Campaign in the media

A letter sent in by Richard Fowler in response to a story in the Metro News.
For some reason its not been reproduced online so we thought we'd make it visible here.


The claims made by Jim Cumbes and Councillor Colledge in their letters to Trafford Metro News (Metro News, 11 December 2009) are, at best, disingenuous.

For example, they include claims that the Tesco/LCCC proposal is the only option if international cricket is to return to Old Trafford. Perhaps, then, they can explain why tickets for two international cricket matches taking place in June 2010 are already advertised on the LCCC website.

As for a groundswell of opinion from local residents wanting LCCC to remain in Trafford, that depends on how you ask the question. If you ask “Would you like LCCC to stay in Trafford or move elsewhere?”, of course people will say yes, they want LCCC to stay. But if you ask “Would you like Trafford Council to hand over £21million of public funds to subsidise the privately owned LCCC, with a new and very large Tesco and all the increased traffic congestion that will entail, while local shops are put out of business?”, you will get a very different answer.

The term 'sports-led regeneration' is misleading and dishonest – the proposals won't do anything to regenerate the area in the interests of local people, instead only serving to benefit two private entities, LCCC and Tesco, at the expense of residents in the vicinity of the site and of Trafford in general who will ALL be subsidising this scheme. As for his claims of supporting community cohesion,what about the inevitable closure of local shops (and the loss of jobs that go with it)? The extra £16m per year won't be go into the local economy at all, so what possible benefits are there for local people? Don't spend too long pondering this, because the first answer you come up with is the right one – there won't be any.

Source: p4 of Trafford Metro News, 18th December 2009.