Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 17:26:00 GMT
Care to enlighten us mere mortals by this statement ? or is this just more bulls*** ? I think it is taking a comment from Steve Hamer's latest interview and expanding the meaning of it. He said there were some unexpected issues but I don't think he meant with regard to the new stadium. But remember, it is compulsory to criticise the old board at every opportunity...... while youre here would you care to defend them ?
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Apr 7, 2016 17:39:43 GMT
Surely any major changes would constitute a new application? You can fiddle around with certain things to tweak applications, but "major changes" = new application, in my experience. You cannot change any major Structure of the stadium without new planning and that could take upto 24-36 months, but you can change items within the basic structure to reflect your current requirements ie you can change walls, etc but not the roof line or orientation of the building So can we start building the lower tier and put a planning application in for the second tier in the meantime? By the time you get to putting on the roof the permission comes in for the next level, and you can move on to that. p.s. have we really got permission for 26,500 already? I thought it was 21,700, with the prospect (but not permission yet) of increasing to 26,500.
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Apr 7, 2016 17:51:10 GMT
I think it is taking a comment from Steve Hamer's latest interview and expanding the meaning of it. He said there were some unexpected issues but I don't think he meant with regard to the new stadium. But remember, it is compulsory to criticise the old board at every opportunity...... while youre here would you care to defend them ? It is not a question of defending the old board it is bordem with the regurgitation of stuff and sound bites that sort of stuff. By all means learn from the past but some of the posts are too backward looking and basically get on my nerves. Just need the Santa's grotto to be stated and tablet may fly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 18:28:08 GMT
while youre here would you care to defend them ? It is not a question of defending the old board it is bordem with the regurgitation of stuff and sound bites that sort of stuff. By all means learn from the past but some of the posts are too backward looking and basically get on my nerves. Just need the Santa's grotto to be stated and tablet may fly. Santa's grotto was s**t.
|
|
nerdgas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 145
|
Post by nerdgas on Apr 7, 2016 18:43:37 GMT
It is not a question of defending the old board it is bordem with the regurgitation of stuff and sound bites that sort of stuff. By all means learn from the past but some of the posts are too backward looking and basically get on my nerves. Just need the Santa's grotto to be stated and tablet may fly. Santa's grotto was s***. I think it was an inspired piece of ironic installation art that most of our fans were too stupid to comprehend. Either that or it was the metaphorical embodiment of how the old board took something that was supposed to be magical (our club) and turned it into s**te.... I know which my money is on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 19:06:11 GMT
Care to enlighten us mere mortals by this statement ? or is this just more bulls*** ? I think it is taking a comment from Steve Hamer's latest interview and expanding the meaning of it. He said there were some unexpected issues but I don't think he meant with regard to the new stadium. But remember, it is compulsory to criticise the old board at every opportunity...... No it wasn't taken from an interview, it was taken from a very factual personal conversation with SH recently, stating facts that the club was run in a shambolic manner may spell boredom to you but it is very relevant to the current situation, and if someone comments that they would be 'dissapointed by any delays to the stadium' then I think it is very fair to point out that it certainly hasn't been a case of walking in and all systems go on the stadium. We all know that hearing both sides of the story in a fir and balanced manner is not how the club used to be run, but this is a different club now, and thank feck for that, because its been a bloody long time coming. As for you Henbury, point out where I have previously lied? ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 19:36:59 GMT
while youre here would you care to defend them ? It is not a question of defending the old board it is bordem with the regurgitation of stuff and sound bites that sort of stuff. By all means learn from the past but some of the posts are too backward looking and basically get on my nerves. Just need the Santa's grotto to be stated and tablet may fly. santas grotto - the lowest point ? jesus that was grim
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Apr 7, 2016 20:19:25 GMT
You cannot change any major Structure of the stadium without new planning and that could take upto 24-36 months, but you can change items within the basic structure to reflect your current requirements ie you can change walls, etc but not the roof line or orientation of the building So can we start building the lower tier and put a planning application in for the second tier in the meantime? By the time you get to putting on the roof the permission comes in for the next level, and you can move on to that. p.s. have we really got permission for 26,500 already? I thought it was 21,700, with the prospect (but not permission yet) of increasing to 26,500. You could do, but you would have to carry on with the original design, or stop work, if the planning application didn't run as smoothly as hoped. The current permission is for 21,700. We would probably need a new permission unless South Glos. regard a second tier and 4,300 more people, as a minor variation.
|
|
|
Post by nickchippenhamgas on Apr 7, 2016 20:26:50 GMT
I am 100% convinced that we were told the permission was for 21,700 stadium that could be increased to 26,500 without further permission needed. If however we wanted to increase to 35,000 then further planning permission would be needed. Although I can 100% remember that on the old club run site, my statement is here to be shot down, by those in the know!!!........
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Apr 7, 2016 20:44:03 GMT
It is quite amazing the rubbish quoted on this forum at times.
