Andy Burnham | Manchester Mayor

Nightmare Walking said:
I don't understand the hate here. There are as many United fans in Manchester as there are blues. There are probably more rags in Greater Manchester than there are blues.
Like it or not, United bring significant amounts of money into the City.
Investment to improve the infrastructure around Old Trafford is a good thing and it will benefit the whole City.
Now if this money is being diverted from Mancunian public services then it needs looking at and the benefits being scrutinised. But, if it's coming from central government, it can only be a good thing. The Tories would not have paid a penny to redevelop infrastructure in Manchester. When the IRA blew up the City Centre, was it not EU money that paid for the redevelopment? That investment totally changed Manchester for the better.
Investment is good. Let the rags pay for their stadium. But don't let your hate of the rags cloud your judgement. Investment brings opportunity and it make help improve your children's lives.
Click to expand...
If the Government or Burnhams' council invested any where near that on the area around the Etihad then there wouldn't be a problem, in fact it would cost a fraction of that to restore Park railway station.
 
foggy1974 said:
If the Government or Burnhams' council invested any where near that on the area around the Etihad then there wouldn't be a problem, in fact it would cost a fraction of that to restore Park railway station.
Click to expand...

The mayor is leader of the combined authority - a body of 10 metropolitan boroughs of greater Manchester.

He has no direct control of “the council”. That would be the leader of the council.
 
shnaghaicityfish said:
I may be wrong here, and I’m certainly not taking sides in any political debate, but wasn’t the Clean Air Zone effectively being forced upon MCR by central government, who have now agreed it can be scrapped. I’ve only ever heard Burnham be critical of it?
Click to expand...
CAZ was mandated by the Conservative government who placed a legal responsibility on local authorities to develop plans to tackle nitrogen dioxide (NO2) exceedances at the roadside. This was because the government had been sued several times for not reducing illegal NO2 levels and were then legally obliged to lower them. However it was Burnham who decided how large the zone was going to be.

Bath's is 1.2 sq miles, Birmingham's is 2.96, Bradford's is 9.35, Bristol's is 1.18, Sheffield's is 0.9. Burnham wanted the whole of Greater Manchester which is nearly 500 sq miles. How much money was wasted before it was scrapped.

There is now a new plan - https://www.edie.net/government-scraps-greater-manchester-clean-air-zone-backs-86m-investment-plan/
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
What can you do during an ongoing legal case?
Click to expand...
I have never heard him say anything publically in praise of Sheikh Mansour's investment despite it being one of the biggest partnerships Labour-run Manchester has ever had with a private developer. In fact he seems to have gone out of his way to avoid saying anything in public about City's owner, well before any of the allegations.
A cynic might think he thought there were votes to gain from MUFC fans in Greater Manchester by keeping his mouth shut. Thousands of jobs in his area have been put under threat by the 115 case and yet he appears to have no view. There are plenty of things he could say which would not prejudice any legal action. In any event the 115 case is not a criminal trial or even a Civil Action so there is no risk of contempt of court.
 
Oldtraffordblue1 said:
I asked the report writers for a copy of the report to see how they would get to 90,000 jobs, that's more than worked in Trafford Park in it's heyday and about 70% of the numbers that work in Canary Wharf so that's not being replicated up North - no surprise no reply. Andy is right though we benefited from government investment into a state of the art transport system that opened before City started playing at the Etihad!
Click to expand...
Often these promised “benefits” tied to an investment case never materialise. They’re just part of a hard-sell to gain approval and funding. I used to get involved in post-investment benefit appraisal and let’s just say very few delivered on their promises. The promised benefits from “smart metering” for example were laughable in terms of what was actually accrued.
 
petrusha said:
At the moment, all my contributions on this thread have been posted with the aim of clarifying matters that concern the benefit from the public purse received by MCFC when we agreed to move to our current stadium back in the day. At present, I don't have an opinion regarding possible related public funding that might facilitate MUFC's new stadium or redevelopment of the current one, in the interests of stimulating wider regeneration.

On the one hand, I acknowledge that this is potentially a plausible outcome even in these desperately straitened times when value for money from government funding surely has to be at more of a premium than ever. If the current stated ambitions are now tested in a transparent process which later makes clear the reason for such a grant of public money and allows us all to satisfy ourselves as to the wisdom of the proposed investment, then realistically who can complain?

On the other hand, I do have sympathy with some of the cynicism on here when so far the only evidence of the above is an unpublished report with completely pie-in-the-sky headline figures produced by a man who was heavily involved in (albeit not solely responsible for) a Frankenstein of a stadium eventuating in London after the Olympics. Not only that, but the project saw eye-watering sums of public cash pissed away in a shitshow of staggering incompetence. Personally, then, I just prefer to wait and see.

One thing, though. If the outcome of the proposed compulsory purchase is far fewer freight trains being routed through central Manchester, maybe that will free up the East Manchester loop, which is currently used only for freight. That's the line that passes just to the west of our stadium, and maybe it would then be available for the continually developing Etihad Campus to devise a heavy rail option of its own. We can but dream.
Click to expand...
It won't be far fewer freight trains - night ones to Tilbury, London Gateway and Southampton and a couple during the day to Felixstowe. That's it. The daytime ones can add to disruption if services are already disrupted, but it's nothing like enough to justify spending a lot of public money on Parkside instead. Now if Ratcliffe / Glazers were paying a proper price for the Freightliner site, that might help the business case for Parkside, but that's the opposite of "public funding for a Wembley of the North".
 
