trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 2,556 
|
Post by trymer on Sept 28, 2023 17:06:50 GMT
Lets hope that someone has taken some professional advice and that this is a sensible move....lets hope.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,361
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Sept 29, 2023 0:09:50 GMT
Could be that the original plans never had enough disabled seats and the news ones do
|
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Oct 11, 2023 0:07:57 GMT
The size, scope and professionalism of the new planning application begs the question of who sanctioned the previous pathetic effort.
But one thing struck me in the transport and access section of the planning statement and I wonder whether this is going to withstand scrutiny.
“ The increased capacity would not result in an increase in attendance of the average match-day but would be available for larger audience events, which would be relatively rare and infrequent.
As a consequence, the proposals would not result in a change in the numbers of people travelling to or from the Site during match days, or by the mode of travel currently used”
Surely the whole point of the new stand is to enable average match day attendances to increase. If average attendances don’t increase, meaning there is no subsequent increase in revenue, how is the 2 million plus which is being invested ( borrowed) going to be repaid ?
|
|
|
|
Post by petecolley on Oct 11, 2023 11:43:23 GMT
The size, scope and professionalism of the new planning application begs the question of who sanctioned the previous pathetic effort. But one thing struck me in the transport and access section of the planning statement and I wonder whether this is going to withstand scrutiny. “ The increased capacity would not result in an increase in attendance of the average match-day but would be available for larger audience events, which would be relatively rare and infrequent. As a consequence, the proposals would not result in a change in the numbers of people travelling to or from the Site during match days, or by the mode of travel currently used” Surely the whole point of the new stand is to enable average match day attendances to increase. If average attendances don’t increase, meaning there is no subsequent increase in revenue, how is the 2 million plus which is being invested ( borrowed) going to be repaid ? "but would be available for larger audience events, which would be relatively rare and infrequent" ? |
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Oct 11, 2023 13:14:39 GMT
The increased capacity would not result in an increase in attendance of the average match-day
Define AVERAGE match day attendance.
Very vague sentence really.
Oh the new average increased because of
Team winning
Team playing well
Opponents bringing more
Better weather
Nothing to do with new stand, honest gov
Also are we talking about the pre covid capacity?
|
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Oct 13, 2023 13:47:22 GMT
Either we have made an even more shambolic mess of things OR the new application has a better chance of being approved quickly. Why would a new application for the South Stand have more chance of retrospective consent (or quicker approval)? Unless someone made a material mistake in the original application which could see the retrospective planning application refused, and at worst the whole thing demolished. This has to be unlikely, but why else submit a new application at this stage? I doubt it would speed things up, surely it just adds more red tape. It could just be, that BRFC are just making the whole thing up as it goes along. Because the new application addresses the substantive concerns raised by Cllr Edwards in calling in the original application and other sensible objections. A decision to call in the new application may follow, but Cllr Edwards is quiet on the issue at the moment. But it is less likely as the new application addresses the reasons for calling in: through community engagement, through inclusion of renewable electricity production, by addressing biodiversity gain, through demonstrable stepping up of safety on site, by including a favourable noise assessment, by addressing transport concerns, etc. Will it satisfy Cllr Edwards or others? It certainly increases the chances of approval by planning officials without it going to committee.
Addressing the 'temporary' point made earlier in the thread, I'd put forward this example of a temporary structure which is also from Arena Group (click to enlarge): |
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Oct 13, 2023 13:49:57 GMT
Just to add, I'd strongly advocate constructive improvements to transport surrounding games. I won't trot out the options here, but have posted these on Gaschat.
|
|
bondigas
Joined: December 2017
Posts: 407
|
Post by bondigas on Oct 13, 2023 15:23:35 GMT
Apparently someone did make a material mistake in the original first planning application,it was down to inadequate drainage provision and would have failed planning. If so, does that mean the second application starts life all over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Oct 13, 2023 19:24:04 GMT
Apparently someone did make a material mistake in the original first planning application,it was down to inadequate drainage provision and would have failed planning. If so, does that mean the second application starts life all over again. Hearsay or fact?
