Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2014 15:59:05 GMT
Orient managed to redevelop, mind you they actually got it done as opposed to faffing around. Was Barry Hearn at the helm at the time? If he was (and I think that he was), that would explain quite a lot. He actually got Orient's s**t together and made a plan that was water tight, I believe Rovers stole said plan but were two years behind Orient. The bubble burst and Rovers were buggered. I'm getting bored of all this ground crap, it won't happen (again). We'll get some sad, pouty faces from the board and they'll say they tried but the hard facts leave only four ground improvements since we moved here in 96 and three were paid for by us...
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Oct 29, 2014 16:23:48 GMT
Was Barry Hearn at the helm at the time? If he was (and I think that he was), that would explain quite a lot. He actually got Orient's s*** together and made a plan that was water tight, I believe Rovers stole said plan but were two years behind Orient. The bubble burst and Rovers were buggered. I'm getting bored of all this ground crap, it won't happen (again). We'll get some sad, pouty faces from the board and they'll say they tried but the hard facts leave only four ground improvements since we moved here in 96 and three were paid for by us... And so am I chewbacca, it can't all be bad luck, can it? I really do believe that the Chairman has done his best on this one, but it takes two to tango doesn't it, and Sainsbury's don't appear to be overly interested at the moment. Perhaps we picked the wrong partner, or the wrong time, eh? Anyway we are where we are, and I suppose that we are obliged to keep going, hard though that is. Personally (and like you) I'm getting bored by it all, but that won't help will it? It's like a recurring nightmare to me, but when (and how) will it end . . . that's the question.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Oct 29, 2014 18:07:20 GMT
Well let's hope that's right. It does seem like we have gone UWE or bust here - and in fact possibly both....Personally I'm deeply skeptical that the UWE is going to be the answer to all our problems but hey-ho as we've committed all our eggs to it I don't think gasheads have any choice but to desperately hope that it comes to fruition and delivers everything people say it will. The longer this has dragged on the less confident I am that either will happen though unfortunately. Simply having the stadium is not enough to secure a future - it is a total and utter myth that new stadiums secure the financial future of football clubs. A classic case of correlation not causation. Football club's with new stadiums tend to have been progressive, well run clubs but not uniquely and those that weren't were pushed to the wall by their new stadiums. Coventry Oxford and Darlington are classic examples (and if we need funding from Kassam or Reynolds like figure to make this work.......). But it doesn't have to be that extreme people seem to have selective memories on this because they go to nice shiny new stadiums and wish we had one and think it's basically a good thing. Leicester, Derby, Coventry, Notts County and Plymouth are all examples of clubs that effectively bankrupted themselves with new grounds or ground developments - Blackpool seem to have gotten themselves around this, Bolton (used to be held up as the prime example of regeneration driven by new stadium) are currently showing that a shiny new ground is all very well but it doesn't equal long term financial security. I don't see the stadium as the magic bullet and I point to plenty of clubs with crap grounds who are doing better than us on and off the pitch. I'm certainly at the stage where I can no longer get excited about the UWE. Agree that there's no one magic formula - all those cases you cite are different anyway, the ownership and guidance situation of the clubs in question being far more of a factor than whether or not they developed their grounds. Coventry went from being owners of a perfectly adequate Premier League standard ground to being tenants in an unwanted, unneeded and unloved new stadium for example. Darlington were victims of one man's egomania. Not sure you're correct about Notts County - they developed three sides of Meadow Lane for around a million (iirc) in the summer of 1992 and the final main stand didn't break the bank either. On the other hand, I have no idea what's gone on at Blackpool and they're certainly starting to struggle now. Anyway, main point is - no, new stadiums aren't the be all and end all. Who owns it (and controls the revenue streams - Man City in the 80s didn't even own their own social club nor rights to the club crest!), who is guiding the club etc etc are all vital. Yeah, new stadiums may mean higher gates (though Coventry and Darlington would dispute that!) but how that gate money - and the rest - finds its way into the club and is then spent (and who by) is even more important. Yes absolutely every situation is different which is exactly my point. There are a lot of factors at play that define whether a stadium works for a club or not. Obviously I'd rather we had one than didn't but I just find the number of people who seem to think that everything will be fine as long as we build it a bit misguided to say the least. Instead I come at it from the other side - we've put ourselves in a position where not building the UWE will be a catstrophe; that is never a good negotiating position to be in.
