Sunderland city parking...

Osklen said:
Looks like the Bridges have implemented a new parking tariff for the roof and MSCP

Parking Information | The Bridges Shopping Centre, Sunderland

The Bridges Shopping Centre offers two car parks, the rooftop and multi-storey, with 940 parking spaces available.
www.thebridges-shopping.com www.thebridges-shopping.com
Click to expand...
Our lass parks in the Bridges car park out of convenience because it's the first one at the bottom of Chester Road. I'll go round next to where the Civic Centre was and try to grab one of the free bays. If there's nowt there I'll park next to Toward Road car park or near the Ivy House where it's free and walk in.

I get her point that it's easier but I'm just too tight.
 


bobster999 said:
It even tells you in your own link. Remuneration isn't salary.
Click to expand...

It isn't, but it's still money.
Just because it broken down into salary, pension, compensation, bonuses and the like doesn't make it cost less.
If anything it's a tax dodge, instead of paying inflated salaries, it's paid into pension pots to save on tax.
Odd that the pension contribution was £36k, just under the £40k limit on which it would be taxable.
Just like corporate CEOs getting pension payments, share options, health insurance, school fees etc.

My point is that as a city we are paying our officials more than any other city (bar one) in the country and it doesn't seem like a good deal.
It shows that the council aren't being as prudent with our money as they could be.
It's easier to write cheques than solve the issue, it seems as though we're being blackmailed by officials who know the dirty secrets, so we pay to stop the truths coming out.
We've paid out on several well documented NDA agreements to keep everything quiet.

This is why we need a new council which isn't Labour. Another leadership would happily have a clear out and restructure, any fall out would be because of the previous administration and could be reported infinitum.

But as always, we'll all trot down to the polling station come May and vote Labour back in.
 
a1970man said:
It isn't, but it's still money.
Just because it broken down into salary, pension, compensation, bonuses and the like doesn't make it cost less.
If anything it's a tax dodge, instead of paying inflated salaries, it's paid into pension pots to save on tax.
Odd that the pension contribution was £36k, just under the £40k limit on which it would be taxable.
Just like corporate CEOs getting pension payments, share options, health insurance, school fees etc.

My point is that as a city we are paying our officials more than any other city (bar one) in the country and it doesn't seem like a good deal.
It shows that the council aren't being as prudent with our money as they could be.
It's easier to write cheques than solve the issue, it seems as though we're being blackmailed by officials who know the dirty secrets, so we pay to stop the truths coming out.
We've paid out on several well documented NDA agreements to keep everything quiet.

This is why we need a new council which isn't Labour. Another leadership would happily have a clear out and restructure, any fall out would be because of the previous administration and could be reported infinitum.

But as always, we'll all trot down to the polling station come May and vote Labour back in.
Click to expand...
The council are doing an outstanding job at the minute like. To achieve what they have with the financial restrictions placed on them warrants a lot of credit. Looks like paying top end renumeration packages has resulted in better outcomes for the city - a good deal for all.
 
I try to avoid car parks attached to shopping centres as a matter of course as they're typically more expensive than the local authority-owned facilities. If you knew you were only going to be 10 minutes I definitely would've prepared better to make sure I avoided the situation you found yourself in as the charging patterns aren't a secret these days.
 
James said:
The council are doing an outstanding job at the minute like. To achieve what they have with the financial restrictions placed on them warrants a lot of credit. Looks like paying top end renumeration packages has resulted in better outcomes for the city - a good deal for all.
Click to expand...
exactly. Lets trot out all the lines about the council being shit, and ignore all the developments and regeneration that's actually going on in Sunderland. Of course it has it's problems, but the redevelopments are going in the right way
 
a1970man said:
It isn't, but it's still money.
Just because it broken down into salary, pension, compensation, bonuses and the like doesn't make it cost less.
If anything it's a tax dodge, instead of paying inflated salaries, it's paid into pension pots to save on tax.
Odd that the pension contribution was £36k, just under the £40k limit on which it would be taxable.
Just like corporate CEOs getting pension payments, share options, health insurance, school fees etc.

My point is that as a city we are paying our officials more than any other city (bar one) in the country and it doesn't seem like a good deal.
It shows that the council aren't being as prudent with our money as they could be.
It's easier to write cheques than solve the issue, it seems as though we're being blackmailed by officials who know the dirty secrets, so we pay to stop the truths coming out.
We've paid out on several well documented NDA agreements to keep everything quiet.

This is why we need a new council which isn't Labour. Another leadership would happily have a clear out and restructure, any fall out would be because of the previous administration and could be reported infinitum.

But as always, we'll all trot down to the polling station come May and vote Labour back in.
Click to expand...

The council aren't paying their officials more than others. That TPA reference you posted was due to someone high up who'll be about 55 getting made redundant. So because of pension rules they have to make up the shortfall.

Also how explain how it saves on tax?
Bearing in mind employers have to offer a pension by law.
 
a1970man said:
It isn't, but it's still money.
Just because it broken down into salary, pension, compensation, bonuses and the like doesn't make it cost less.
If anything it's a tax dodge, instead of paying inflated salaries, it's paid into pension pots to save on tax.
Odd that the pension contribution was £36k, just under the £40k limit on which it would be taxable.
Just like corporate CEOs getting pension payments, share options, health insurance, school fees etc.

My point is that as a city we are paying our officials more than any other city (bar one) in the country and it doesn't seem like a good deal.
It shows that the council aren't being as prudent with our money as they could be.
It's easier to write cheques than solve the issue, it seems as though we're being blackmailed by officials who know the dirty secrets, so we pay to stop the truths coming out.
We've paid out on several well documented NDA agreements to keep everything quiet.

This is why we need a new council which isn't Labour. Another leadership would happily have a clear out and restructure, any fall out would be because of the previous administration and could be reported infinitum.

