Behind the scenes at Bootham Crescent (From York Press)

Bootham Crescent is a lovely ground, if it's decaying then it should be repaired rather than photographed. Think of all the money that has been wasted on planning, discussing, promoting and designing the new ground that could have been spent on carrying out crucial repairs. I can be more proud of a historical, 1932 vintage stadium than some characterless box/shopping center miles out of town.

Written like a true American, Luke.

American?? in that case I can understand how he would be impressed by something as 'ancient' as a stadium built in the 1930's!

YorkCityLuke wrote:
Bootham Crescent is a lovely ground, if it's decaying then it should be repaired rather than photographed. Think of all the money that has been wasted on planning, discussing, promoting and designing the new ground that could have been spent on carrying out crucial repairs. I can be more proud of a historical, 1932 vintage stadium than some characterless box/shopping center miles out of town.

We'd all love to stay at BC, Luke. But the figures say otherwise in a big way and they've been out there a long time. Its move of bust - do a little research and you'll see.

Even AndyD wrote:

YorkCityLuke wrote:
Bootham Crescent is a lovely ground, if it's decaying then it should be repaired rather than photographed. Think of all the money that has been wasted on planning, discussing, promoting and designing the new ground that could have been spent on carrying out crucial repairs. I can be more proud of a historical, 1932 vintage stadium than some characterless box/shopping center miles out of town.

We'd all love to stay at BC, Luke. But the figures say otherwise in a big way and they've been out there a long time. Its move of bust - do a little research and you'll see.

I believe you that staying at BC isnt viable in the long term, but I still take exception to certain members of the club (and other people interested in expanding Monks X) complaining about our home-ground being a decaying dump, when it will almost certainly be a better place to play football than any new ground. I can accept a new ground as a necessary evil, not a preferable alternative.

Don't knock the decaying grounds. I miss Feethams every day.

Anyway, many congratulations from all darlington fans. Fantastic day out and a sad reminder of our own demise.

darlington fan

Ahh didums! How terrible, that you have let your facilities decay to such a state without costing appropriately for looking after them or replacing them. Having now made such a monumental balls up of running your business you are now coming cap in hand to the public purse to bail you out. It may have worked for some big banks, but I don't think the failiure of York City Football club will affect even the local economy, let alone the national one. So at risk of being harsh, I hope the club is allowed to go pop, if only to serve as harsh warning to other wannabe business people out there that run them as a plaything, where they are playing fast and loose with the finances till they reach this point.

I think a quick call to the HSE will be in order as well after seeing those pictures!

BioLogic wrote:
Ahh didums! How terrible, that you have let your facilities decay to such a state without costing appropriately for looking after them or replacing them. Having now made such a monumental balls up of running your business you are now coming cap in hand to the public purse to bail you out. It may have worked for some big banks, but I don't think the failiure of York City Football club will affect even the local economy, let alone the national one. So at risk of being harsh, I hope the club is allowed to go pop, if only to serve as harsh warning to other wannabe business people out there that run them as a plaything, where they are playing fast and loose with the finances till they reach this point.

I think a quick call to the HSE will be in order as well after seeing those pictures!

Possibly the most ill-informed posting I've seen on the stadium debate yet. And a fair degree of small-minded nastiness mixed in. Well done!
Next you will be telling us that speed has no influence on motor vehicle accident stats.

Even AndyD wrote:

BioLogic wrote:
Ahh didums! How terrible, that you have let your facilities decay to such a state without costing appropriately for looking after them or replacing them. Having now made such a monumental balls up of running your business you are now coming cap in hand to the public purse to bail you out. It may have worked for some big banks, but I don't think the failiure of York City Football club will affect even the local economy, let alone the national one. So at risk of being harsh, I hope the club is allowed to go pop, if only to serve as harsh warning to other wannabe business people out there that run them as a plaything, where they are playing fast and loose with the finances till they reach this point.

I think a quick call to the HSE will be in order as well after seeing those pictures!