The drainage documentation looks pretty similar, but happy to be corrected.
|
|
bondigas
Joined: December 2017
Posts: 407
|
Post by bondigas on Oct 13, 2023 19:45:30 GMT
Look, its easy, for those who think the sun rises every morning from Gorringes derriere on both forums and are in touch with him every day, they should ask him is it true, if he says no comment due to new owners then it is true. If he denies it vehemently then it also is true as truth and Gorringe are not natural partners in life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Oct 13, 2023 21:15:33 GMT
Look, its easy, for those who think the sun rises every morning from Gorringes derriere on both forums and are in touch with him every day, they should ask him is it true, if he says no comment due to new owners then it is true. If he denies it vehemently then it also is true as truth and Gorringe are not natural partners in life. No need to get defensive. I'm ambivalent to Tom Gorringe, I just want the club to move forward - with or without him.
I'm just asking if this is something that is backed up in fact, because I hadn't seen it referenced elsewhere and my reading of the drainage documentation was that there was no change to the original information presented in the first application - albeit that the same information is presented within a report second time around. It would be welcome if you could enlarge on what the mistake was?
I think we can all agree that the first application was woefully inadequate. I've written about that on both fora. I'm pleased that the decision was made to withdraw and improve, addressing the majority of the points made and presenting a better case for approval. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Oct 13, 2023 22:35:30 GMT
Look, its easy, for those who think the sun rises every morning from Gorringes derriere on both forums and are in touch with him every day, they should ask him is it true, if he says no comment due to new owners then it is true. If he denies it vehemently then it also is true as truth and Gorringe are not natural partners in life. No need to get defensive. I'm ambivalent to Tom Gorringe, I just want the club to move forward - with or without him.
I'm just asking if this is something that is backed up in fact, because I hadn't seen it referenced elsewhere and my reading of the drainage documentation was that there was no change to the original information presented in the first application - albeit that the same information is presented within a report second time around. It would be welcome if you could enlarge on what the mistake was?
I think we can all agree that the first application was woefully inadequate. I've written about that on both fora. I'm pleased that the decision was made to withdraw and improve, addressing the majority of the points made and presenting a better case for approval. How will Rovers ever move forward if we keep setting up our leaders to fail by giving them unquestioning support even when we know they are making bad decisions ? I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who recognized the folly of the decision to press ahead with the South Stand when it was painfully obvious that the idea of taking down the tent and getting a new semi permanent structure in place by August was a hopeless non-starter. The outcome was so easy to predict ; serious loss of revenue, battle with residents and planners, a vast budget excess and eventually being forced into a compromise. The final result being a grandstand straight out of the 1980’s when for the same amount of money we could have had the first phase of a modern and impressive redevelopment of the whole ground. And now it looks as though Tom Gorringe is being thrown under a bus. The majority of Gasheads willingly gave him enough rope to hang himself when we could see his lack of experience was leading to serious mistakes being made. He was egged on as he got deeper and deeper into trouble but nobody had the courage to stand up and try to persuade him and Wael that what they were doing would cost Rovers and themselves dearly. I respect your sincerity when you say you are ambivalent about Tom and don’t mind whether he stays or not but is this really the right attitude to take ? If Gasheads were being genuine when previously we said we thought of him as a “ Godsend” or, as Gas Burner says, “ a commercially intelligent CEO” but now don’t care one way or the other shouldn’t we be looking at ourselves and admitting that we had made a mistake and vowing not to repeat it next time around ? |
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Oct 13, 2023 23:10:14 GMT
No need to get defensive. I'm ambivalent to Tom Gorringe, I just want the club to move forward - with or without him.
I'm just asking if this is something that is backed up in fact, because I hadn't seen it referenced elsewhere and my reading of the drainage documentation was that there was no change to the original information presented in the first application - albeit that the same information is presented within a report second time around. It would be welcome if you could enlarge on what the mistake was?
