Re: Stadium Developments : Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:14 pm  

Wheels wrote:

Well Starbug, you were right.

York Council won't even consider York Knights plans or concerns, and instead are pushing along with the 6k seater 'lego box' that will be useless and far too expensive for everyone.

All because the football club are stamping their feet and throwing a paddy.

Knocks me sick.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the Football Club and you know it.

If John Guildford had any evidence that his vision might go ahead then someone, at some time, would have spoke up and said something and helped back him. As it happens everyone knows it was a load of hogwash from the start including many people away from YCFC and now it's finally been put to bed how much of a b*llshitter Guildford is.

The one that's going ahead is the one the rest of York have been dicussing and planning through a serious of meetings which JG refused to turn up to. It's not anyone else's problem if the best he can do is put a graphic on a table of a stadium 'that looks nice' one month before the application goes through.

[Wheels]

Re: Stadium Developments : Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:27 pm  

tommy wrote:

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the Football Club and you know it.

If John Guildford had any evidence that his vision might go ahead then someone, at some time, would have spoke up and said something and helped back him. As it happens everyone knows it was a load of hogwash from the start including many people away from YCFC and now it's finally been put to bed how much of a b*llshitter Guildford is.

The one that's going ahead is the one the rest of York have been dicussing and planning through a serious of meetings which JG refused to turn up to. It's not anyone else's problem if the best he can do is put a graphic on a table of a stadium 'that looks nice' one month before the application goes through.

1. Guildford has missed three meetings in 8 years.

2. Guildford has had these concerns from day 1. No one would listen, hence him getting frustrated and missing three meetings.

3. Since no one would listen, Guildford has come up with some suggestions as possible alternatives, along with explanations as to how it could be funded. Again, it gets buried as the football club need a new home as soon as yesterday.

4. Where is the justice in York Knights losing their home for a year or more, then being charged three times the rent (and with no revenue streams available) when they finally move into this pointless little lego box? Just because the football club have decided to move in (12 months ago they wouldn't even entertain the thought of moving to Huntington!)

The football club need the rugby club, not the other way around.

Re: Stadium Developments : Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:41 pm  

He missed 3 out of 4 meetings in the Stadium Group discussions on the current Stadium, these plans weren't even around 8 years ago. You can only miss what's in front of you and he's missed the lot.

Again, if the plans were viable and always part of Guildford’s vision a) why has everyone dismissed them as rubbish and b) why did it take until a month before the first real plan drawn up in 8 years was submitted to final put something down?

What does it matter if YCK lose there Home for a year, Guildford supposedly wants a new ground so surely they'd be moving out for a year anyway!? Absolutely stupid point and one which Guildford must have accounted for in his watertight business plans.

If the Football Club (or anyone for that matter) needed the Rugby Club, why are the Council, Athletics, Racing and a whole other hosts of people and organisations ignoring the Rugby Club and getting on with something that will benefit York (both sporting and in retail development)?

[Wheels]

Re: Stadium Developments : Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:01 pm  

Guildford had to get some kind of plans of his own drawn up as soon as these plans were announced, which he did and why they were announced only in October. He had to do something as no one else was listening. Guildfords plans are just suggestions of how a real community stadium would look, how it could be funded and then the benefits to everyone concerned.

Of course it wouldn't matter if the Knights moved out for a year, if what they were moving back in to is worthwhile. It isn't. Therefore it isn't a stupid point at all. Guildford will have accounted for moving for a year in his plans, of course. What he will not want to account for, is triple the rent he is currently paying, along with no more revenue streams available to the club. Where will the Knights train? Where will the reserves play on a Thursday night? The precious football club won't let us on our own bloody pitch, that is for sure.

If you want to carry on thinking this stadium will benefit either sporting club then fine, but you are sadly mistaken. Just look at Leigh.

And our pointless, unimpressive, yet very expensive little lego box will be much smaller than theirs.

Re: Stadium Developments : Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:04 pm  

pyeman wrote:

Not trying to stir just curious as Rodney walkers letter did not seem to imply that and i wondered if the funding position had changed.

Sir Rods written evidence to the PI:-

"My experience and expertise tells me that I will be able to procure support for the funding of the stadium and operational costs in a number of ways. I will seek grant funding support from avariety of sources via local government, local organisations and communities, local and national charities, regional, national and European funding schemes. TheCouncil is contributing £2m to the Trust which would be paid by the Trust toYorkcourt towards the construction costs of the stadium. The Trust will also seek to secure other funding support from the Sports Lottery Fund and the Football Trust"

Fully funded?

Re: Stadium Developments : Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:47 pm  

Wheels wrote:

Guildford had to get some kind of plans of his own drawn up as soon as these plans were announced, which he did and why they were announced only in October. He had to do something as no one else was listening. Guildfords plans are just suggestions of how a real community stadium would look, how it could be funded and then the benefits to everyone concerned.