|
|
|
Post by banjoflyer on Oct 29, 2014 18:52:48 GMT
A new stadium may not be the answer to all our problems, of course it wont. But we would move from a situation where we are paying a mortgage to one where we are not. Plus we would have the chance of extra revenue from higher crowds (maybe but lots of other clubs have), money from concerts, business/conference facilities and renting lecture space and retail space. This is the plan but it will only work if the sale of mem produces the required revenues (or someone bridges any gap). There must be a plan B otherwise how can the writ claim for additional build costs if there is no build?
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Oct 29, 2014 20:09:06 GMT
A new stadium may not be the answer to all our problems, of course it wont. But we would move from a situation where we are paying a mortgage to one where we are not. Plus we would have the chance of extra revenue from higher crowds (maybe but lots of other clubs have), money from concerts, business/conference facilities and renting lecture space and retail space. This is the plan but it will only work if the sale of mem produces the required revenues (or someone bridges any gap). There must be a plan B otherwise how can the writ claim for additional build costs if there is no build? Always found this one a laugh - the business plan seems to completely ignore the fact that UWE already has all of this in place on site; shop, gym, conference spaces, the lot.
|
|
|
Post by ellington on Oct 29, 2014 21:03:00 GMT
A new stadium may not be the answer to all our problems, of course it wont. But we would move from a situation where we are paying a mortgage to one where we are not. Plus we would have the chance of extra revenue from higher crowds (maybe but lots of other clubs have), money from concerts, business/conference facilities and renting lecture space and retail space. This is the plan but it will only work if the sale of mem produces the required revenues (or someone bridges any gap). There must be a plan B otherwise how can the writ claim for additional build costs if there is no build? Very good point raised regarding build costs
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 29, 2014 21:15:38 GMT
This is where I am confused though. Isn't it BRFC submitting the application for extended hours or is it actually Sainsbury's
What is Sainsbury's involvement at the moment?
Presumably if the application is successful we will say we are owed the agreed fee plus the costs for delay as per writ
It's both - square that circle. They sued Sainsbury's for (the costs they incurred as a result of) not pursuing the delivery hours thing AND served an injunction on them to appeal it a day or so before the appeal period ended AND (presumably knowing Sainsbury's wouldn't make a very good job of that) put in their own planning application. I think the BRFC application has caused Sainsbury's appeal to be put on hold. I think Sainsbury's have moved on to other things. What's happened with the writ btw? I maybe be wrong but I thought the writ brought Sainsbury's back to their senses and they supported the appeal, otherwise surely Rovers would be still pursuing the legal action? As far as the writ is concerned does anybody know if it was ever actually issued let alone served on Sainsbury's, or was it just drawn up as a threat? Whilst posters on here doubt the sale of the mem/the UWE will be built I assume somebody is sending out the right noises to BCC or surely they'd just kick out the extended delivery times? Until we're told it's dead we have to believe it might still go ahead.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 0:05:49 GMT
A new stadium may not be the answer to all our problems, of course it wont. But we would move from a situation where we are paying a mortgage to one where we are not. Plus we would have the chance of extra revenue from higher crowds (maybe but lots of other clubs have), money from concerts, business/conference facilities and renting lecture space and retail space. This is the plan but it will only work if the sale of mem produces the required revenues (or someone bridges any gap). There must be a plan B otherwise how can the writ claim for additional build costs if there is no build? Always found this one a laugh - the business plan seems to completely ignore the fact that UWE already has all of this in place on site; shop, gym, conference spaces, the lot. Yes, UWE definitely don't want any additional space or facilities. They're the least forward thinking uni in the country and not trying to expand
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Oct 30, 2014 8:17:54 GMT
A new stadium may not be the answer to all our problems, of course it wont. But we would move from a situation where we are paying a mortgage to one where we are not. Plus we would have the chance of extra revenue from higher crowds (maybe but lots of other clubs have), money from concerts, business/conference facilities and renting lecture space and retail space. This is the plan but it will only work if the sale of mem produces the required revenues (or someone bridges any gap). There must be a plan B otherwise how can the writ claim for additional build costs if there is no build? Always found this one a laugh - the business plan seems to completely ignore the fact that UWE already has all of this in place on site; shop, gym, conference spaces, the lot. Business plan? Anyway, I used to work for HP next to UWE, and the area definitely needs more of those things. The UWE gym is too small, the shops are too small with a narrow range of goods, and there's not enough conference space for the area - plus when there is a big conference, there's not enough parking space.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Oct 30, 2014 8:52:32 GMT
