3m plus. York City Football Club will still be in debt. Complicated?? Its meant to be, as fans would not be happy if they knew? City of York Council have said in the press that they will be getting the £2million grant, it may be that a new £2million grant will be provided? Hope so to help York City Football club survive and clear the debts. Its all in Jason's hands now. Please explain Mr McGill: This info is all available on public accounts, to which you can have a look for yourselves on the links below: http://companycheck. co.uk/company/046893 38/YORK-CITY-FOOTBAL L-CLUB-LIMITED/finan cial-accounts http://companycheck. co.uk/company/035767 56/BOOTHAM-CRESCENT- HOLDINGS-LIMITED/fin ancial-accounts#fina ncials http://companycheck. co.uk/company/035611 25/JM-PACKAGING-LIMI TED/financial-accoun ts#financials milkybarkid
  • Score: 3

12:57pm Mon 1 Sep 14

Maltkiln says...

Politics ....... Who cares ?

I am a football fan who 10 years ago nearly didn't have a football club to support and which has struggled both on and off the pitch for the majority of the time since then.

I can now look forward to a bright future supporting my team with my son in a good standard of football .... Yes I aren't over the moon about the location .... but having a club to support is better than no club at all.

Some people just strike me as moaners who will always find fault with something whatever the decision made ..... I just wish people would stop moaning - we are where we are, support YCFC & YCK & enjoy what we have got ...... others lost their clubs & now what do they do with their Saturdays !!!
Politics ....... Who cares ? I am a football fan who 10 years ago nearly didn't have a football club to support and which has struggled both on and off the pitch for the majority of the time since then. I can now look forward to a bright future supporting my team with my son in a good standard of football .... Yes I aren't over the moon about the location .... but having a club to support is better than no club at all. Some people just strike me as moaners who will always find fault with something whatever the decision made ..... I just wish people would stop moaning - we are where we are, support YCFC & YCK & enjoy what we have got ...... others lost their clubs & now what do they do with their Saturdays !!! Maltkiln
  • Score: 5

1:20pm Mon 1 Sep 14

Badgers Drift says...

Tug job wrote:
I find it strange that York City Knights have still to comment publicly on the announcements of preferred bidder/stadium operators. All I have been able to find are some rather obscure comments from Mr Guildford, on Twitter, and a dozen or so comments on the Knights forum asking why the club has not made any statement. Will anyone from the Knights be in attendance at tomorrow's meeting? Have the Knights even been invited to the meeting?
Based on the latest tweets from John Guildford, it looks like he's been sidelined and kept in the dark by James Alexander, Sonja Crisp, Tim Atkins and the council.

Have YCK been stitched-up?
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: I find it strange that York City Knights have still to comment publicly on the announcements of preferred bidder/stadium operators. All I have been able to find are some rather obscure comments from Mr Guildford, on Twitter, and a dozen or so comments on the Knights forum asking why the club has not made any statement. Will anyone from the Knights be in attendance at tomorrow's meeting? Have the Knights even been invited to the meeting?[/p][/quote]Based on the latest tweets from John Guildford, it looks like he's been sidelined and kept in the dark by James Alexander, Sonja Crisp, Tim Atkins and the council. Have YCK been stitched-up? Badgers Drift
  • Score: 3

8:12pm Mon 1 Sep 14

Tug job says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Tug job wrote:
I find it strange that York City Knights have still to comment publicly on the announcements of preferred bidder/stadium operators. All I have been able to find are some rather obscure comments from Mr Guildford, on Twitter, and a dozen or so comments on the Knights forum asking why the club has not made any statement. Will anyone from the Knights be in attendance at tomorrow's meeting? Have the Knights even been invited to the meeting?
Based on the latest tweets from John Guildford, it looks like he's been sidelined and kept in the dark by James Alexander, Sonja Crisp, Tim Atkins and the council.

Have YCK been stitched-up?
Mr Guildford's tweets are certainly written to convey that message. It transpires that the tweets of Knights fans about the club not being able to realise income generated by match day activities are groundless, but I'd hope this could be expanded to allow them to do so with non-match day activities - I'm sure it will be possible to sort something out. Without any information coming forward from the club it's impossible to determine whether or not they have been stitched up. I'd be interested in finding out if the Knights put together a proposal to run the stadium, or put forward other commercial proposals, in order to try and safeguard the club's interests.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: I find it strange that York City Knights have still to comment publicly on the announcements of preferred bidder/stadium operators. All I have been able to find are some rather obscure comments from Mr Guildford, on Twitter, and a dozen or so comments on the Knights forum asking why the club has not made any statement. Will anyone from the Knights be in attendance at tomorrow's meeting? Have the Knights even been invited to the meeting?[/p][/quote]Based on the latest tweets from John Guildford, it looks like he's been sidelined and kept in the dark by James Alexander, Sonja Crisp, Tim Atkins and the council. Have YCK been stitched-up?[/p][/quote]Mr Guildford's tweets are certainly written to convey that message. It transpires that the tweets of Knights fans about the club not being able to realise income generated by match day activities are groundless, but I'd hope this could be expanded to allow them to do so with non-match day activities - I'm sure it will be possible to sort something out. Without any information coming forward from the club it's impossible to determine whether or not they have been stitched up. I'd be interested in finding out if the Knights put together a proposal to run the stadium, or put forward other commercial proposals, in order to try and safeguard the club's interests. Tug job
  • Score: 4