Last edited:
bobbyowenquiff said:
I have never heard him say anything publically in praise of Sheikh Mansour's investment despite it being one of the biggest partnerships Labour-run Manchester has ever had with a private developer. In fact he seems to have gone out of his way to avoid saying anything in public about City's owner, well before any of the allegations.
A cynic might think he thought there were votes to gain from MUFC fans in Greater Manchester by keeping his mouth shut. Thousands of jobs in his area have been put under threat by the 115 case and yet he appears to have no view. There are plenty of things he could say which would not prejudice any legal action. In any event the 115 case is not a criminal trial or even a Civil Action so there is no risk of contempt of court.
Click to expand...
I can’t be bothered to go back through what he’s said though the years, but he did reply to the tweet that started this thread with this.

 
Of course City benefited from public investment linked to the games; unless you think the club was in a position in 2003 to finance the whole stadium ourselves. 1 billion quid over a 250 year lease, if that's the sum, is not that much money over that time period.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I can’t be bothered to go back through what he’s said though the years, but he did reply to the tweet that started this thread with this.

Click to expand...

That is the first public comment I have seen from Burnham to be honest. And I suspect he only said it to defend his project for Trafford. Has he ever mentioned Sheikh Mansour? I don't recall him mentioning our owner when the Co-op Live was built. That said I support the Old Trafford plans because I think they will be great for the whole of Greater Manchester.
 
Nightmare Walking said:
Now if this money is being diverted from Mancunian public services then it needs looking at and the benefits being scrutinised. But, if it's coming from central government, it can only be a good thing
Click to expand...
Errr no. The amounts being suggested would be better invested in North Manchester General, or elsewhere in the NHS - NOT a fuckin vanity project that'll stand unused unless Trafford are playing.
It's utter BULLSHIT to suggest it'll be a Wembley of the North.
England games, FA Cup semis and ALL finals will remain at Wembley as they've gotta pay for that
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
How much was the regeneration going ahead before the Swamp roof became a waterfall, the mice infestation and employee lay-offs were mentioned. Was that freight depot getting shunted to the edge of GM before the likes of Coe, Neville 'n Scruffy Jim came together? Is Ratcliffe gonna fund the freight terminal?
Click to expand...
gaz76 said:
Would the government be plowing all the cash in to reroute the trains if the rags stadium wasn't falling down?
Click to expand...
Did you just put my quote into chat gpt?
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
That is the first public comment I have seen from Burnham to be honest. And I suspect he only said it to defend his project for Trafford. Has he ever mentioned Sheikh Mansour? I don't recall him mentioniing our owner when the Co-op Live was built. That said I support the Old Trafford plans because I think they will be great for the whole of Greater Manchester.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. He’s probably never mentioned the Glazers either.

He will have talked about the regeneration of East Manchester when it has been relevant to what is being discussed.

He’s not come out and said anything about the rags, merely announced that the moving of the freight terminal and swapping of land has been provisionally granted government funding.
 
WesthoughtonJohn said:
Errr no. The amounts being suggested would be better invested in North Manchester General, or elsewhere in the NHS - NOT a fuckin vanity project that'll stand unused unless Trafford are playing.
It's utter BULLSHIT to suggest it'll be a Wembley of the North.
England games, FA Cup semis and ALL finals will remain at Wembley as they've gotta pay for that
Click to expand...
Correct. Wembley of the north has been talked about for so many years but will never happen.
 
WesthoughtonJohn said:
Errr no. The amounts being suggested would be better invested in North Manchester General, or elsewhere in the NHS - NOT a fuckin vanity project that'll stand unused unless Trafford are playing.
It's utter BULLSHIT to suggest it'll be a Wembley of the North.
England games, FA Cup semis and ALL finals will remain at Wembley as they've gotta pay for that
Click to expand...
The 'Wembley of the north' nonsense is just Part of the window dressing to make a handout of public funds to the rags sound like it's in the national interest. Bollocks obviously.
 
Anyway, if the government doesn't fund "mini HS2" from Birmingham to Crewe, there will be no room for any freight trains on the West Coast Main Line.
 
Johnny Mars Bar said:
Also let’s be honest here - our ownership might be stable now and planning in the multi-decade term, but back when we were negotiating taking over Eastlands City was a basket case of a club that didn’t know if it could pay the tea lady at the end of the month, or even stay in the Premier League, let alone be trusted to maintain and develop a brand new stadium for 250 years!

Howard Bernstein put his and Manchester’s reputation on the line pushing that deal through.

It’s obviously paid off in spades for the club, fans and the city of Manchester, but it very nearly didn’t.

I can make jokes about the rags’ ownership and leaky rat infested zero-star-rated catering shit heap of a stadium as much as the next blue, but putting club allegiances and banter aside, it is a total dump and some redevelopment would be a sound investment. Just off the top of my head it should be a world class conference centre much like the Etihad or the new Spurs stadium is - that alone would bring in a shitload of money from business tourism. The cricket ground make a fortune from this and the rag stadium should be too.

It’s not like the Everton supporting Mayor just woke up one morning and decided to give Manchester United a load of public money. There will have been several externally produced investment strategies in place to calculate the return.
Click to expand...
The issue is that Manchester United and it's billionaire owners shouldn't get a penny of taxpayers money. By all means develop the area for the benefit of Manchester, then do the same for other towns in Greater Manchester, fat chance. All costs association with a new ground should be borne by the owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top