Of course it wouldn't matter if the Knights moved out for a year, if what they were moving back in to is worthwhile. It isn't. Therefore it isn't a stupid point at all. Guildford will have accounted for moving for a year in his plans, of course. What he will not want to account for, is triple the rent he is currently paying, along with no more revenue streams available to the club. Where will the Knights train? Where will the reserves play on a Thursday night? The precious football club won't let us on our own bloody pitch, that is for sure.

If you want to carry on thinking this stadium will benefit either sporting club then fine, but you are sadly mistaken. Just look at Leigh.

And our pointless, unimpressive, yet very expensive little lego box will be much smaller than theirs.

No idea where you’re coming from with this “lego-box” chat. It’s the same stadium minus the tinpot stand in the current proposals as it is in Guildford’s (where there’s a real stand).

Plus, again with the childish mockery of “precious football club” regarding the pitch. Well the FC won’t be using the pitch either. YCK have managed to find an array of other floodlit locations to train on over the years yet suddenly all options are shut to them. For someone who isn’t a fan of ‘kicking and screaming’ this seems to be exactly what Guildford is doing. Instead of going to meetings and discussion with the grown-ups he plays with the crayons in the corner.

Who says it’s 3 times as much rent anyway? The objection letter from Guildford claims it will raise 360% from the current rent yet a week later there was an article saying YCK hadn’t paid the bar rent of at least £23k (something which Guildford again argued and got wrong btw). With the proposed rent (and let’s not forget, that’s all it is, proposed, turn up to a meeting and maybe it could be negotiated) being £70,000 how is it increasing 360% when we know at MINIMUM it’s already £23k? That’s already an outright lie in an official objection report.

And while the plans put forward by Guildford may be an outline on how to build it, what’s the situation with who owns it, who runs it, who gets what of the profit? For someone who keeps bringing up his ‘precious’ business plan, how come he hasn’t got one for the facilities and costs?

What YCK fans can’t seem to understand is why would the FC, athletics, council and so on not only knock back a plan for a 9,000-seater stadium with the track, extra pitch etc but also knock it back when supposedly this will make everyone rich beyond their wildest dreams because they’ll own all the facilities and income from it? The only reason being is because IT CAN’T HAPPEN.
YCFC don’t actually need to move out for 3-4 years, it’s not something that has to be this season. In 3-4 years you could easily come up with a business plan and build the thing so, again, if there was any sort of supporting evidence that it would work, not just in how it was built, but how it was managed, then YCFC would stall on these plans or leave altogether.
Maybe the reason it’s being ‘rushed through’ (though after 8 years it’s hardly rushed) is because the council need this retail development to happen and that is in fact the thing with a short window of time to do. Therefore, shouldn’t YCK be going at the council and not just blaming the FC for everything? Food for thought…

Re: Stadium Developments : Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:56 pm  

bigalf wrote:

Sir Rods written evidence to the PI:-

"My experience and expertise tells me that I will be able to procure support for the funding of the stadium and operational costs in a number of ways. I will seek grant funding support from avariety of sources via local government, local organisations and communities, local and national charities, regional, national and European funding schemes. TheCouncil is contributing £2m to the Trust which would be paid by the Trust toYorkcourt towards the construction costs of the stadium. The Trust will also seek to secure other funding support from the Sports Lottery Fund and the Football Trust"

Fully funded?

Fully funded oh yes

Castleford

Bricks for sale help

Re: Stadium Developments : Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:42 pm  

"Fully funded oh yes" - try telling that to the P.I.

Don't stop believing eh RW&B ?

Re: Stadium Developments : Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:44 pm  

Tigerade wrote:

"Fully funded oh yes" - try telling that to the P.I.

Don't stop believing eh RW&B ?

York Court have - the exact nature of what was said I do not know, but a letter confirming full funding and the stadium being built before any units was handed to the Inspector at the PI today.

Re: Stadium Developments : Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:36 pm  

The funding from YCP is enough to build a stadium of the correct size and quality to satisfy the RFL criteria for a Grade A rating, but no more!

The funding brought in from grants etc will allow the stadium be built with extra facilities contained within the stands.

Without grant funding we can build 3 box standard stands with little more than toilets and food outlets accompanied by a main stand with hospitality, changing rooms etc.

With grant funding we can build a significantly better facility which has amenities, office space, gymnasiums ECT ECT ECT within all of the 4 stands. If Wakefield Stadium Trust are really successful in securing all the funding available there's a suggestion that the corners could be filled in.

There's also grant applications for further sporting facilities that will rest outside the stadium such as a full sized indoor pitch, 5-aside pitches, hockey pitch, 2nd Rugby pitch with its own dressing rooms and so on.

When YCP say they guarantee a fully funded stadium they mean the basic box standard stadium, when Sir Rodney Walker says we will also need Grants, he's talking about a stadium with bells, whistles, and a feathery balloon attached!

Sorry to P!$$ on everyone's fireworks!