Always found this one a laugh - the business plan seems to completely ignore the fact that UWE already has all of this in place on site; shop, gym, conference spaces, the lot. Yes, UWE definitely don't want any additional space or facilities. They're the least forward thinking uni in the country and not trying to expand Expansion doesn't equal market monopoly though does it? You can still overstate an income stream of something that gets used by ignoring competition or even overlooking a competitor by deeming your project an expansion of that - the truth is it's not - there'll be no profit share between the UWE stadium and what's already there. They will be separate competing businesses.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 30, 2014 9:34:05 GMT
Arent UWE paying for space at the mythical stadium? Watola said at the AGM they were arguing over price for more space in the unallocated area in one of the stands
Remember, remember the 25th November, when everything gets dragged out again
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Oct 30, 2014 10:20:16 GMT
Always found this one a laugh - the business plan seems to completely ignore the fact that UWE already has all of this in place on site; shop, gym, conference spaces, the lot. Yes, UWE definitely don't want any additional space or facilities. They're the least forward thinking uni in the country and not trying to expand Tell that to Bristol Uni who are as jealous as hell of UWE
|
|
LincsBlue
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 685
|
Post by LincsBlue on Oct 30, 2014 10:59:47 GMT
Latest from BCC Mr LincsBlue reply to telephone email our ref your ref date Customer Enquiries 0117 922 3000 development.management@bristol.gov.uk 30 October 2014 Dear Sir/Madam, Notification of committee date Application no. 14/04174/X Site address: The Memorial Stadium Bristol Rovers Football Club Filton Avenue Bristol BS7 0BF Proposal: Variation of conditions 11 and 36 attached to planning permission 12/02090/F, which approved the redevelopment of the site to provide a foodstore with undercroft car parking, 65 residential units and community/commercial floorspace, to amend the proposed foodstore delivery hours to the service yard between 0500 and 00:01 (Major application) I am writing to let you know that the application above will be considered by the Development Control Committee B at its meeting on Wednesday 12 November 2014. The meeting will take place in a room in the City Hall, College Green starting at 2pm, although it is not possible to say when the case will be considered. This committee may be webcast. Please go to our website www.bristol.gov.uk/webcasts to find out more. From the Wednesday before the committee date, a copy of the officer’s report and recommendation can be viewed with the planning application documents (or www.bristol.gov.uk/planningonline ). Whilst this report will have a recommendation to either grant or refuse permission, it is important to note that this recommendation does not mean that the decision has already been taken, as the decision now rests entirely with the elected members. There is no need to write a further letter on this, unless you have additional points to make. You have a right to attend the meeting, and you are able to make a statement to the committee, subject to advance notice being received. Further information on making a statement is contained in the leaflet titled “Having your say at Bristol City Council’s Development Control Committees”. Please note that the statement should be sent to the Democratic Services Team by 12 noon on the day before the committee meeting and not the case officer. To find out what happened at the committee meeting, you could telephone us from mid-day on the day following the meeting or you may view the application summary. If you require any further information about this application, please contact us. Yours faithfully Development Management Bristol City Council objcom v15.0514
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 30, 2014 11:26:29 GMT
Fingers ready to see what the recommendation is on the 5th November then
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 30, 2014 11:51:55 GMT
Fingers ready to see what the recommendation is on the 5th November then What's the signficance of that date, is that the date the officers report is published online - expect some fireworks from Trash that night then if it recommends approval!! If it doesn't we could be well & truely shafted.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 30, 2014 12:01:26 GMT
Fingers ready to see what the recommendation is on the 5th November then What's the signficance of that date, is that the date the officers report is published online - expect some fireworks from Trash that night then if it recommends approval!! If it doesn't we could be well & truely shafted. the letter above says the application is heard the 12th November, but the recommendation will be available from the week before. Will be interesting whatever way that goes as BCC will have a big decision to make even though we all know there will be no supermarket there. Obviously that doesn't bother BRFC, but the council will have to weigh up the implications of allowing such delivery hours and how it may effect other develoments
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 12:24:52 GMT
"Recent traffic survey undertaken on Filton Ave by NDC to measure road noise during night time hours has indicated that no "discernible" above average noise was indicated. The traffic flow included twelve (12) heavy goods lorries and numerous small to medium size vans...."