I think we can all agree that the first application was woefully inadequate. I've written about that on both fora. I'm pleased that the decision was made to withdraw and improve, addressing the majority of the points made and presenting a better case for approval. How will Rovers ever move forward if we keep setting up our leaders to fail by giving them unquestioning support even when we know they are making bad decisions ? I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who recognized the folly of the decision to press ahead with the South Stand when it was painfully obvious that the idea of taking down the tent and getting a new semi permanent structure in place by August was a hopeless non-starter. The outcome was so easy to predict ; serious loss of revenue, battle with residents and planners, a vast budget excess and eventually being forced into a compromise. The final result being a grandstand straight out of the 1980’s when for the same amount of money we could have had the first phase of a modern and impressive redevelopment of the whole ground. And now it looks as though Tom Gorringe is being thrown under a bus. The majority of Gasheads willingly gave him enough rope to hang himself when we could see his lack of experience was leading to serious mistakes being made. He was egged on as he got deeper and deeper into trouble but nobody had the courage to stand up and try to persuade him and Wael that what they were doing would cost Rovers and themselves dearly. I respect your sincerity when you say you are ambivalent about Tom and don’t mind whether he stays or not but is this really the right attitude to take ? If Gasheads were being genuine when previously we said we thought of him as a “ Godsend” or, as Gas Burner says, “ a commercially intelligent CEO” but now don’t care one way or the other shouldn’t we be looking at ourselves and admitting that we had made a mistake and vowing not to repeat it next time around ? No unquestioning support from me. I raised a series of issues and opportunities in response to the sensible objections raised and I'm glad to see the club has acted on most of these in a positive way in the re-submission. To be clear, I claim no credit, I just think there were a number of positive measures that could be included at little extra cost.
The timing issue is now well trodden. There is clearly a risk in proceeding with the build awaiting PP, but there is also an argument that it becomes more difficult to deny a structure already installed. However, timing was a mistake . Revenue was lost. But I suspect that the end result will be a net positive. On the battle with residents - I'd conclude that is inevitable, whatever the club choose to do. The concept of a harmonious consultation leading to a consentual development is pie-in-the-sky in my opinion - at least when it comes to the development of a football ground in Bristol. I'm not sure that there is a 'battle' with the planners?
On whether a better stand could have been designed and installed - well possibly, but engineering logic dictates that this would only be at a much greater expense. The club's public stance on the necessity of an eventual move away from the Mem remains unchanged as far as I can see, so maximum increase in capacity for minimum capital outlay makes sense to me.
Having said I'm ambivalent about Tom Gorringe, I would dearly like him to succeed, because if he does then Rovers will prosper. I certainly haven't applied the superlatives that the mysterious Gasburner has to our Tom. But I'd definitely agree with the point that the club should learn from the mistakes (I think it is ) particualrly for the larger developments to come. [fingers crossed emoji!]
|
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Oct 14, 2023 7:18:51 GMT
How will Rovers ever move forward if we keep setting up our leaders to fail by giving them unquestioning support even when we know they are making bad decisions ? I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who recognized the folly of the decision to press ahead with the South Stand when it was painfully obvious that the idea of taking down the tent and getting a new semi permanent structure in place by August was a hopeless non-starter. The outcome was so easy to predict ; serious loss of revenue, battle with residents and planners, a vast budget excess and eventually being forced into a compromise. The final result being a grandstand straight out of the 1980’s when for the same amount of money we could have had the first phase of a modern and impressive redevelopment of the whole ground. And now it looks as though Tom Gorringe is being thrown under a bus. The majority of Gasheads willingly gave him enough rope to hang himself when we could see his lack of experience was leading to serious mistakes being made. He was egged on as he got deeper and deeper into trouble but nobody had the courage to stand up and try to persuade him and Wael that what they were doing would cost Rovers and themselves dearly. I respect your sincerity when you say you are ambivalent about Tom and don’t mind whether he stays or not but is this really the right attitude to take ? If Gasheads were being genuine when previously we said we thought of him as a “ Godsend” or, as Gas Burner says, “ a commercially intelligent CEO” but now don’t care one way or the other shouldn’t we be looking at ourselves and admitting that we had made a mistake and vowing not to repeat it next time around ? No unquestioning support from me. I raised a series of issues and opportunities in response to the sensible objections raised and I'm glad to see the club has acted on most of these in a positive way in the re-submission. To be clear, I claim no credit, I just think there were a number of positive measures that could be included at little extra cost.
