SIR Alex Ferguson has come under fierce criticism from the owner of Salford City Reds for supporting the congestion charge.
The Manchester United manager said fans travelling to games would benefit from the investment in public transport, which would come in return for a peak-time charge for motorists.
But Reds' owner John Wilkinson said: "I can't see Sir Alex coming to the games by the tram from Altrincham or going to training at Carrington. It is all right to say these things, but you have got to get involved in it.
"I think it is a tax that the people of this area don't need. We should be able to get a better system without penalising people any more than they are now."
The £3bn proposal will set up new or improve existing bus, tram and train routes and will also mean the creation of two congestion charge zones around the M60 and city centre, with drivers paying up to £5 a day.
Penalised
Fares would be frozen on buses and low-paid workers would qualify for a 20 per cent discount.
In an open letter published in the M.E.N., Sir Alex said the plans offered `a once in a lifetime opportunity to put Greater Manchester in the Premier League for public transport - so don't score an own-goal'.
He cannot take part in the poll because he lives in Cheshire.
Mr Wilkinson's rugby club has a partnership with Peel Holdings, a major backer of the `No' campaign, in building a new stadium complex at Barton, Salford.
But Mr Wilkinson is also a close supporter of MP Hazel Blears, who has campaigned in favour of the changes.
The millionaire businessman last year donated £10,000 to the Salford MP's unsuccessful campaign to become Labour's deputy leader.
Last night, officials overseeing the postal referendum revealed 30 per cent of voters had responded so far.
Tameside residents have been the quickest to have their say, with 37 per cent having returned their papers.
The turnout rate so far was next best in Trafford and Bury (36pc), Oldham and Stockport (34pc), Rochdale (30pc), Salford (29pc), Bolton (28pc) and Wigan (27pc).
The worst response has been in Manchester, were only 23pc of voters have responded.
There is now less than a week to return ballot papers, which have been sent to 1.9m voters in the 10 Greater Manchester councils.
The bid would mean more than £2.75bn being ploughed into transport schemes, including £318m to set up a peak hour, weekday-only congestion charge. Of this total, £1.2bn would be in the form of a loan, paid back over 30 years out of profits from the charge.
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
John - sheikhing all over (05/12/2008 at 08:20)
another perk
Trumpetman21 (05/12/2008 at 08:30)
Sir Pentest Vote 'NO', Newton Nr. Hyde. (05/12/2008 at 08:36)
Full marks to John Wilkinson too, for condeming it.
alvinlwh (05/12/2008 at 08:46)
Well said!!!
umpire 2, Salford M7 4HT (05/12/2008 at 08:53)
Let the people of Greater Manchester make their own decision!
johnnyboy, Ashton-u-Lyne, Lancashire (05/12/2008 at 08:56)
Jay B, oldham (05/12/2008 at 08:57)
it read
"i want cheaper bus fares
thats why im voting yes."
but thats wrong completely!
unless you are on the minimum wage its going to be a capped price! and at what price it has not been confirmed!
but it wont be cheaper!
put my complaint in to the advertising standards agency anyway!!!
i hope they get another slap on the wrists!
Terry Mahon, Ex Mancunian (05/12/2008 at 08:58)
Too little too late. All you people that have still to vote, come on get voting NO. You know it makes sence. 2 million out of work at the moment. With this Numpty Government it will soon be 3 million. Where will the money come from then to pay this tax?
John Davies (05/12/2008 at 09:05)
This sentence says it all. The vast majority of people across Greater Manchester have a great deal to gain from these transport plans. Don't let these stooges spoil this once in a lifetime opportunity. Vote YES!
Kurt Stephens (05/12/2008 at 09:24)
Or maybe, just maybe, when the No camp band about their figures about how many people are in favour, or against, they simply have not got a clue, and use figures selectively to argue their point.
The reality is come the 12th Dec, the 'I do not care enough one way or another to vote' will be substantially more than either the Yes or No vote, just as I have been saying is the case all along.
We will have about 20% of the population voting Yes, 20% voting No and 60% not voting at all, and the lie that 80% of the population are opposed to the scheme willl be put to bed for ever, whether there are enough Yes votes to proceed I do not know, anyone who does claim one way or the other is not telling the truth.
However, with such a low turn out in the No camp, even a No vote in Manchester would not put other cities of going down this route now, such votes are winnable, and Manchester is showing that.
Vote No if you want Gridlock, Tameside (05/12/2008 at 10:11)
Red Amy (05/12/2008 at 10:13)
Not that straightforward, is it Mr Wilkinson?
We'd all like something for nothing, but in the real world TIF is the only way we get the revolutionary, sustainable transport network we deserve.
I'm with Sir Alex.
Vote Yes!
bubbabill (05/12/2008 at 10:35)
The exisitng public transpoart infrastructure already eases congestion on the roads during match days (and every other day). People seem to forget that.