But as always, we'll all trot down to the polling station come May and vote Labour back in.
Click to expand...

Chief exec salary is c £196k (£235k total)

Loading…

www.sunderland.gov.uk


Loading…

www.newcastle.gov.uk
 
a1970man said:
It isn't, but it's still money.
Just because it broken down into salary, pension, compensation, bonuses and the like doesn't make it cost less.
If anything it's a tax dodge, instead of paying inflated salaries, it's paid into pension pots to save on tax.
Odd that the pension contribution was £36k, just under the £40k limit on which it would be taxable.
Just like corporate CEOs getting pension payments, share options, health insurance, school fees etc.

My point is that as a city we are paying our officials more than any other city (bar one) in the country and it doesn't seem like a good deal.
It shows that the council aren't being as prudent with our money as they could be.
It's easier to write cheques than solve the issue, it seems as though we're being blackmailed by officials who know the dirty secrets, so we pay to stop the truths coming out.
We've paid out on several well documented NDA agreements to keep everything quiet.

This is why we need a new council which isn't Labour. Another leadership would happily have a clear out and restructure, any fall out would be because of the previous administration and could be reported infinitum.

But as always, we'll all trot down to the polling station come May and vote Labour back in.
Click to expand...
To be fair the city has had it's fair share of challenges and not all jobs are comparable despite having the same title. I do think wages of £200k+ are disgusting but I'd think that no matter where the job was or who it was for.
 
HorsePills said:
To be fair the city has had its fair share of challenges and not all jobs are comparable despite having the same title. I do think wages of £200k+ are disgusting but I'd think that no matter where the job was or who it was for.
Click to expand...
200k plus sounds like a lot of wedge. The equivalent of what 4,5 senior IT managers? The CEO of a council has a lot of big responsibilities , social care, child care, education, housing , etc.

CEO in private enterprise paid an absolute ton more
 
a1970man said:
From a new report the other day Sunderland Council makes £400k a year from parking charges.
There are 133k households in Sunderland who pay council tax.
If they put up the council tax by £3 we could have free parking.

Obviously people who don't have cars will feel hard done by, but if this drives trade to the city centre, then we get better shops and associated businesses.

Also the top 2 Sunderland council execs get £400k a year, so we could get rid of those and achieve the same result.
Click to expand...
133k households. I thought it would less than that. Population is 270k? There must be a lot of single person households unless that includes businesses as well.
 
Ambivalent Dave said:
200k plus sounds like a lot of wedge. The equivalent of what 4,5 senior IT managers? The CEO of a council has a lot of big responsibilities , social care, child care, education, housing , etc.

CEO in private enterprise paid an absolute ton more
Click to expand...

if you are genuinely a senior manager in real IT, you would be being robbed at 40k.

6 figures not unusual even in the north unless its a tin pot company.

200k for chief or senior execs again isnt lavish at all. Take home wont be anywhere near.
 
Roaring Chubby said:
if you are genuinely a senior manager in real IT, you would be being robbed at 40k.

6 figures not unusual even in the north unless its a tin pot company.

200k for chief or senior execs again isnt lavish at all. Take home wont be anywhere near.
Click to expand...

Also don’t think they’d get healthcare, bonus, share option, company car, corporate hospitality, though they would likely receive a more generous pension contribution.
 
I got charged 3 quid for 20 minutes at st Mary’s the other week aswell despite the website advertising it as 1

Was absolutely rammed aswell must be making a fortune
 
EDGE said:
£200k is equivalent to c.£160k gross as the former will include employers NI and pension contributions of c.25%.
Click to expand...

See link above. It's £235k once you add on pension. NI doesn't get counted for remuneration purposes
 
Osklen said:
Chief exec salary is c £196k (£235k total)

Loading…

www.sunderland.gov.uk


Loading…

www.newcastle.gov.uk
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, Patrick Melia the SCC chief exec isn't voted in by the electorate?

I mean they can bleat on all they want about the council leaders earning a fortune etc... but voting out every single Labour MP and Councillor will make fuck all difference to those employed directly by the council will it ?

And say we did sack Patrick Melia (who is doing an outstanding job) , firstly he'd be snapped up by some other up and coming city, and we'd have to replace with him some nacker who probably costs the same amount..

There's some absolute morons on the internet
a1970man said:
It isn't, but it's still money.
Just because it broken down into salary, pension, compensation, bonuses and the like doesn't make it cost less.
If anything it's a tax dodge, instead of paying inflated salaries, it's paid into pension pots to save on tax.
Odd that the pension contribution was £36k, just under the £40k limit on which it would be taxable.
Just like corporate CEOs getting pension payments, share options, health insurance, school fees etc.

My point is that as a city we are paying our officials more than any other city (bar one) in the country and it doesn't seem like a good deal.
It shows that the council aren't being as prudent with our money as they could be.
It's easier to write cheques than solve the issue, it seems as though we're being blackmailed by officials who know the dirty secrets, so we pay to stop the truths coming out.
We've paid out on several well documented NDA agreements to keep everything quiet.

This is why we need a new council which isn't Labour. Another leadership would happily have a clear out and restructure, any fall out would be because of the previous administration and could be reported infinitum.

But as always, we'll all trot down to the polling station come May and vote Labour back in.
Click to expand...

Please tell us what another set of MPs and councillor's from Reform and the Tories will actually do that will 'save' Sunderland?

The city is facing the same struggles as every medium sized British city and is performing brilliantly..do you suggest we operate without a chief executive and bis staff? Who will run the council?
a1970man said:
It's easier to write cheques than solve the issue, it seems as though we're being blackmailed by officials who know the dirty secrets, so we pay to stop the truths coming out.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence of what you are claiming here?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top