You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Andy Burnham - City Benefited From Significant Public Investment Linked To The Commonwealth Games
- Thread starter jrb
- Start date
The stadium was being built anyway for Commonwealth games so fail to see the comparison. Compare what Sheikh Mansour and the UAE have invested into East Manchester compared to the Glazers it's night and day. Typical Burnham talking out his..........
Psychedelic Casual
Well-Known Member
All this guff Burnham and Labour have come out with about it being good for the wider community… however, they have banned the parking of cars around the Etihad and Co-Op Live yet haven’t increased any kind of public transport service: Metrolink is still struggling to shift fans before and after games with dangerously full Mets and very long queues open to the elements post-game, Bee Network haven’t increased the number of buses (and for some reason they all turn up 20 minutes before the end of the game so for those of us who stay to clap the players off, no buses are left), no new Park&Ride car parks have been set up anywhere with no new Park&Ride transport to get people to the Etihad from anywhere.
There’s been nothing, not one single bit of improvements by local or central Govt with the expansion of the Campus and the banning of cars allowed to park around it.
Next season when a City match coïncides with a Co-Op Live event, there could be 85,000 people who need moving to and from Etihad Campus, with a transport infrastructure provided by Bee Network that is worse (since people can’t park nearby) than when it was 47,000 people in just the smaller Etihad Stadium.
It’s been the club who have had to organise a bus service off their own backs. And that’s expensive. I’ve noticed how Burnham and his Bee Network haven’t stepped in to make the City bus service part of the Bee Network for matchdays with their £2 Single journey fees, no subsidy, nothing, so the club are having to charge £8 return to cover the costs of the service.
Surely as part of the granted planning permission for the expansion of the Etihad and the building of Co-Op Live, the local Council or central Govt must have to have been told that transport infrastructure around Etihad Campus must be improved? Surely? So why hasn’t it been?
All while Trafford Park is going to get billions pumped into it from Govt?
Fuck off Burnham and Labour! Fucking hell, The Waldorf pub in Town have done more than you cunts to improve transport to the Etihad with their pre-game coach from the pub to the ground.
There’s been nothing, not one single bit of improvements by local or central Govt with the expansion of the Campus and the banning of cars allowed to park around it.
Next season when a City match coïncides with a Co-Op Live event, there could be 85,000 people who need moving to and from Etihad Campus, with a transport infrastructure provided by Bee Network that is worse (since people can’t park nearby) than when it was 47,000 people in just the smaller Etihad Stadium.
It’s been the club who have had to organise a bus service off their own backs. And that’s expensive. I’ve noticed how Burnham and his Bee Network haven’t stepped in to make the City bus service part of the Bee Network for matchdays with their £2 Single journey fees, no subsidy, nothing, so the club are having to charge £8 return to cover the costs of the service.
Surely as part of the granted planning permission for the expansion of the Etihad and the building of Co-Op Live, the local Council or central Govt must have to have been told that transport infrastructure around Etihad Campus must be improved? Surely? So why hasn’t it been?
All while Trafford Park is going to get billions pumped into it from Govt?
Fuck off Burnham and Labour! Fucking hell, The Waldorf pub in Town have done more than you cunts to improve transport to the Etihad with their pre-game coach from the pub to the ground.
Last edited:
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
Simple way to make money was parking bays and .meters tenner a carAll this guff Burnham and Labour have come out with about it being good for the wider community… however, they have banned the parking of cars around the Etihad and Co-Op Live yet haven’t increased any kind of public transport service: Metrolink is still struggling to shift fans before and after games with dangerously full Mets and very long queues open to the elements post-game, Bee Network haven’t increased the number of buses (and for some reason they all turn up 20 minutes before the end of the game so for those of us who stay to clap the players off, no buses are left), no new Park&Ride car parks have been set up anywhere with no new Park&Ride transport to get people to the Etihad from anywhere.
There’s been nothing, not one single bit of improvements by local or central Govt with the expansion of the Campus and the banning of cars allowed to park around it.
Next season when a City match coïncides with a Co-Op event, there could be 85,000 people who need moving to and from Etihad Campus, with a transport infrastructure provided by Bee Network that is worse (since peoooe can’t park nearby) than when it was 47,000 people in just the smaller Etihad Stadium.
It’s been the club who have had to organise a bus service off their own backs. And that’s expensive. I’ve noticed how Burnham and his Bee Network haven’t stepped in to make the City bus service part of the Bee Network for matchdays with their £2 Single journey fees, no subsidy, nothing, so the club are having to charge £8 return to cover the costs of the service.
All while Trafford Park is going to get billions pumped into it from Govt?