If anyone doubts that our Club has been run in an unprofessional way for the last few years do not need to talk to the new Board members just ask the employees and those who have had to work with the old Board.
How the team manager and his staff and players have achieved what they have is quite amazing and a testimony to their quality in the circumstances.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 20:44:11 GMT
I am 100% convinced that we were told the permission was for 21,700 stadium that could be increased to 26,500 without further permission needed. If however we wanted to increase to 35,000 then further planning permission would be needed. Although I can 100% remember that on the old club run site, my statement is here to be shot down, by those in the know!!!........ I don't know, so maybe should keep out, but I'm thinking '100% convinced' is misplaced. I think it's a design that can be quite readily enlarged (upwards?) without much structural bashing about; any expansion beyond that would be back to the traditional knock down and replace an area approach. I'd expect actioning any expansion would need planning permission, though. edit to add: then again, I think it's all a bit moot and way down the list at the moment, beyond: 1. Building UWE a car park; 2. Building a 20k ish stadium; 3. Consistently needing a bigger one than that. That's still a dizzying list given past performance, so maybe park expansion plans for now.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Apr 7, 2016 21:48:07 GMT
What we have to remember under the previous regime is that funding for the stadium could only be met by the amount of money we could get from Sainsbury's and the longer it went on, the costlier it became and the funding for building it diminished because of the increase in raw materials and construction costs which then started to impact on the design and content. Funding for the stadium by the new regime is being approached in a completely different way, much the same as their approach to us has been. I'm not going to allow myself to be affected by the previous regimes attempt to deliver the stadium in comparison to the new regime.....it's chalk and cheese.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Apr 7, 2016 21:58:16 GMT
I am 100% convinced that we were told the permission was for 21,700 stadium that could be increased to 26,500 without further permission needed. If however we wanted to increase to 35,000 then further planning permission would be needed. Although I can 100% remember that on the old club run site, my statement is here to be shot down, by those in the know!!!........ Would never claim to be in the know, I just read the planning application. I believe we were told it can be expanded to 26,000 without major structural alteration. If you fancy a look yourself, the planning application number is 12/0888. developments.southglos.gov.uk/online-applications/The relevant part is in the Design and Access Statement Part D. Then look at section 3.4.2 Flexibility of Stadium.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Apr 7, 2016 22:53:40 GMT
I am 100% convinced that we were told the permission was for 21,700 stadium that could be increased to 26,500 without further permission needed. If however we wanted to increase to 35,000 then further planning permission would be needed. Although I can 100% remember that on the old club run site, my statement is here to be shot down, by those in the know!!!........ Would never claim to be in the know, I just read the planning application. I believe we were told it can be expanded to 26,000 without major structural alteration. If you fancy a look yourself, the planning application number is 12/0888. developments.southglos.gov.uk/online-applications/The relevant part is in the Design and Access Statement Part D. Then look at section 3.4.2 Flexibility of Stadium. There seems to be a new faction forming on here, so far made up of GasMacc and Womble. Their cunning and innovative approach is to present facts, analysis and documentation which supports their opinions which doesn't make them right, of course, tho in my case it does slow down the process of disagreeing with them, a lot
|
|
RiversGas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,064
|
Post by RiversGas on Apr 8, 2016 6:39:48 GMT
I will be very disappointed if the build doesn't start this year, the new board have been around the club since last autumn I would be surprised if the talks on funding, naming rights etc aren't at a very advanced stage. also, we've got permission for up to 26,500 seat stadium, how much bigger do we need, no additional permission required, this is the trouble with an information vacuum, it leads to educated guessing dressed up as "in the know" from some on here, let's just let the new guys get on with their job and hope to god we don't have any more delays..... This is what I like about this forum, a sense of perspective, over the road in the kids playground called Gaschat the doubts over Steve Hamers credibility have surfaced already by one or two supporters, you couldn't make it up. The new BoD have been in place what 8-10 weeks now? And have since walked in to discover skeletons falling out of several cupboards following a previous ownership that run the FC like a sunday pub team.
I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed if there are further delays, billionaires do not become billionaires by purchasing stadium builds on rented land nor giving away income streams to the land owner. The chairman has made huge strides forward in the past 8 weeks and is a breath of fresh air, Wael has brought in some appointments that Nick Higgs couldn't quite get hold of using his fax machine, all is great IMO and if there is a delay to make sure the stadium looks and feels excellent instead of very good then that is a delay worth waiting for IMO.