Possibly the most ill-informed posting I've seen on the stadium debate yet. And a fair degree of small-minded nastiness mixed in. Well done!
Next you will be telling us that speed has no influence on motor vehicle accident stats.

Please enlighten me as to how I am ill informed? I am on tenterhooks to find out!

If you perceive a bit of reality as nastiness then so be it, but as they say it's the truth that hurts.

It is rather amusing that someone trys a pop at me about being ill informed by misquoting statistics at me. Brilliant!

Its difficult to know where to start with the incorrect information - all I'd say is you need to do a lot of research.
As for nastiness, well, wanting a club enjoyed by 1000s for 80yrs to go 'pop', accompanied by childishness like 'ahh didums' seems nasty to me. Makes my skin crawl to be honest. If you are happy living your life that way, fine. Most decent minded people will think otherwise - ditto your much repeated belief that speeding is fine and anyone knocked over should be more careful next time. Like I say - nasty.

The photos show one area which is fenced off behind the away end. Its an area which hasn't been used for years and you can't see behind the hoardings from anywhere in the ground. Bootham Crescent is over 70yrs old and will require expensive upkeep however, but the photo is really a bit of clever journalism. And probably a clever bit of PR by the club who provided the pictures.
The Council are not bailing out the football club, to be honest, I'm surprised people are still writing such nonsense, even the Tory opposition don't spout it any more. Or even C4Y.
The council are getting a £19.3m worth of COMMUNITY facility for about £1.8m - they were going to spend £2m on the athletics facilities anyway. But even if you call it £4m, its still a **** good deal.
Nobody is being bailed out - both professional sporting clubs in this city will be paying rent, a sizeable rent of £125k per annum in the case of YCFC.
YCFC are NOT an amateur club - I presume that was just a childish dig by Murphy. Are you someone else who wants your home city's club to go 'pop' as Biologic churlishly seems to.
Finally, this is a chance to get a great new facility, something most other towns and city's have (usually with council funding) and will incorporate many community uses - Explore, NHS drop in, occasional concerts, Sporting injury facilities, 3G community pitches, centre-point for events such as charity races, etc.
Now lets get behind this, because for once residents are getting something for us.

That is a fools's way of saying you made it up on the spot. If you can't justify it, don't say it.

Your just trolling against someone that voices an opinion and is prepared to back that position up.

York City are going cap in hand and bleating to the City Council that they need a "Community Stadium" because they have failed to maintain their current place of business or budget appropriately within their business plan to pay for a new one. If it's going to be a community stadium will it be available for the community to book to use the pitch when they want?

As I explained in my post, the reason why I said I hoped they failed was as a warning to other businesses in the same positions that you either run it right or lose it, because that's what York City is, a business. I have no interest in Football, don't watch it don't care about it. Same as I have no interest in carpets. Should I care if a badly run carpet company in York that is 80 years old goes out of business and expect the council to bail them out? No it would be a waste of public funds and no one would expect it to happen as Murphy_the_Spangle says. It is a bail out, however you spin it, because would the city need a new "Community Stadium" if Yorks City didn't exist and would it require any public investment.

And as for your utter tosh about me thinking speeding is fine, I believe I quoted a statistic that only 5% of Road Traffic Collisions are CAUSED by excess speed.

I then said on that basis I would like to see greater enforcement by human beings and not by speed cameras as speed cameras do not address the many other offences that are probably stronger indicators of poor standards of driving and criminality and are likely to have a bigger impact on reducing road deaths. So if you interpret that as a

"much repeated belief that speeding is fine and anyone knocked over should be more careful next time" then I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself and if you need to see a specialist.

Speed is a contributing factor in terms of injury in a much higher percentage of accidents than you quote. I think in North Yorkshire, the figure is 25%.
Accidents happen, life is random, you minimise the OUTCOME of that by keeping your speed down.