The timing issue is now well trodden. There is clearly a risk in proceeding with the build awaiting PP, but there is also an argument that it becomes more difficult to deny a structure already installed. However, timing was a mistake . Revenue was lost. But I suspect that the end result will be a net positive. On the battle with residents - I'd conclude that is inevitable, whatever the club choose to do. The concept of a harmonious consultation leading to a consentual development is pie-in-the-sky in my opinion - at least when it comes to the development of a football ground in Bristol. I'm not sure that there is a 'battle' with the planners?
On whether a better stand could have been designed and installed - well possibly, but engineering logic dictates that this would only be at a much greater expense. The club's public stance on the necessity of an eventual move away from the Mem remains unchanged as far as I can see, so maximum increase in capacity for minimum capital outlay makes sense to me.
Having said I'm ambivalent about Tom Gorringe, I would dearly like him to succeed, because if he does then Rovers will prosper. I certainly haven't applied the superlatives that the mysterious Gasburner has to our Tom. But I'd definitely agree with the point that the club should learn from the mistakes (I think it is ) particualrly for the larger developments to come. [fingers crossed emoji!]
I appreciate your post but it does highlight our fundamental difference in attitudes. You are taking what the leaders of the club have decided to do and then finding ways to justify it. I’m saying that because the leaders of the club know that most fans will try to justify whatever they do, no matter how misguided it is, they believe they don’t need to put careful forethought into their decision making process but can act solely on impulse. And this lack of forethought and impulsiveness leads to constant bad decision making with no evidence that the leaders are learning from their mistakes. I say leaders because the leaders and the club are two different things. And as has been discussed before we, as supporters, actually make a bigger financial contribution to the club than the leaders do. The total amount the club is spending is probably around 12 million per annum now ( it was 11 million in 2022) of which about 2 million is from central funding, 4 million from the leaders through loans and share purchases and 6 million from the money supporters put in through ticket purchases, retail purchases, bar and catering purchases, advertising and sponsorship. So this constant bad decision making wastes twice as much of our money as it does that of the leaders. |
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,576
|
Post by harrybuckle on Oct 14, 2023 9:09:21 GMT
Is Gasburner a close friend of Tom G as praise is unprecedented and does beg the question?
We need to know if GB is genuine a plant of the Club or possibly a city fan turned rogue?
|
|
bondigas
Joined: December 2017
Posts: 407
|
Post by bondigas on Oct 14, 2023 21:32:12 GMT
So why does Gorringe decide to give an interview to a random fans blog, Gasburner,in the first place,and then presumably gives his consent to release and post the interview by Gasburner on a Monday night in full, three days after giving it,if it wasn't in his mind going to be beneficial to him and Wael. It now looks as if the interview at the time possibly was based on impressing the Kuwaitis highlighting the existing clubs top echelon managements qualities. It suggests that what ever was said in the interview wouldn't have pleased the new owners and it was rapidly withdrawn and scrapped by those at the time who thought they still controlled the media output from the club. Obviously not the case, and the little exercise has become an embarrassment for those that executed it.
