Letter of objection: Appendix 2
Appendix 2 Re. Proposed Development of Bootham Crescent Football Ground - Ownership of Bootham Crescent stripped from York City FC
The actions of Douglas Craig and his accomplices have been widely condemned. Condemnation from individuals and groups including the supporters of York City Football Club, the local community, football fans across the globe, MPs and the media. It is important that those making planning decisions are aware of how Craig and others stripped the Football Club of the ownership of Bootham Crescent in 1999.
In 1999 a new company – Bootham Crescent Holdings (BCH) - was created by Messrs Craig, John Quickfall, Barry Swallow and Colin Webb, who between them owned approximately 93% of the shares in York City FC. Subsequently, they transferred the ownership of Bootham Crescent from the Club – of which they were also in control - to their new company at a value far below the £4.5 million they have subsequently demanded. This ‘restructuring’ clearly circumvented the rules (in particular 34b) of the Football Association whose principles are to help protect club grounds as community assets.
Prior to this move, in a letter to shareholders of York City FC, then chairman Craig advised them that the move was proposed in order to "safeguard the assets of the (football) club". Quite how this can be seen to have safeguarded those assets in any way for the football club is beyond comprehension. Despite worried concerns expressed by a variety of minority shareholders, Craig’s individual ownership of around 61% of the shares in itself ensured that the transfer went ahead.
Between 1999 and December 2001, Messrs Craig, Quickfall, Swallow and Webb (in their position as club directors) embarked on an extravagant spending policy whereby the Club’s cash resources were very quickly eroded.
In December 2001 Craig announced the Club was for sale (in effect for a nominal sum of £1) and they demanded £4.5 million for someone to acquire Bootham Crescent. The move was "justified" on the basis that the existing directors were no longer able to run the club on a financially viable basis.
In April 2002 the Club was sold (to John Batchelor) for a nominal sum. Craig et al are now progressing their plans to dispose of Bootham Crescent at a massive personal profit at the expense of the Club, its supporters and the community.
It may be pointed out that in fact the directors of BCH have committed no crime in their actions, which we concede is probably true. However, we submit that they have acted in a wholly inappropriate manner for people who were privileged to act as directors for North Yorkshire’s only League football club. For many generations, ownership of shares in the club has always been passed on to individuals carefully selected because they are entrusted with the welfare of the football club, and ALWAYS at , or below the nominal face value of £1 per share, rather than a value determined by the value of the land. FA rule 34b expressly forbids any director of a football club making an income or profit from their involvement with a football club. If the £4.5m figure quoted by Craig in January 2002 is actually realised, then these 4 directors will have made personal profits on their involvement in the club of more than TWENTY times their original investments.
Although property prices have risen substantially in recent years, all previous shareholding directors of York City FC would still have had a choice to "cash in" to a significant extent in the same way as the directors of BCH. They chose not to – preferring instead (quite rightly) to act in the best interests of the football club. Supporters feel particularly enraged by the actions of the BCH directors, as many parts of the ground were originally paid for (or even physically constructed) by supporters and the Supporters Club. Indeed, Friends of Bootham Crescent understands that the land upon which the stadium currently sits was actually donated as a legacy to the football club in the will of a supporter back in 1932 – I wonder if he ever considered that his generosity would be exploited in such a way in years to come? Presumably not.
The Council must do all it can to prevent this injustice from being completed.
Letter of objection
Appendix 1 - Summary of misleading statements in the application
Appendix 3 - re contradiction of previous (1996) application