You once told me that if a child runs out in front of a car and is killed, its either the parents' or child's fault - not the driver speeding. Having experienced a very scary moment with my daughter in this regard, its always stuck me as unnecessarily callous. I guess that is why I remembered your username. A bit like wanting a football club to fold and using language like 'didums' - just seems unnecessarily callous to me.

Community stadium is NOT a bail out - your argument rests on a premise not backed up by facts.

But agree to disagree - no point boring everyone else.

Even AndyD wrote:
Speed is a contributing factor in terms of injury in a much higher percentage of accidents than you quote. I think in North Yorkshire, the figure is 25%.
Accidents happen, life is random, you minimise the OUTCOME of that by keeping your speed down.

You once told me that if a child runs out in front of a car and is killed, its either the parents' or child's fault - not the driver speeding. Having experienced a very scary moment with my daughter in this regard, its always stuck me as unnecessarily callous. I guess that is why I remembered your username. A bit like wanting a football club to fold and using language like 'didums' - just seems unnecessarily callous to me.

Community stadium is NOT a bail out - your argument rests on a premise not backed up by facts.

But agree to disagree - no point boring everyone else.

Speed is a contributing factor in terms injury in a higher percentage yes, but if memory serves, I don't think the statistics actually identify whether that speed is in excess of the stated limits or just that the speed of the vehicles contributed to the severity of the injury.

And you are confusing me with someone else, or you are not understanding something....again..
. because that was not a statement I made. I did comment once on a story that the parents of a child that was hurt carried some culpability as, if I recall, the child was under 10 and run over by a drunk driver as he and his friends crossed a road at 10pm after dark.

I was not blaming them for the collision, simply saying if they looked after their kids properly the accident could not have happened. And if there had been more police on the streets instead of speed cameras the drunk driver might have been caught before he did the damage.

I apologise if my flippancy offends you, it is hardly insensitive by the standards of some on this forum. And it is not callous to suggest it would be better to let a failing business collapse rather than artificially prop it up. If you are foolish enough to invest your emotions so heavily in a business run by somebody else for their financial gain then that I'm afraid is your mistake.

The simple question is would York City survive without a new ground.

As I understand it in the long term, they could not.

Can they afford to build their own new ground. No they cannot.

Do they have sufficient private investment and land on which to build a ground without the inclusion of public money / assets. No they do not.

The "Community Stadium is therefore a bail-out of a private company with public funds and assets. The debate should then be had as to, is this a financially and morally sound decision at a time of austerity to build a public facility for use by a private business. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise by what we called reasoned and well argued debate. And I promise not to be flippant.

Biologic, I think you'll find they are getting suffcient private investment. From Oakgate, to the council, who will then rent the ground to the clubs.

In other words; the Council will make money from this deal.

Hard to see where as a tax payer that this is a bad deal.

Seems your just another of the "head in the sand brigade" with your knickers in a twist. None so blind as those who won't see.

I don't normally comment on others opinions. We are all entitled to our own.
However Biologic is missing the point. A successful football team will bring increased revenue to a city that is struggling due the main industry of tourism not bringing in the same level of revenue as it has in the past.
York is my home town and I look at places around Nottinghamshire where I now live and can't believe the different level in sporting excellence that towns smaller than York have. I accept that over the years the football club hasn't been the best run business but that is being put right by a group of people who care passionately not just about OUR City's Football Club but also about the availability of facilities that will benefit the whole community. Please think about the benefits.
As an aside I think that the location of the proposed stadium is wrong but again that is my own opinion.

The Great Buda wrote:
Biologic, I think you'll find they are getting suffcient private investment. From Oakgate, to the council, who will then rent the ground to the clubs.

In other words; the Council will make money from this deal.

Hard to see where as a tax payer that this is a bad deal.

Seems your just another of the "head in the sand brigade" with your knickers in a twist. None so blind as those who won't see.

As they won't release they financial detail at this stage, it's impossible to know and to say for sure how it will be being funded.