The Kuwaitis must have their own team to run the business lined up, as a nervous employee you will try any trick in the book to hold on to your job, especially if you've been found wanting.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,361
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Oct 15, 2023 12:51:27 GMT
So why does Gorringe decide to give an interview to a random fans blog, Gasburner,in the first place,and then presumably gives his consent to release and post the interview by Gasburner on a Monday night in full, three days after giving it,if it wasn't in his mind going to be beneficial to him and Wael. It now looks as if the interview at the time possibly was based on impressing the Kuwaitis highlighting the existing clubs top echelon managements qualities. It suggests that what ever was said in the interview wouldn't have pleased the new owners and it was rapidly withdrawn and scrapped by those at the time who thought they still controlled the media output from the club. Obviously not the case, and the little exercise has become an embarrassment for those that executed it. The Kuwaitis must have their own team to run the business lined up, as a nervous employee you will try any trick in the book to hold on to your job, especially if you've been found wanting. Gasburner made a brief appearance on gaschat, said nothing of real interest, denied vehemently that it’s club affiliated and that I must have signed up to their site, which I definitely did not. I was given am e-mail address, e-mailed 2-3 days ago and not received a reply. gasburner then added no more questions would he answered or replied to. Make up your own mind |
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Oct 15, 2023 17:17:24 GMT
No unquestioning support from me. I raised a series of issues and opportunities in response to the sensible objections raised and I'm glad to see the club has acted on most of these in a positive way in the re-submission. To be clear, I claim no credit, I just think there were a number of positive measures that could be included at little extra cost.
The timing issue is now well trodden. There is clearly a risk in proceeding with the build awaiting PP, but there is also an argument that it becomes more difficult to deny a structure already installed. However, timing was a mistake . Revenue was lost. But I suspect that the end result will be a net positive. On the battle with residents - I'd conclude that is inevitable, whatever the club choose to do. The concept of a harmonious consultation leading to a consentual development is pie-in-the-sky in my opinion - at least when it comes to the development of a football ground in Bristol. I'm not sure that there is a 'battle' with the planners?
On whether a better stand could have been designed and installed - well possibly, but engineering logic dictates that this would only be at a much greater expense. The club's public stance on the necessity of an eventual move away from the Mem remains unchanged as far as I can see, so maximum increase in capacity for minimum capital outlay makes sense to me.
Having said I'm ambivalent about Tom Gorringe, I would dearly like him to succeed, because if he does then Rovers will prosper. I certainly haven't applied the superlatives that the mysterious Gasburner has to our Tom. But I'd definitely agree with the point that the club should learn from the mistakes (I think it is ) particualrly for the larger developments to come. [fingers crossed emoji!]
I appreciate your post but it does highlight our fundamental difference in attitudes. You are taking what the leaders of the club have decided to do and then finding ways to justify it. I’m saying that because the leaders of the club know that most fans will try to justify whatever they do, no matter how misguided it is, they believe they don’t need to put careful forethought into their decision making process but can act solely on impulse. And this lack of forethought and impulsiveness leads to constant bad decision making with no evidence that the leaders are learning from their mistakes. I say leaders because the leaders and the club are two different things. And as has been discussed before we, as supporters, actually make a bigger financial contribution to the club than the leaders do. The total amount the club is spending is probably around 12 million per annum now ( it was 11 million in 2022) of which about 2 million is from central funding, 4 million from the leaders through loans and share purchases and 6 million from the money supporters put in through ticket purchases, retail purchases, bar and catering purchases, advertising and sponsorship. So this constant bad decision making wastes twice as much of our money as it does that of the leaders. If you haven't missed the news the club now has new majority shareholders, it seems they have already decided to move on from Wael & TG running the entire show and have brought in BHP Parabis to assist with the new stand plans. Time will tell if TG remains as CEO or they decide to bring in their own CEO. Although I'm not sure what individual fans were supposed to do in the past to stop the club proceeding with whatever plans they proposed. I doubt posting on this forum would have no impact and we have zero contact with the owners directly. Even the BP have been kicked into touch by JB for being negative. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Oct 15, 2023 21:36:55 GMT
