|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 10, 2005 13:40:35 GMT 1
There are a couple of letters in the Chron this week that might amuse a few, one in particular who want a reply of Ade, all to do with the community pitches, brought about by some 'lets wind 'em up' reporting, the letter must have been compiled before it was made clear that the board are asking now for the pitches to be defered, anyway, Ade have fun, If it were possible for shrewsTRUST to make a statement saying that its behind having the pitches etc, and will back the club to get the pitches up and running as fast as funds allow. Its the truth, we need the pitches this end of town.
Great one from Pauline, think most of us saw it on here a couple of weeks ago. Good timing Wiggy
|
|
|
Post by Mediolanum Shrew on Mar 10, 2005 15:19:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 10, 2005 15:28:55 GMT 1
Don't have too much fun Ade, its cruel fox hunting you know , we have to have the pitches sooner anyway, its driving me mad playing taxi for H so she can go and play 5 a side with this lot on here ;D
|
|
|
Post by wiganshrew2 on Mar 10, 2005 17:49:08 GMT 1
I've got The Shrewsbury Chronicle on line- but, unlike The Shroppy Star, you can't get the letters page!!! Usually, I'd buy one, but it's looking doubtful that I can get to the match, Saturday. (On the other hand... to save Mr Wiggy's sanity with 2 women in the house at the moment- it might be a good idea to bring our guest, if she's got over her cold and likes the idea!!!)
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Mar 10, 2005 18:20:15 GMT 1
You also get a full page advert telling you how to say Kav-chin-sky
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Mar 10, 2005 19:27:46 GMT 1
I personally don't think it is very good form for people who with hold their name and address for publication to directly criticise people who always put their name to their letters. As Ade says - there is nobody more disappointed about the community facilities situation than us. However, you have to remember that the planning application was granted 2 and half years ago and things have changed drastically since then. When the Sports village concept was developed with the aim of increasing the level of recreational facilities on the south of the town. The Labour led council wanted to tie the sports village to the New Meadow and put aside £5 million in the recreation budget for this purpose. AFTER the planning application was granted the new Conservative majority withdrew the £5m and promoted the idea of a sports village at Sundorne. The letter in the Chronicle is wrong to say that the Sundorne proposals where known when STFC made their planning application. So we now have a sports village originally planned to remedy a shortfall in facilities on the south of the town being built on the north side. Also the sports village will actuall be built on the sports pitches at Sundorne so reducing the amount of open recreational space in the borough. It was said that there was no point in the council owning a large car park at the New Meadow - yet the Sundorne Sports village actually includes a large car park. For many years certain councillors have said that they should not subside STFC. However, the council is actually getting over £1m in grants (a subsidy?) from Football (The Football Foundation and FIFA) for its own sports village. The writer of the Chronicle letter neglects the fact that in 2 and a half years since the planning application was passed the costs of building the stadium have increase significantly. Steel prices have rocketed and compliance with the new disablity legislation has increased the bill by something in the region of £500,000. It is not as black and white a situation as the letter suggests.
|
|