They question I would ask though is why do the council need to be involved if Oakgate are providing enough money? If the value being given for the land was at market rates, then the council could just sell the land to oakgate and be done with it.

If I'm honest, I think the planning issues that the site is going to have are going to take so long to deal with that time will run out for city. In addition Bootham Crescent is going to be worth substantially less than City think because they will be selling it on a tight timescale. In other words I don't tink the stadium will happen, at least not in York City's lifetime. That's not willing defeat on the football club, it's just being realistic, and it's an area I know a lot about professionally. My head is not in the sand, it's firmly up i the air, if I'm honest i think it may be you who needs to take a real look at the situation, can York City survive the 3+ years it will take to get this thing built?

As for exileinnotts, we will have to disagree on the idea of increased revenue. A football club of the scale of York City contributes so little to the economy compared to what it costs the economy (in infrastructure terms, policing etc.) any increase in revenue that City may generate is peanuts in the short to medium term (assuming City manage to improve).

You have to remember, though it's not OUR Football Club, it's the McGill's Football Club, not even YOURS. The majority of the population in York have nothing whatsoever to do with the football club and as the football club is a private business not a community asset, I and many other feel a decision should be taken in that context. Many York City Supporters seem to be failing to get their heads round why their is resistance to the development of the stadium and it's the reasons that I have highlighted above that concern many. Trying to make people feel guilty "for not supporting the local team" does not help your cause at all, it pushes people the other way.

I'm not sure where else you would put it though, because it can't ever be redeveloped where it is or closer to the town centre than where is proposed now.

biologic. Are you against the building of a community stadium?
Also where did I try to make people feel guilty for not supporting the local team.
As for location - looking at the issues they had in Wigan when they put the JJB in the middle of a shopping / trading complex is why I don't agree with Monks X. Preferred option would be on a train line and look to utilise public transport in a more effective way.

I'm not against the YCFC building a stadium if they want one, but I do not think one penny of public money should contribute to it.

If it is to built using public money it must be subject to the same openness and accountability that goes with that, which means that an open bidding process would be needed for clubs to bid for the use of the stadium to get the best value for the taxpayer.

The guilt trips are for not supporting the stadium idea, not for not supporting York City (why would anyone feel guilty about that!)

When I think about the "benefits" of a stadium, I look at whether the facilites are actually needed, irrespective of a new stadium appearing. The short answer I come up with is no we already have sufficient gyms and access to sports clinics etc.

So currently, no i do not want a new stadium, because I don't think it represents a good investment for the city or good value for the taxpayers. To flip it the other way, I don't think something which represents best value for the city and it's taxpayers will provide what York City need out of a stadium.

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise though if someone can make a compelling case.

So your also against the Football Club and the Rugby Club paying rent into Public coffers, thereby bring in extra revenue?

What a bizarre stance...

(don't try and claim the facts haven't been made public. They have. Try some research).

When did I say i was against them paying funds into public coffers?? The fact is that money has to be paid out first in the hope that it will be paid back later in the form of rent. It's called investment and it involves risk. Arguably something councils should not be doing with public funds.

What happens if one or both of the teams does go into liquidation. The taxpayers are left with a 6000 seat stadium built to meet the needs of a football club and a rugby club that no longer exist. Lets face it it's not as if either club are on what you would call a sound financial footing.

I will very much claim that all of the financial details have not been made public, I have indeed done some research and I will raise you the following news story as proof.

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/9574372.
Community_stadium_fu
nding_concerns_raise
d/

BioLogic wrote:
I'm not against the YCFC building a stadium if they want one, but I do not think one penny of public money should contribute to it. If it is to built using public money it must be subject to the same openness and accountability that goes with that, which means that an open bidding process would be needed for clubs to bid for the use of the stadium to get the best value for the taxpayer. The guilt trips are for not supporting the stadium idea, not for not supporting York City (why would anyone feel guilty about that!) When I think about the "benefits" of a stadium, I look at whether the facilites are actually needed, irrespective of a new stadium appearing. The short answer I come up with is no we already have sufficient gyms and access to sports clinics etc. So currently, no i do not want a new stadium, because I don't think it represents a good investment for the city or good value for the taxpayers. To flip it the other way, I don't think something which represents best value for the city and it's taxpayers will provide what York City need out of a stadium. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise though if someone can make a compelling case.