9:04pm Mon 1 Sep 14

Paddycat says...

milkybarkid wrote:
Some old bloke wrote:
There have been a lot of comments on here and I've lost track a little but earlier someone asked about fans' ownership of the club (i.e. shares). Unless things have changed behind everyone's back, the fans (in the form of the Supporters' Trust) still own 25% of the shares. This was built into the original agreement with the McGills at the take-over. Although the Trust has a lower profile these days it is vital, in my opinion, to encourage development of the Trust, since there is no other way, realistically, that fans can own part of their own club (I suppose individual fans could ask Mr McGill to hand over a few shares for nothing but I won't be holding my breath).
Someone else mentioned loan notes. I'm afraid, in practical terms, we all said goodbye to them a long time ago, for the good of the club.
There was much about the takeover that could have been done better in my view but now isn't the time to drag it all up again. Now is a very positive time for the club and I think we should all keep the momentum going as far as possible, even if it means burying the hatchet in some instances. We have a wonderful club, which will be here long after the present players, management and board have gone, so long as true fans have the desire to make that happen.
'Some old bloke' Hopefully this will help and this is how I understand it:

Jason McGills Group of companies and his last public accounts:

- York City Football Club have liabilities due of over £3million, with a net worth of minus £1.2million. JM Packaging own 75% of York City Football Club shares and the supporters trust own 25%

- Bootham Crescent holdings have a net worth of £4.5million and York City Football Club own 85% of the shares of the ground.

- JM Packaging have liabilities due of over £2.5million plus their net worth has gone up to over £2.5million in a year or so after planning approval on the new stadium. This suggest York City Football Club owes JM Packaging around £2.5million, whats this for??? Mr McGill owns 95% of JM Packaging.

- It suggests that the ground will sell for £4.5 million. York City FC will get 85% of this, but JM Packaging own 75% of York City Football Club, so pays off the money due to JMP around 2.5million, for what??? BINGO!!!!! its a great deal and makes loads of money and still owns 75% of YCFC club, by paying nothing, so got the club for free.

All this info is in the public accounts, you just need to put the group of companies together to see the whole master plan.

- York City Football Club will still be in debt, even if the liabilities get written off, JMP accounts would ow suffer. Also there will not be sufficient money left to turn the Football Foundation money into a grant and pay City of York Council.

Simply put: Sell Bootham Crescent for £4.5million, pay City of York Council £2million towards the stadium. This leaves £2.5 million to share, so even if say £2million went to York City Football Club, it would not leave enough money to pay off the liabilities of £3m plus. York City Football Club will still be in debt.

Complicated?? Its meant to be, as fans would not be happy if they knew? City of York Council have said in the press that they will be getting the £2million grant, it may be that a new £2million grant will be provided? Hope so to help York City Football club survive and clear the debts. Its all in Jason's hands now.

Please explain Mr McGill:

This info is all available on public accounts, to which you can have a look for yourselves on the links below:



http://companycheck.

co.uk/company/046893

38/YORK-CITY-FOOTBAL

L-CLUB-LIMITED/finan

cial-accounts

http://companycheck.

co.uk/company/035767

56/BOOTHAM-CRESCENT-

HOLDINGS-LIMITED/fin

ancial-accounts#fina

ncials

http://companycheck.