Fuck off Burnham and Labour!
inchy14
Well-Known Member
Excellent summary.‘A tax exile’s half-baked misbegotten scheme’
The Blackley and Middleton South MP (and United fan) writes on Ratcliffe and Co’s proposals for the stadium and surrounding area -
Labour’s Andy Burnham claims to be confident of financial support from Labour’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, for the so-called “New Trafford”. This is the proposal to replace Manchester United’s 115 years old ground with a new state of the art, £2 billion stadium on the land of an adjacent rail freight hub.
No Manchester United fan or Labour politician should support these plans. I am both, and believe the proposals are an ill-thought-out concept and wrong in principle.
Where the real problem rests.
United’s problem is not the stadium, which has the largest capacity of any club stadium in the country, it is United’s failure to win sufficient games in the stadium. This is partly the consequence of the loss of focus on the key United product, football, and the poor recruitment of players. Commercial deals are vital, but they have become more important than the football.
According to the Financial Times, Manchester United’s marquee signings lose more value and faster than any other European football club. They are also less productive playing for a smaller percentage of time than other clubs’ major signings. Angel Di Maria, who United bought for £59.7 million in 2014, a British club record at the time, only played for 8% of the available time.
A new stadium will not improve the team, in fact history shows many teams moving into new grounds have a dip in form. This point was put to me succinctly while standing on the terraces at Hillsborough in the 1960s. This ground was considered one of the best in the country at the time, having invested in a large modern cantilever stand. It was regularly chosen for FA Cup semi-finals. A typically dour Yorkshireman seeing his side trailing to United, said “I’m still waiting for the bloody new cantilever stand to score a goal.”
Am I the only person to think there is a distinctly fishy smell when the part owner of United predicts imminent bankruptcy while simultaneously launching an ill-defined scheme costing £2 billion.
What don’t we know?
Some supporters suspect that New Trafford will not be owned by United but leased back from new owners (the current ground is 100% owned by United). Selling the naming rights for the stadium would be extremely lucrative as would building housing on the site of the current stadium and its environs.
Before embarking on a regeneration project, it is usual for viability and impact studies to be undertaken, not in this case. The proposals are as transparent as a block of lead and raise many questions. Inevitably the rail freight terminal would have to be moved to St Helens. Are we really in the business of moving jobs to Merseyside? I think not.
It is also rumoured that the new stadium would be prefabricated abroad and sailed up the Ship Canal and assembled. Few Manchester jobs would be created.
Unsubstantiated Claims
Unsubstantiated claims are that moving the freight would ease congestion at Manchester Piccadilly, but alternatives for potentially £300 million of public subsidy are not being considered. Maybe investment in digital signalling or investment in Platforms 15 and 16 would be more effective.
Alternative uses of public funds.
But this is typical of this scheme, where alternatives for better use of the money have been ignored.
If new homes are to be built, surely better to go with regeneration schemes whose viability has been proved. Holt Town and Victoria North would be more productive sites and help Angela Rayner hit her 1.5 million housing targets. It appears some local politicians have been bewitched by the proximity of football celebrity and lost their common sense.
On a personal note, I find deep irony in the current situation. It could have been avoided if United had accepted an offer from Manchester City Council when we were planning the 2002 Commonwealth Games. We were determined that the Games’ stadium would not become a white elephant. Our plan was to be able to convert the Games’ venue into an 80,000+ replacement or competitor for Wembley. United were the only club with sufficient support to make this viable. I had meetings with Roland Smith, who then chaired United’s board. He rejected the offer.
There were then meetings with City, who bit our hand off. Given City’s smaller fan base, the size of the ground had to be reduced but City’s new home in a state-of-the-art stadium made them attractive to first Thaksin Shinawatra and then to the Abu Dhabi United Group, effectively the Abu Dhabi state. This and the subsequent investment in the team has led to City’s recent spectacular success and then improvements in the ground. Irony or what?!
Coe
Incidentally, what is Sebastian Coe doing anywhere near a Manchester project? Does nobody remember his assault and undermining of Manchester’s bid for investment and the Olympic Games? Somebody should dig out his anti-Manchester quotes and buy him a one-way ticket back to London.
Reeves
When Rachel Reeves announced her new determination to grow the economy with investment in infrastructure there was no surprise that the major schemes were in the south: the Lower Thames Crossing, Heathrow and the Cambridge-Oxford corridor. She also rather embarrassingly claimed no new runways had been built in the country since 1945. Yet her Leeds constituency has jobs dependent on the success of Manchester Airport, which of course built a new runway at the start of this century. Like a drowning person, she is clutching for any straw to save her face as a Northern MP. New Trafford is not that straw.
Obscene
It would be politically obscene when the government is considering cuts to benefits and services to some of the poorest people in the country to present a cheque of hundreds of millions of pounds to a tax exile’s half-baked misbegotten scheme. Sir Jim Ratcliffe could replace the subsidy from public funds he is seeking from the money he doesn’t pay in British taxes. I doubt he would notice it.
Marvin.