How about this as an answer to the problem. Build the stadium but use local contractors. Then employ people to run the stadium and start creating a bit of money circulating he local economy.
I understand that there are a number of gyms, sports clinics, etc but what is there specifically aimed at helping hte delevopment of athletes in the area. Somewhere where people can come to get the right advice or treatment. Lets find something that can make this a unique and attractive proposition so it works for as many people as possible. I acknowledge that the main tennants will be the footbal and rugby league club and who knows in a few years with a bit of success York RUFC may even be able to utilise it.
To flip it the other way - look for a way to represent something that does create best value for the city and its taxpayers.

exileinnotts wrote:

BioLogic wrote:
I'm not against the YCFC building a stadium if they want one, but I do not think one penny of public money should contribute to it. If it is to built using public money it must be subject to the same openness and accountability that goes with that, which means that an open bidding process would be needed for clubs to bid for the use of the stadium to get the best value for the taxpayer. The guilt trips are for not supporting the stadium idea, not for not supporting York City (why would anyone feel guilty about that!) When I think about the "benefits" of a stadium, I look at whether the facilites are actually needed, irrespective of a new stadium appearing. The short answer I come up with is no we already have sufficient gyms and access to sports clinics etc. So currently, no i do not want a new stadium, because I don't think it represents a good investment for the city or good value for the taxpayers. To flip it the other way, I don't think something which represents best value for the city and it's taxpayers will provide what York City need out of a stadium. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise though if someone can make a compelling case.

How about this as an answer to the problem. Build the stadium but use local contractors. Then employ people to run the stadium and start creating a bit of money circulating he local economy.
I understand that there are a number of gyms, sports clinics, etc but what is there specifically aimed at helping hte delevopment of athletes in the area. Somewhere where people can come to get the right advice or treatment. Lets find something that can make this a unique and attractive proposition so it works for as many people as possible. I acknowledge that the main tennants will be the footbal and rugby league club and who knows in a few years with a bit of success York RUFC may even be able to utilise it.
To flip it the other way - look for a way to represent something that does create best value for the city and its taxpayers.

I agree it sounds like a nice idea, but due to the size of the project it will have to go out on a tendering process europe wide.

If it can be made to truly supply something that meets the needs of the whole city not just football or league fans then it would be a great asset for York, but with te involvement of the football club md rugby club, everyone is going to be watching their own interests and paying lip service to the idea of a true community facility, maybe I'm cynical, but thats what i would do if it were my business involved.

BTW York RUFC have a very nice new facility of their own which in terms of facilities looks to outshine bootham crescent!

As for fatmike, if the best you can come out with is something on the level of Father Jack then I'm sure your contributions to this debate will be erudite and well received.

Thank you and goodnight

Biologic i think you should get a job

BioLogic scanning through the above does not seem a reasonable person willing to at least listen to another point of view uses some "clever" words and phrases but essentially is closed to the community stadium. Shame really as the football rugby clubs racecourse athletics Unis all add to the flavour of a city and make it a good place to live for a wide cross section of our residents and £2M seems a small price next to the councils profligacy in planning new homes for its self or making well known road junctions worse the Barbican even but we shall see.

joejamestom wrote:
BioLogic scanning through the above does not seem a reasonable person willing to at least listen to another point of view uses some "clever" words and phrases but essentially is closed to the community stadium. Shame really as the football rugby clubs racecourse athletics Unis all add to the flavour of a city and make it a good place to live for a wide cross section of our residents and £2M seems a small price next to the councils profligacy in planning new homes for its self or making well known road junctions worse the Barbican even but we shall see.