I appreciate your post but it does highlight our fundamental difference in attitudes. You are taking what the leaders of the club have decided to do and then finding ways to justify it. I’m saying that because the leaders of the club know that most fans will try to justify whatever they do, no matter how misguided it is, they believe they don’t need to put careful forethought into their decision making process but can act solely on impulse. And this lack of forethought and impulsiveness leads to constant bad decision making with no evidence that the leaders are learning from their mistakes. I say leaders because the leaders and the club are two different things. And as has been discussed before we, as supporters, actually make a bigger financial contribution to the club than the leaders do. The total amount the club is spending is probably around 12 million per annum now ( it was 11 million in 2022) of which about 2 million is from central funding, 4 million from the leaders through loans and share purchases and 6 million from the money supporters put in through ticket purchases, retail purchases, bar and catering purchases, advertising and sponsorship. So this constant bad decision making wastes twice as much of our money as it does that of the leaders. If you haven't missed the news the club now has new majority shareholders, it seems they have already decided to move on from Wael & TG running the entire show and have brought in BHP Parabis to assist with the new stand plans. Time will tell if TG remains as CEO or they decide to bring in their own CEO. Although I'm not sure what individual fans were supposed to do in the past to stop the club proceeding with whatever plans they proposed. I doubt posting on this forum would have no impact and we have zero contact with the owners directly. Even the BP have been kicked into touch by JB for being negative. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say but will have a go at replying. Rovers majority shareholder is still Dwane Sports but we’ve been told this company is now 55% owned by Hussain Al-Saeed. Hussain and his son Abdullatif are directors of both BRFC Ltd and BRFC 1883 Ltd whilst their friends Khalid Alkandari and Abdulaziz Alroomi are directors of BRFC 1883 Ltd. BNP Paribas contributed documents to support the original April planning application but have played a much more prominent role in the new application. You say the Al- Saeeds have moved on from Wael & Tom running the entire show but how do we know this because we haven’t heard anything from them since August 14th ? The message in my post is that for the good of the club Gasheads should resist the temptation to deify Hussain, Abdullatif or any of their appointees as has been done with Wael and Tom. Reason number one is that history shows this doesn’t work either for the personalities themselves or for the football club. Reason number two is that Gasheads put the largest portion of funding into the club so there is absolutely no need to be grovellingly grateful to the leaders. |
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,361
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Oct 16, 2023 8:05:31 GMT
I appreciate your post but it does highlight our fundamental difference in attitudes. You are taking what the leaders of the club have decided to do and then finding ways to justify it. I’m saying that because the leaders of the club know that most fans will try to justify whatever they do, no matter how misguided it is, they believe they don’t need to put careful forethought into their decision making process but can act solely on impulse. And this lack of forethought and impulsiveness leads to constant bad decision making with no evidence that the leaders are learning from their mistakes. I say leaders because the leaders and the club are two different things. And as has been discussed before we, as supporters, actually make a bigger financial contribution to the club than the leaders do. The total amount the club is spending is probably around 12 million per annum now ( it was 11 million in 2022) of which about 2 million is from central funding, 4 million from the leaders through loans and share purchases and 6 million from the money supporters put in through ticket purchases, retail purchases, bar and catering purchases, advertising and sponsorship. So this constant bad decision making wastes twice as much of our money as it does that of the leaders. If you haven't missed the news the club now has new majority shareholders, it seems they have already decided to move on from Wael & TG running the entire show and have brought in BHP Parabis to assist with the new stand plans. Time will tell if TG remains as CEO or they decide to bring in their own CEO. Although I'm not sure what individual fans were supposed to do in the past to stop the club proceeding with whatever plans they proposed. I doubt posting on this forum would have no impact and we have zero contact with the owners directly. Even the BP have been kicked into touch by JB for being negative. We may not be able to do anything but they certainly do read both places and may be influenced by some ideas. I am not sure BP were kicked out due to negativity, maybe you can add why you believe that to be the case ? |
|
