10 replies to this topic

[KISS]

Following John Guildford's statement to the Press re the proposed Oakgate development stadium plans, there has been many comments I have replied with my own personal views I would just reiterate that the comments I have made are personal comments and DO NOT REPRESENT the views of KISS.

The comments are my own and not of KISS (Knights Independent Supporters Society) of which I am the chairman.
I attended some of the meetings of York City Football Supporters Club and at those meeting it was evident that York City Fans did not want to move to Huntington citing that it was too far out of town, no pubs etc.
Now Huntington is the utopia to the football fans. I agree that this city should have a top class community sports facility but the plan put forward by Oakgate is hardly top class, way back in 1989 Huntington Stadium (then Ryedale Stadium) was built but has never really been completed, from memory York RLFC made a financial contribution of £300,000 towards the cost.
The proposed rent to the Knights of £70,000 per season equates to £5833 per game. Championship clubs play only 12 home games, cup games the receipts are shared. After VAT the club receive gate receipts of £12 per person today therefore 486 people have to come through the gate at each game just to pay the rent.
Take into account that players wages, travel to away games, doctors, physio and security have to be paid along with other expenses it is obvious that other income is essential.
As part time professional players Knights players train at night a floodlit facility is essential along with a fully equipped treatment room, gym and meeting facilities.
The club aspires to reach the highest level and compete in Super League the proposed facility does not conform to the criteria required, I doubt that once the new stadium is built there will never be any money available to improve, so we should not accept a second rate option.
The vision of John Guildford for a complete sports complex is in my opinion is the least this city deserves and should aspire to. Capable of hosting a full programme of community based events which generate income to sustain all the sports clubs for the future.
Gary Hall
Chairman KISS Knights Independent Supporters Society

[Wathey]

As a fan of both the Knights and York City I would just like to say a few points:

- No, Huntington Stadium is no utopia, but it is the best chance both clubs have of surviving long term. If given the opportunity, I'm sure both Knights fans and City fans would prefer to ground share at a revamped Bootham Crescent, but for financial reasons that's just not going to happen.

- Nobody is going to disagree that Guildford's plans are better, the question is if we are struggling to pay for the Council's bare minimum version, how are we going to be able to afford the extra's Guildford is talking about? If Guildford can prove the money is there, then why not come forward, add a bit of merit to what he's saying.

- Look at what Guildford is saying, if you strip it right down he wants more facilities for less money. I understand completely where he is coming from, but that is an impossible position to negotiate from.

- With regards to the training facilities, why can't the Knights and City share them aswell. There is plenty of room at the Wiggington Road site, and I presume it would take minimul funds to ge it up to scratch. There's no reason why this venue couldn't also be used for the reserve/youth games aswell, as no seats/terracing will be required.

[Wathey]

EDIT: Double Post

Ce message a été modifié par Wathey - 02 décembre 2011 - 01:49 .

[AndyHall]

@Wathy

There's more money available for Plan B than there is for Plan A...

[GaryHall]

As a fan of both the Knights and York City I would just like to say a few points:

- No, Huntington Stadium is no utopia, but it is the best chance both clubs have of surviving long term. If given the opportunity, I'm sure both Knights fans and City fans would prefer to ground share at a revamped Bootham Crescent, but for financial reasons that's just not going to happen.

- Nobody is going to disagree that Guildford's plans are better, the question is if we are struggling to pay for the Council's bare minimum version, how are we going to be able to afford the extra's Guildford is talking about? If Guildford can prove the money is there, then why not come forward, add a bit of merit to what he's saying.

- Look at what Guildford is saying, if you strip it right down he wants more facilities for less money. I understand completely where he is coming from, but that is an impossible position to negotiate from.

- With regards to the training facilities, why can't the Knights and City share them aswell. There is plenty of room at the Wiggington Road site, and I presume it would take minimul funds to ge it up to scratch. There's no reason why this venue couldn't also be used for the reserve/youth games aswell, as no seats/terracing will be required.

BOOTHAM CRESCENT
I for one would not want to ground share at Bootham Crescent whether it was revamped or not.
The main issue is parking, followed by the lack of other income streams - catering, bar takings advertising etc would be YCFC. The stadium is land locked any way so it would be impossible to build anything worthwhile.
DARTSTONE PROPOSAL
I cannot comment as I have no details of the financial or planning implications.
At the end of the day YCFC have a limited time at Bootham Crescent and face eviction, it is they who are eager to move to whatever facility is available quickest. They can continue playing at Bootham Crescent with no disruption during construction of the new stadium then move to the new stadium. The Knights meanwhile have to move to a temporary location (Bootham Crescent) with no training facilities, give up income streams - bar, catering advertising etc. I would suggest that the Knights should be compensated by YCFC for the loss of revenue. Then the Knights move back to Huntington Stadium at an increased rent 360% higher than previously.
IS THIS FAIR ON THE KNIGHTS TO PREVENT YCFC FROM GOING BUST.

TRAINING FACILITES
The Knights are part time professionals therefore the players train at night, there are no floodlights at Wigginton Road, on site the players need a gym, treatment room meeting facilities all of which are available at Huntington Stadium. The criteria set out for reserve / under 18 games by the RFL is quite strict and again these games are played on an evening so floodlight are required.