I'm not closed to the idea at all, at the moment I think it is poor value for money for the taxpayer and that it amounts to a bail out of York City.

The point of a debate is that someone takes a position and someone else takes the opposite one and then a debate ensues where each party tries to persuade the other that their position is better. So far the best this lot can manage is a bit of postulating and name calling. As is the case with most politicians, when someone doesn't want to answer a question they deflect.

The amount of deflection going on above makes me even more suspect about the idea of this stadium.

Oakgate couldn't give a monkey's about YCFC, they just want to get permission to expand Monks Cross and without the lever of the stadium, they will never get planning permission to do it.

The company behind the development of the extension to Coppergate will object certainly as will likely the Retail organisations, the Civic Trust and the company planning a rival site that has received much publicity. So will it ever get built? I have my doubts.

The much vaunted profligacy in the new Council Headquarters is a bit of a red herring, yes they have wasted money on Hungate, but the project as a whole is well costed given the enormous savings that will be made by not having to maintain a disparate range of properties and by selling the ones they no longer need.

So 2m quid for something which supports a couple of ailing businesses that provides enjoyment to at best estimates around 2% of the city's residents is good value?

Your kids must do well at Christmas!!

See this is where many people's argument falls flat on it's face when they come up with a made up figure of 2% that it will benefit. What part of the football and rugby clubs' fans, 20,000 kids enjoying their community courses which only exist because they do, the athletics users and watchers, the library users, nhs centre users all of which are being built with the council's money equals just 2%? It doesn't. It is simply a lie.

Let's look at this from another angle and why a football club isn't just a normal business. York aren't undergoing a ground breaking deal with a council here. Up and down the land loads of councils put money into their local teams. Now, at what point does it begin to click that maybe there's a very good reason so many councils do this. Maybe sports clubs are a massive community asset. Maybe they do actually help out far far more than some would like to believe.
No one is asking you to like sport but that doesn't mean you can't understand the value of something.

Sarah York wrote:
See this is where many people's argument falls flat on it's face when they come up with a made up figure of 2% that it will benefit. What part of the football and rugby clubs' fans, 20,000 kids enjoying their community courses which only exist because they do, the athletics users and watchers, the library users, nhs centre users all of which are being built with the council's money equals just 2%? It doesn't. It is simply a lie.

Let's look at this from another angle and why a football club isn't just a normal business. York aren't undergoing a ground breaking deal with a council here. Up and down the land loads of councils put money into their local teams. Now, at what point does it begin to click that maybe there's a very good reason so many councils do this. Maybe sports clubs are a massive community asset. Maybe they do actually help out far far more than some would like to believe.
No one is asking you to like sport but that doesn't mean you can't understand the value of something.

It is not a lie. I'll back it up.

York has a population of 220000 roughly.

2% of that figure is therefore 4400 people, which I would say is a reasonable estimation, based on current attendances at Rugby and Football matches as to how many would use the Stadium on a regular basis.

Sure you can inflate those numbers by talking about community football courses etc, but is that a fair and accurate representation a to how many people will walk through the doors on a weekly basis? I don't think so. Also football courses etc don't require a stadium with 6000 seats to run.

As for a football club not being a normal business, it's that attitude that is killing football clubs up and down this country. They are just like any other business, theatres, cinemas funparks, they offer entertainment for an entry fee and they have to live and die on the merits of how well that business is run.

I agree sports clubs are much better being run as not for profit concerns, Look at all of the amateur rugby clubs thriving in this area, with excellent facilities, this proves it can be done. But i didn't turn football into the money grabbing commercialised tax avoiding cess pit it has become, football fans did.

And it's that cess pit that has created the world where clubs like York can never thrive without a benefactor as they are just not commercially viable. Maybe that benefactor should be the local authority, maybe not, but that should surely be an open debate and something decided by a democratic process rather than by the back door as it will be with the stadium deal.