If this is the case, they well and truly failed in their due diligence investigations.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Apr 8, 2016 8:11:41 GMT
I think it is taking a comment from Steve Hamer's latest interview and expanding the meaning of it. He said there were some unexpected issues but I don't think he meant with regard to the new stadium. But remember, it is compulsory to criticise the old board at every opportunity...... No it wasn't taken from an interview, it was taken from a very factual personal conversation with SH recently, stating facts that the club was run in a shambolic manner may spell boredom to you but it is very relevant to the current situation, and if someone comments that they would be 'dissapointed by any delays to the stadium' then I think it is very fair to point out that it certainly hasn't been a case of walking in and all systems go on the stadium. We all know that hearing both sides of the story in a fir and balanced manner is not how the club used to be run, but this is a different club now, and thank feck for that, because its been a bloody long time coming. As for you Henbury, point out where I have previously lied? ? I was not talking about you personally 1986gas, it was a general comment about a lot of claptrap doing the rounds on both forums The comment about how bad the club was being run under the previous owners is not quantifiable as we having nothing to compare it with The only club i could compare it would be Bristol sports franchise (men's section) who lost £50m in the last few years. now compared to them, the old board did very well
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Apr 8, 2016 8:27:54 GMT
No it wasn't taken from an interview, it was taken from a very factual personal conversation with SH recently, stating facts that the club was run in a shambolic manner may spell boredom to you but it is very relevant to the current situation, and if someone comments that they would be 'dissapointed by any delays to the stadium' then I think it is very fair to point out that it certainly hasn't been a case of walking in and all systems go on the stadium. We all know that hearing both sides of the story in a fir and balanced manner is not how the club used to be run, but this is a different club now, and thank feck for that, because its been a bloody long time coming. As for you Henbury, point out where I have previously lied? ? I was not talking about you personally 1986gas, it was a general comment about a lot of claptrap doing the rounds on both forums The comment about how bad the club was being run under the previous owners is not quantifiable as we having nothing to compare it with The only club i could compare it would be Bristol sports franchise (men's section) who lost £50m in the last few years. now compared to them, the old board did very well I don’t think you need to compare the old board/club to anyone else to see how badly it was being run. In fact it’s that kind of irrelevant argument that allowed the status quo to continue for so long. Not everything the previous incumbents did was bad, but there was plenty of evidence of the club being poorly run. That might not have been exclusive to Bristol Rovers. Now I won’t for one minute suggest it was easy, I would suggest the fact many people at various times had offered help or advice would suggest it wasn’t, only for those offers to be knocked back. When you heard NH call Lennie Lawrence the biggest financial disaster at Bristol Rovers, hear upon relegation to League Two the second time around “We won’t make the same mistakes again” i.e pointing the finger at LL and his contracts and then repeat many of the same mistakes There is/was lots to be critical about of the old board, but we now have the future. Not sure if Steve Hamer and co are finding Skeletons in cupboards or not, or if the insinuations aimed at the previous regime are just cheap points and/or misdirection, but we now have a future which a few short weeks ago didn’t seem like it would be very long or particularly enjoyable. Hopefully Wael and partners can get the ball rolling on the stadium project with the best/better deals for us than was probably happening before in the determination to build it whatever Roll on Northampton and Automatic promotion. UTG
|
|
|
Post by ipswichrover on Apr 8, 2016 8:32:00 GMT
I think it was an inspired piece of ironic installation art that most of our fans were too stupid to comprehend. Either that or it was the metaphorical embodiment of how the old board took something that was supposed to be magical (our club) and turned it into s***e.... I know which my money is on. Or perhaps a symbol of our enduring ability not to take ourselves too seriously. It will be great to be supporting a club with the money and ability to be professionally run and the new Chairman is already showing this. However, there are some elements of our past and the ability to laugh at ourselves that I hope do not entirely disappear.
|
|
nerdgas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 145
|
Post by nerdgas on Apr 8, 2016 12:35:50 GMT
No it wasn't taken from an interview, it was taken from a very factual personal conversation with SH recently, stating facts that the club was run in a shambolic manner may spell boredom to you but it is very relevant to the current situation, and if someone comments that they would be 'dissapointed by any delays to the stadium' then I think it is very fair to point out that it certainly hasn't been a case of walking in and all systems go on the stadium. We all know that hearing both sides of the story in a fir and balanced manner is not how the club used to be run, but this is a different club now, and thank feck for that, because its been a bloody long time coming. As for you Henbury, point out where I have previously lied? ? I was not talking about you personally 1986gas, it was a general comment about a lot of claptrap doing the rounds on both forums The comment about how bad the club was being run under the previous owners is not quantifiable as we having nothing to compare it with The only club i could compare it would be Bristol sports franchise (men's section) who lost £50m in the last few years. now compared to them, the old board did very well Not quantifiable? You are joking surely? Relegation to the conference and taking on payday loans chasing a vanity project doesn't count?
|
|
Lazza
Rod Hull
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 264
|
Post by Lazza on Apr 8, 2016 12:40:49 GMT
It is not a question of defending the old board it is bordem with the regurgitation of stuff and sound bites that sort of stuff. By all means learn from the past but some of the posts are too backward looking and basically get on my nerves. Just need the Santa's grotto to be stated and tablet may fly. santas grotto - the lowest point ? jesus that was grim What? This? Can't see our new owners being so crass in the future somehow!
|
|