Do we know whether Saints actually requested first dibs on the publicity or whether they were happy for the council to tweet/release it?

Like them or not, this stadium couldn't have been built without council support so I see no harm in them trying to get some positive publicity from it. At the end of the day, who gives two hoots?

Nope. I did direct Saints to the councillor's tweet though. He'd tweeted the world and his wife.


I think the point is that a goodly part of that support was given by the hung/coalition council and not Rimmer's labour council.


So long as they weren't detracting it from Saints, which it certainly looks like they were or else why not come out with a statement on the council website or direct to the paper? Tweeting looks more like drip feeding.

But at the end of the day if Saints don't care then I don't care.

That's only the point if you make it so.

The real point is the wealth that was transfered by the people of St Helens to this project was by the doing of the council. Our representatives. So our representatives should be there to see the fruits. The fact that the people of St Helens decided to change the individuals involved is the priviledge of the people. It does not change the fact that they are our representatives and they should be there to see what we spent the town's wealth on.

As a point of order I wish to point out that when it came to a vote the Council Labour vote in favour was unanimous.

The Council transferred money but not Council Tax payers' money. The money was taken from the capital budget rather than the revenue budget. So 'not really' would be my response to your point.

I'm sure there'll be more but bear in mind the interior fit out hasn't even started yet so the only shots they can show are of the seats/terraces and the pitch. Nobody wants to see a shot of a bare concrete space that isn't a bar/lounge/boardroom/changing room/etc yet.

Well yes, obviously.



I'm not in favour of credit being taken where it isn't due. I am skeptical as to whether such an investment in the project would have occurred if Rimmer and co had been in control of the council.

I agree and as to what you said earlier the Labour crew certainly didn't help matters from what I recall.

And a point of note Donkey OTay - that pathetic waste of space Rimmer and her crew do not represent me , I didnt vote for them and I dont want them anywhere near my club tbh

Nope. Quite the opposite at one time. Wasn't a lot of the work done while Brian Spencer was in charge?


Same here, on all counts.

I'm sorry but that difference is a little too subtle for me. As far as I'm concerned, all council wealth belongs to the rate payers of the borough. Doesn't matter where it sits. But if the distinction is meaningful to you then you stick with it.

It matters massively where it sits. The capital budget does not come from local taxpayers. It comes from a variety of sources such as investments, central government funding, commercial enterprises. But I do agree that the council monies do belong to the local taxpayer in that the purpose of them is to provide services to the local taxpayer. One such service involves ensuring that the local economy is thriving, wherever possible, and that includes supporting productive and effective regeneration projects. The majority of the decisions made for this particular regeneration project were made under the hung council, not the Labour council, and there IS a difference - it's firstly in ideology but also, as a result of ideology, in policy.

Hung Council/Labour Council, who cares, the main thing in all this is we have a Stadium that we so desperately needed regardless of who was on the council at the time. Roll on 2012 COYS

I agree, if you don't like them don't vote them simple


Come on you Saints