This information was passed to me by a close friend who has passed good info before and i'm only repeating what he said.
Don't shoot the messenger !
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Oct 30, 2014 12:38:20 GMT
"Recent traffic survey undertaken on Filton Ave by NDC to measure road noise during night time hours has indicated that no "discernible" above average noise was indicated. The traffic flow included twelve (12) heavy goods lorries and numerous small to medium size vans...." This information was passed to me by a close friend who has passed good info before and i'm only repeating what he said. Don't shoot the messenger ! Well this is good and let's hope it leads to a positive result on 5th November; I think we deserve to see this out from here. However, surely all that would do is put us back in the running so to speak. It hardly solves the problem. I think it's pretty clear Sainsbury's have no desire to fulfil the original plan so all I can really see tha's remotely positive here is a long drawn out legal battle that may win and even that won't necessarily lead to the UWE if circumstances change. I'm glad some people are still optimistic but I'm struggling to see where that optimism is coming from. I see our negotiating position as being very week unless we really do have a watertight contract - which is possible but you have to think Sainbury's Army of lawyers would throw everything at it and precedent from elsewhere does not seem to be on our side. My main worry is that while we desperately need this development neither Sainsbury's nor UWE do; that is hardly a strong position to be in for any legal dispute or negotiation period.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 13:00:59 GMT
"Recent traffic survey undertaken on Filton Ave by NDC to measure road noise during night time hours has indicated that no "discernible" above average noise was indicated. The traffic flow included twelve (12) heavy goods lorries and numerous small to medium size vans...." This information was passed to me by a close friend who has passed good info before and i'm only repeating what he said. Don't shoot the messenger ! Well this is good and let's hope it leads to a positive result on 5th November; I think we deserve to see this out from here. However, surely all that would do is put us back in the running so to speak. It hardly solves the problem. I think it's pretty clear Sainsbury's have no desire to fulfil the original plan so all I can really see tha's remotely positive here is a long drawn out legal battle that may win and even that won't necessarily lead to the UWE if circumstances change. I'm glad some people are still optimistic but I'm struggling to see where that optimism is coming from. I see our negotiating position as being very week unless we really do have a watertight contract - which is possible but you have to think Sainbury's Army of lawyers would throw everything at it and precedent from elsewhere does not seem to be on our side. My main worry is that while we desperately need this development neither Sainsbury's nor UWE do; that is hardly a strong position to be in for any legal dispute or negotiation period. I think and i hope i'm wrong, but its all about compensation now and strong a case we can put to the courts to prove our case. I still think the UWE will be built, just not completely owned by BRFC
|
|
|
Post by ellington on Oct 30, 2014 13:25:30 GMT
Well this is good and let's hope it leads to a positive result on 5th November; I think we deserve to see this out from here. However, surely all that would do is put us back in the running so to speak. It hardly solves the problem. I think it's pretty clear Sainsbury's have no desire to fulfil the original plan so all I can really see tha's remotely positive here is a long drawn out legal battle that may win and even that won't necessarily lead to the UWE if circumstances change. I'm glad some people are still optimistic but I'm struggling to see where that optimism is coming from. I see our negotiating position as being very week unless we really do have a watertight contract - which is possible but you have to think Sainbury's Army of lawyers would throw everything at it and precedent from elsewhere does not seem to be on our side. My main worry is that while we desperately need this development neither Sainsbury's nor UWE do; that is hardly a strong position to be in for any legal dispute or negotiation period. I think and i hope i'm wrong, but its all about compensation now and strong a case we can put to the courts to prove our case. I still think the UWE will be built, just not completely owned by BRFC Alright Henbury , out of interest mate if this goes our way and compo comes our way then more than likely there will be a gap in the UWE funding but for the UWE to happen then a third party investor will have to be found, do you think we will get the necessary investment to enable the build and if so who? Perhaps the UWE themselves?
|
|