I have tried to be objective to the requirements of YCFC and replied to comments in the press (giving my name) unfortunately there are some City supporters who can only see the arguments from their perspective.

Some of the comments on the Red & Blue forum about myself and more so John Guildford are insulting and slanderous by people hiding behind usernames obviously.

Ce message a été modifié par GaryHall - 03 décembre 2011 - 10:45 .

[Spanish Knight]

BOOTHAM CRESCENT
I for one would not want to ground share at Bootham Crescent whether it was revamped or not.
The main issue is parking, followed by the lack of other income streams - catering, bar takings advertising etc would be YCFC. The stadium is land locked any way so it would be impossible to build anything worthwhile.
DARTSTONE PROPOSAL
I cannot comment as I have no details of the financial or planning implications.
At the end of the day YCFC have a limited time at Bootham Crescent and face eviction, it is they who are eager to move to whatever facility is available quickest. They can continue playing at Bootham Crescent with no disruption during construction of the new stadium then move to the new stadium. The Knights meanwhile have to move to a temporary location (Bootham Crescent) with no training facilities, give up income streams - bar, catering advertising etc. I would suggest that the Knights should be compensated by YCFC for the loss of revenue. Then the Knights move back to Huntington Stadium at an increased rent 360% higher than previously.
IS THIS FAIR ON THE KNIGHTS TO PREVENT YCFC FROM GOING BUST.

TRAINING FACILITES
The Knights are part time professionals therefore the players train at night, there are no floodlights at Wigginton Road, on site the players need a gym, treatment room meeting facilities all of which are available at Huntington Stadium. The criteria set out for reserve / under 18 games by the RFL is quite strict and again these games are played on an evening so floodlight are required.

I have tried to be objective to the requirements of YCFC and replied to comments in the press (giving my name) unfortunately there are some City supporters who can only see the arguments from their perspective.

Some of the comments on the Red & Blue forum about myself and more so John Guildford are insulting and slanderous by people hiding behind usernames obviously.

You may as well bang your head against a wall Gary as try and explain to some of the City fans, J.G. is the only one who seems to know what he's doing.

[Wathey]

Ok, the facilities at Wiggy Road just need a bit of improvement and then it will meet all the requirements you suggested. Floodlights isn't an issue at all, if Sunday League clubs can afford them then surely they can be included as part of a multi-million pound development. Adding a gym and physio facilities to the training ground could be done aswell (if they aren't already there), I really so no problem with what I suggest other than both sides being difficult.

With regards to the 'Stay at Bootham Crescent' comment, would you honestly say that you wouldn't prefer to go back to a city centre location and see your crowds rise to something similar to the Clarence Street days. By a revamped Bootham Crescent I meant that it could include a bar and revenue streams could be shared. Let's get one thing straight, a new stadium is needed for BOTH clubs. Whilst I agree the increase in rent is hard on the Knights, if we are to believe what we are being told then the extra revenue created by the new stadium should see us right.

If there really is something in the Guildford plan, then what's the point in holding back the details? Both clubs have every right to be distrustful of their owners given our history, Guildford should respect that and put some substance behind his words.

[GaryHall]

I can honestly say that personally I would not want to play at Bootham Crescent ever, parking would be / is a nightmare. When we have played at Bootham Crescent I have wondered why Clarence Street did not conform to the safety legislation following the Bradford Fire, yet Bootham Crescent did the construction of the stands are very similar at both grounds.

It is worth remembering when we played at Clarence Street there was nothing else to do on a winters Sunday afternoon the pubs shut at 2pm and did not open until 7pm, drinkers could drink all afternoon in the bar at Clarence Street. The shops were closed.
Now we play in Summer, pubs are open all day, shops are open all day. So even if we played still played at Clarence Street the gates would still be the same as we get at Huntington in my opinion. If we played at Bootham Crescent with the hassle of parking I would expect gates to drop.

[Wathey]

I've posted this on the City forum aswell, but having got in touch with John Guildford thought I'd report back on what he has said:

if you look at the original document that the council was given it was only issued to assist the council provide a sustainable true Community stadium. We never had any intentions of putting it into planning/ progressing the plans.

As you are aware it is the council that will be progressing with the plans and ours was only a suggestion.

We stated at the time of issue" that we hoped the city of york council will consider our proposal and explore the options."

Unfortunately my proposal started world war 3 and was attacked by everyone without giving it any consideration, which i thought it deserved. I fully respect it is the council that will decided on what the stadium will be like and that everyone thought my proposal was rubbish, i just hope the scheme the council put forward is a scheme that is for community use, fit for purpose and sustainable.

You confirmed at the last meeting all group members was asked to put forward a wish list and no one responded, well i am not surprised they didn't with all the back lash i have had from putting in my wish list.

[shades2]

Big piece in Press today, roughly says JG has agreed to support the new stadium after
getting answers to his questions/concerns at a 'ground-breaking' meeting.

Now on Press website

Ce message a été modifié par shades2 - 17 février 2012 - 11:50 .

[Spanish Knight]

Big piece in Press today, roughly says JG has agreed to support the new stadium after
getting answers to his questions/concerns at a 'ground-breaking' meeting.

Not seen the Press yet Shades good news maybe now there will be some progress, cant see it being started for another 3 or 4 years at least, how long do City have before they have to be out of B.C. anyone know?.