Well-Known Member
You just posted this on the City Bus Scheme topic...All this guff Burnham and Labour have come out with about it being good for the wider community… however, they have banned the parking of cars around the Etihad and Co-Op Live yet haven’t increased any kind of public transport service: Metrolink is still struggling to shift fans before and after games with dangerously full Mets and very long queues open to the elements post-game, Bee Network haven’t increased the number of buses (and for some reason they all turn up 20 minutes before the end of the game so for those of us who stay to clap the players off, no buses are left), no new Park&Ride car parks have been set up anywhere with no new Park&Ride transport to get peoooe to the Etihad from anywhere.
There’s been nothing, not one single bit of improvements by local or central Govt with the expansion of the Campus and the banning of cars allowed to park around it.
Next season when a City match coïncides with a Co-Op event, there could be 85,000 people who need moving to and from Etihad Campus, with a transport infrastructure provided by Bee Network that is worse (since peoooe can’t park nearby) than when it was 47,000 people in just the smaller Etihad Stadium.
It’s been the club who have had to organise a bus service off their own backs. And that’s expensive. I’ve noticed how Burnham and his Bee Network haven’t stepped in to make the City bus service part of the Bee Network for matchdays with their £2 Single journey fees, no subsidy, nothing, so the club are having to charge £8 return to cover the costs of the service.
All while Trafford Park is going to get billions pumped into it from Govt?
Fuck off Burnham and Labour!
It’s expensive and could do with coming down on price (£8 return when all Greater Manchester buses are £2 for any Single journey, is a lot), but for those living on the outskirts of the conurbation where the Etihad is hard to get to directly, it’s an excellent service.
It’s one of the few things the club have done for many years that is good for local fans around a matchday
Who do you think runs the Matchday buses?
Psychedelic Casual
Well-Known Member
City? If it was Bee Network it’d be £4 return as part of their £2 Single journey anywhere.You just posted this on the City Bus Scheme topic...
Who do you think runs the Matchday buses?
inchy14
Well-Known Member
Nail in the fucking head.It is more likely that Khaldoon doesn't want anything to do with Burnham.
The **** can go share eyeliner with Vance for me.
Marvin.
Well-Known Member
Joint venture with the Bee Network. See https://tfgm.com/man-city/bus-networkCity? If it was Bee Network it’d be £4 return as part of their £2 Single journey anywhere.
The Coop arena owners did the deal with MCC for the extending no parking area long before it went to consultation, and the Coop agreed to pay to implement the scheme.All this guff Burnham and Labour have come out with about it being good for the wider community… however, they have banned the parking of cars around the Etihad and Co-Op Live yet haven’t increased any kind of public transport service: Metrolink is still struggling to shift fans before and after games with dangerously full Mets and very long queues open to the elements post-game, Bee Network haven’t increased the number of buses (and for some reason they all turn up 20 minutes before the end of the game so for those of us who stay to clap the players off, no buses are left), no new Park&Ride car parks have been set up anywhere with no new Park&Ride transport to get people to the Etihad from anywhere.
There’s been nothing, not one single bit of improvements by local or central Govt with the expansion of the Campus and the banning of cars allowed to park around it.
Next season when a City match coïncides with a Co-Op Live event, there could be 85,000 people who need moving to and from Etihad Campus, with a transport infrastructure provided by Bee Network that is worse (since people can’t park nearby) than when it was 47,000 people in just the smaller Etihad Stadium.
It’s been the club who have had to organise a bus service off their own backs. And that’s expensive. I’ve noticed how Burnham and his Bee Network haven’t stepped in to make the City bus service part of the Bee Network for matchdays with their £2 Single journey fees, no subsidy, nothing, so the club are having to charge £8 return to cover the costs of the service.
Surely as part of the granted planning permission for the expansion of the Etihad and the building of Co-Op Live, the local Council or central Govt must have to have been told that transport infrastructure around Etihad Campus must be improved? Surely? So why hasn’t it been?
All while Trafford Park is going to get billions pumped into it from Govt?
Fuck off Burnham and Labour! Fucking hell, The Waldorf pub in Town have done more than you cunts to improve transport to the Etihad with their pre-game coach from the pub to the ground.
The "improvement" were thigs like the stands on North car park for bikes and the electric bike stands, the new buses and the free free travel to the arena on the tram at certain times.
The report said it would make car drivers look at other existing sustainable options mainly.
It was really City and MCC who are at fault, City could fund extra trams if they wanted to, and it would still be quicker walking back. Measures were implemented which help 1-5% maybe. There was a transport strategy done also with trial shuttle buses to transport hubs for the NS.
There was never going to any major infrastructure delivered. MCC want cars off the roads, and were satisfied with City's expensive proposals. If you now get a parking ticket it is funded by City, or MCC charge the arena owners for implementing the parking scheme. The s.106 that agreed (paying for the parking scheme) was prepared well in advance of the planning permission granted or consultation as was a stich up by the City and MCC.