co.uk/company/035611

25/JM-PACKAGING-LIMI

TED/financial-accoun

ts#financials
Makes interesting reading. If I remember correctly the Supporters Trust invested £600,000 and Jason McGill £150,000 to save the club. But then in return for a loan of around £850,000 with 11% interest the Supporters Trust gave the McGill's 75% ownership. So it's no wonder the McGill's have been hell bent on a move. And yes, if all this is true, then it's a nice way to gain ownership of a Football Club.
Personally I accept that money gives power but power of course has to be used wisely….
[quote][p][bold]milkybarkid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Some old bloke[/bold] wrote: There have been a lot of comments on here and I've lost track a little but earlier someone asked about fans' ownership of the club (i.e. shares). Unless things have changed behind everyone's back, the fans (in the form of the Supporters' Trust) still own 25% of the shares. This was built into the original agreement with the McGills at the take-over. Although the Trust has a lower profile these days it is vital, in my opinion, to encourage development of the Trust, since there is no other way, realistically, that fans can own part of their own club (I suppose individual fans could ask Mr McGill to hand over a few shares for nothing but I won't be holding my breath). Someone else mentioned loan notes. I'm afraid, in practical terms, we all said goodbye to them a long time ago, for the good of the club. There was much about the takeover that could have been done better in my view but now isn't the time to drag it all up again. Now is a very positive time for the club and I think we should all keep the momentum going as far as possible, even if it means burying the hatchet in some instances. We have a wonderful club, which will be here long after the present players, management and board have gone, so long as true fans have the desire to make that happen.[/p][/quote]'Some old bloke' Hopefully this will help and this is how I understand it: Jason McGills Group of companies and his last public accounts: - York City Football Club have liabilities due of over £3million, with a net worth of minus £1.2million. JM Packaging own 75% of York City Football Club shares and the supporters trust own 25% - Bootham Crescent holdings have a net worth of £4.5million and York City Football Club own 85% of the shares of the ground. - JM Packaging have liabilities due of over £2.5million plus their net worth has gone up to over £2.5million in a year or so after planning approval on the new stadium. This suggest York City Football Club owes JM Packaging around £2.5million, whats this for??? Mr McGill owns 95% of JM Packaging. - It suggests that the ground will sell for £4.5 million. York City FC will get 85% of this, but JM Packaging own 75% of York City Football Club, so pays off the money due to JMP around 2.5million, for what??? BINGO!!!!! its a great deal and makes loads of money and still owns 75% of YCFC club, by paying nothing, so got the club for free. All this info is in the public accounts, you just need to put the group of companies together to see the whole master plan. - York City Football Club will still be in debt, even if the liabilities get written off, JMP accounts would ow suffer. Also there will not be sufficient money left to turn the Football Foundation money into a grant and pay City of York Council. Simply put: Sell Bootham Crescent for £4.5million, pay City of York Council £2million towards the stadium. This leaves £2.5 million to share, so even if say £2million went to York City Football Club, it would not leave enough money to pay off the liabilities of £3m plus. York City Football Club will still be in debt. Complicated?? Its meant to be, as fans would not be happy if they knew? City of York Council have said in the press that they will be getting the £2million grant, it may be that a new £2million grant will be provided? Hope so to help York City Football club survive and clear the debts. Its all in Jason's hands now. Please explain Mr McGill: This info is all available on public accounts, to which you can have a look for yourselves on the links below: http://companycheck. co.uk/company/046893 38/YORK-CITY-FOOTBAL L-CLUB-LIMITED/finan cial-accounts http://companycheck. co.uk/company/035767 56/BOOTHAM-CRESCENT- HOLDINGS-LIMITED/fin ancial-accounts#fina ncials http://companycheck. co.uk/company/035611 25/JM-PACKAGING-LIMI TED/financial-accoun ts#financials[/p][/quote]Makes interesting reading. If I remember correctly the Supporters Trust invested £600,000 and Jason McGill £150,000 to save the club. But then in return for a loan of around £850,000 with 11% interest the Supporters Trust gave the McGill's 75% ownership. So it's no wonder the McGill's have been hell bent on a move. And yes, if all this is true, then it's a nice way to gain ownership of a Football Club. Personally I accept that money gives power but power of course has to be used wisely…. Paddycat
  • Score: -2

1:37pm Tue 2 Sep 14

YoRkIe59 says...

i cant help but wonder and be a little saddened by the fact that retaining some terracing in the new stadium seems to have not even been considered.only my opinion but i genuinly believe with the reduced capacities and other safety aspects that can be built into a new stadium there should be no reason not to have a perfectly safe terraced area,i for one will never quite get used to sitting at a football match the biggest pain being everytime theres something happens you end up having to stand anyway as the people in front have stood up.that aside it will be a great relief to finally get our new home.other issues like the state of the pitch with a football and rugby club sharing present challenges.But lets get the place built and move onwards and upwards.
i cant help but wonder and be a little saddened by the fact that retaining some terracing in the new stadium seems to have not even been considered.only my opinion but i genuinly believe with the reduced capacities and other safety aspects that can be built into a new stadium there should be no reason not to have a perfectly safe terraced area,i for one will never quite get used to sitting at a football match the biggest pain being everytime theres something happens you end up having to stand anyway as the people in front have stood up.that aside it will be a great relief to finally get our new home.other issues like the state of the pitch with a football and rugby club sharing present challenges.But lets get the place built and move onwards and upwards. YoRkIe59
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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