Sir Alex is quite rightly suggesting that this will improve the situation further by giving more people the choice to get public tyransport to the football. And stop away fans being ripped off by taxi drivers. There's nothing wrong with that.
JohnB, Manchester (05/12/2008 at 10:46)
Its simply sour grapes because Fergie doesn't share his view.
Invisible Man, Manchester (05/12/2008 at 10:46)
Rt Hon Dr Rev MC Spanner MP QC FCA FRICS JP OK (05/12/2008 at 11:25)
Ainscough Crane Hire
Builders & Civil Engineers
Building Automation Services
CityCo
Higham & Co. Surveyors
Mace - Construction Consultancy
Roof Investigations
Tace - Enviromental Consulatants
Workspace - Design and build.
Can anybody see a common link. Is it because they are all altruistic people who just care about all of us?
I Don't think so
duncan harris (05/12/2008 at 11:30)
sheikh, prattle and droll (05/12/2008 at 11:35)
The reality is come the 12th Dec, the 'I do not care enough one way or another to vote' will be substantially more than either the Yes or No vote, just as I have been saying is the case all along.
We will have about 20% of the population voting Yes, 20% voting No and 60% not voting at all, and the lie that 80% of the population are opposed to the scheme willl be put to bed for ever, whether there are enough Yes votes to proceed I do not know, anyone who does claim one way or the other is not telling the truth.
However, with such a low turn out in the No camp, even a No vote in Manchester would not put other cities of going down this route now, such votes are winnable, and Manchester is showing that.
Kurt Stephens
5/12/2008 at 09:24
_________________________________________________
I was undecided until I read the above - and now I am certain to vote ‘no’. Why?
Kurt’s ramblings show the muddled thinking behind those who want the c-charge. How can he KNOW all those who have not voted yet, are ‘no’ votes? If he is sure they are, he is admitting that the vast majority of Manchester oppose the TIF bid. That’s presumably why he then argues that the charge is likely to be rejected but sites that conclusion as the reason why other cities will see a c-charge vote as winnable. Kurt, you clearly think the argument is lost and are making your excuses early.
Kurt, you make no sense...and... you, make ‘no’, sense.
NWmancCUB (05/12/2008 at 11:41)
"The exisitng public transpoart infrastructure already eases congestion on the roads during match days (and every other day). People seem to forget that"
They also seem to forget about the daily users of the metrolink who year pay a substantial amount to use such service.
I was stood at Piccadilly tramstop on Wednesday evening waiting for a Bury tram to take me home. A total of EIGHT trams arrived virtually all for Altrincham and none for Bury. I along with other travellers were understandably fuming. I took the liberty of asking a member of GMPTE why there were no trams to Bury and I was told they had put on extra trams to Altrincham for the match.
Excuse me, but what about the needs of those whom use Metrolink on a daily basis?? Why are football supporters given priority?? I was absolutely disgusted
I am so glad I voted NO to
this farcical con charge
We saw how roads ground to a halt this week because City and United were both at home. One full tram is 250 cars off the road. 10 trams = 2,500 less cars turning up for the game.
The exisitng public transpoart infrastructure already eases congestion on the roads during match days (and every other day). People seem to forget that.
Sir Alex is quite rightly suggesting that this will improve the situation further by giving more people the choice to get public tyransport to the football. And stop away fans being ripped off by taxi drivers. There's nothing wrong with that.
CityCntr (05/12/2008 at 11:42)
Kurt Stephens
Its far too early to make those sort of claims. Some people didnt recieve the ballot papers till the weekend.
I dont know which way the vote will go, but would be suprised if its Yes.
CityCntr (05/12/2008 at 11:45)
I'm with Sir Alex.
Vote Yes!
Red Amy
But that is exactly what is proposed for the public transport users. Something for nothing. They want to provide improvements at no cost to them. Thats something for nothing!!
Trumpetman21 (05/12/2008 at 11:51)
Wrong again Kurt, 80% of those who bother to respond to surveys are saying NO.
Do you not realise the difference?
Bean B4, manchester (05/12/2008 at 11:52)
No we didn't. That was because there was a fatal accident on the M62 and it was shut until half way through the rush hour.
Jay B, oldham (05/12/2008 at 11:56)
because i havent seen anything!
all i have seen is that at peak times you will be receiving longer trains, longer trams and a few more buses!
how many times do people going to the matches happen at peak times?
anyway surely all this talk of the gridlock on wednesday is flawed!
the gridlock occured in the afternoon. when the con charge is priced for the congestion coming out of the city!
yet the gridlock way going into the city!
what about having special match day charges for all the football fans then that caused this gridlock?
or watch it and they'll expand the con charge so that passing either way will incur a charge!
it'll happen!
so much uncertainty still around it!
so its a NO!
Cavalier Jackson, Tameside (05/12/2008 at 11:57)