The football club and the rugby club are part of the very fabric of York. We took what, 15k to Wembley a couple of years ago. Maybe the same again this year. Add to that those thousands who can't afford to go to watch the matches but regularly follow their team in the papers or radio.
What about the thousands of school children who have benefited from community projects run by the club. I remember going to YCFC run holiday clubs when I was a child. I also remember players making appearances at my school, being positive role models, encouraging children to get fit, active and healthy.
There are far more stakeholders to YCFC than the 3-4k crowds that go through the gate. A fact that many seem to forget. It wasn't that long ago that residents and supporters raised £'000k's to stop the club going bust due to previous, well documented issues. That money wasn't raised by just the 2-3k people who were attending at that time.
So to say that only 2% of Yorks population has an interest in the club is pure rubbish.

Secondly the current facilities at Huntington Stadium are not fit for the purpose of our Athletics club. So what is your take on that? Should we also let the athletics club die as it needs public funds to allow it to continue. £2m worth in fact to make county level purpose built facilities at the university. Something our city can be proud of. But by your summation, Athletics should be allowed to die out if it can't pay its own way. That's more 100's of people (1000's if you count families) who are stakeholders to this project. But don't worry. Those kids who could be going to Athletics clubs and gymnastic clubs can go and sit on the street corners, or play on their playstations instead. After all, who needs athletics? (Right?)

The football, rugby and athletics clubs of York are so important to its very fabric. They allow regular people a release from their regular working weeks in a way that very few things can. How often did I, as a child, come home from the match and bounce my football against a wall. As an adult when I was unemployed earlier this year to forget my problems for one and a half hours whilst I listened to the radio (or my dad bought me into BC), and after talking over the match with my mates. Tell me one private business that does this?

Community benefits = NHS outpatients facility, Xplore learning library and a university led health and wellbeing centre.
Plus 3G surfaces which will be rented out.
Depending on the type of pitch laid it might be possible to rent out the actual pitch of the stadium - I believe Warringtons new ground does exactly that because of the playing surface laid.
This is all in the budget of £4m. Given that £2m of that will be spent on rehousing the athletics regardless (and you haven't mentioned what your viewpoint is on this yet) CoYC are getting an awful lot of assets for their £2m (in my opinion).
Also given that all these community facilities will contribute rental payments (from YCFC, YCK, NHS, Uni, 3G pitches) you can start to see where a return might start to get built up.

I like BioLogics argument about 2% of the population would benefit from the facility bit of a smoke screen really. You could argue that a small % of Yorks residents benefit from the Pool & leisure facilities or many of the other facilities COYC support libraries for instance. As with the above it looks like a lot of facility for the money could it double up as a concert venue?
Plus I suspect John Lewis really have no plan to go to the city centre as an alternative site & we would really like one in the city.

There was a recent study carried out in Hartlepool; they found the football team brought in £5 Million pounds annually to the town. Thats not to the Football Club, thats too businesses and companies other than the football team based in Hartlepool.

Given the higher number of away fans York attracts, I'd like to see a study of how much money YCFC and YCK bring in (not to mention the Atheletics Club) and how many indirect jobs they support.

joejamestom wrote:
I like BioLogics argument about 2% of the population would benefit from the facility bit of a smoke screen really. You could argue that a small % of Yorks residents benefit from the Pool & leisure facilities or many of the other facilities COYC support libraries for instance. As with the above it looks like a lot of facility for the money could it double up as a concert venue?
Plus I suspect John Lewis really have no plan to go to the city centre as an alternative site & we would really like one in the city.

Re JL - correct. They have been quoted as saying theat there isn't a site within York which provides the space or delivers within the right timescales.

Meanwhile; Huddersfield are starting to court the likes of JL. York is going to be left behind again.....

attn Biologic
no-one can be arsed wasting precious minutes of their lives on your essays. Just say you're against it and wind yer neck in. We got your position on the first post.