|
Post by Guest on Apr 26, 2005 21:38:22 GMT 1
SABC Development Control Committee unanimously voted against the Clubs proposal to delay the provision of five-a -side pitches, childrens pitch and changing facilities for a period fo 5 years. These will now have to be provided before the first game can be played at the new ground. The amendments to the stadium were passed.
Where do we go from here?
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 26, 2005 21:43:59 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 26, 2005 21:50:59 GMT 1
I seriously hope this is a p**s take.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2005 21:51:37 GMT 1
SABC Development Control Committee unanimously voted against the Clubs proposal to delay the provision of five-a -side pitches, childrens pitch and changing facilities for a period fo 5 years. These will now have to be provided before the first game can be played at the new ground. The amendments to the stadium were passed. Where do we go from here? Councillor Armstrong got his way then
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2005 21:55:26 GMT 1
I would think the club will appeal against the decision re the community pitches
|
|
|
Post by drasisback on Apr 26, 2005 21:56:07 GMT 1
Does this mean we now have to wait even longer for the build to start?
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 26, 2005 21:58:09 GMT 1
I would think the club will appeal against the decision re the community pitches Appeal to who? the same people that made tonight's decision? What avenues are open to the club now? This is ridiculous, we have been shafted by SABC!
|
|
|
Post by john on Apr 26, 2005 22:00:49 GMT 1
One thing after another with this bloody stadium lark
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 26, 2005 22:02:51 GMT 1
time to get letter writing i guess we missed the chance of standing in some local council wards??? Any idea who voted against it? Thought the council was a Labour majority now???
|
|
|
Post by john on Apr 26, 2005 22:04:03 GMT 1
If Im right there was 5 councillors and all Tory
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2005 22:04:11 GMT 1
All these guests and then they expect an answer
|
|
|
Post by drasisback on Apr 26, 2005 22:04:30 GMT 1
The county council is Rob, but the Borough is Tory
But arent we voting in Borough elections soon??
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Apr 26, 2005 22:05:01 GMT 1
This is ridiculous, we have been shafted by SABC! Well, we did put them in the plans in the first place
|
|
|
Post by drasisback on Apr 26, 2005 22:06:23 GMT 1
Not quite... Its a joint Labour Lib Dem I think
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 26, 2005 22:08:52 GMT 1
Well, we did put them in the plans in the first place In a supposed partnership with SABC which involved a lot of grant funding towards these things. Which has now gone elsewhere despite those areas already being better provided in the first place. Shafted!
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 26, 2005 22:11:04 GMT 1
Well as Armstrong put in the Star I think they (STFC) want jam on it with more and more jam. This might take any fighting fund or the club are going to have to give something else, by the way the Labour Cllrs were not happy with the clubs plans to delay the community pitches either, perhaps they might settle for less time? thoughI doubt it, the money might have to be found, anyone have an ideas how much, I seem to remember something like 1.2mill or maybe more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2005 22:11:07 GMT 1
I guess the board will just have to get on and do it.
Let's try and find the best out of a situation, it certainly will make the place more appealing.
Am I correct in saying that if grass pitches are made that there is an organisation which will pay for changing facilities? I'm sure I read that recently.
How much will these pitches cost? The 5-a-side could be concrete etc - anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 26, 2005 22:15:29 GMT 1
I think its the astro turf pitch that will be a big one Ant, I looked up the company who did Liverpools it was well in excess of 1 million because of all the ground work that has to be done + floodlights I agree I hope it can be done, it will look superb and the facilities are desperatly needed this end of town. Who get the profit from them though? STFC or SABC
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 26, 2005 22:19:02 GMT 1
so say we build these facilities (which is what i wanted to begin with) Does that mean the club can keep any profits they make? Although to be fair I thought these types of facilities were loss makers for the council
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 26, 2005 22:23:22 GMT 1
Im pretty sure SABC is no longer tory controlled ( ie Hung ) following the loss of sutton to Labour . 2 things however. This im pretty sure was not voted on by the Full Council, rather a committe. The Tories still control most committees still because they have not be reorganised yet following the bye election labour victory. I would have thought, though could be wrong, that the decision will have to be "ratified" by the full council.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2005 22:35:16 GMT 1
I think its the astro turf pitch that will be a big one Ant, I looked up the company who did Liverpools it was well in excess of 1 million because of all the ground work that has to be done + floodlights I agree I hope it can be done, it will look superb and the facilities are desperatly needed this end of town. Who get the profit from them though? STFC or SABC It doesn't say astro though does it? Just kids pitches and 5-a-side...
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Apr 26, 2005 22:38:28 GMT 1
I can't see why we wouldn't want them - they'd be a great asset. They would surely rake in the cash, they'd be available to the club for training, they'd bring people into the sphere of the club who might then also go to matches, and they would provide customers for the club bar - if we ever get the club bar that is.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 26, 2005 22:41:25 GMT 1
It doesn't say astro though does it? Just kids pitches and 5-a-side... I think the description was all weather pitch, which Actually could be like SCAT's couldn't it? surely that would cost less. I wish we had started fundraising for the NM years ago, what a missed opportunity, hindsight grr
|
|
|
Post by theoldcodger on Apr 26, 2005 22:43:38 GMT 1
The Conservatives still control the council due to the support of a couple of "Independents".
|
|
|
Post by Dale on Apr 26, 2005 23:02:52 GMT 1
Why delay it even more? Just build the stadium and the facilities for ****s sake They have facilities like 5-a-side astroturf pitches etc at Rushden and Stevenage so why not us?
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 26, 2005 23:19:24 GMT 1
withint he 106 SABC can set the charges for the community pitches - which would be the same as council levels
so STFC will never make a decent profit from them
so STFC don;t particularly want to build them, because thie rmoney can go further spent on other things
BUT
1) what a great chance for fans to get involved? A major initiative for the embrionic shrewsTRUST to get it's teeth into perhaps?
2) even if we don't make much money it does increase our turnover considerably which means that we have more flexibility with wages
3) It will increase the 'community' feel of the ground and help to attract new people. It also makes a bar a more viable proposition during the week
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 26, 2005 23:36:12 GMT 1
But if the council arent helping with the funding (wasnt it agreed that they would help?) then surely STFC can charge whatever they wish?
Could be some problems, its a lot to take on and run, bearing in mind how bareboned the non playing staff is, requires management and a plan.
However if that little extra is spent, so as to make the facilities better than the current ones in Shrewsbury there is as Dave says a chance to do something quite special
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 26, 2005 23:38:32 GMT 1
106 allows SABC to set charges, full stop
funding was never an issue in that
STFC could only have community pitches if they do not compete unfairly with council pitches - so everyone has to charge the same
|
|
|
Post by theoldcodger on Apr 26, 2005 23:47:54 GMT 1
More gen. The council officers recommended that the club be allowed to defer providing community pitches for up to 5 years instead of having them in place before the club moved in. This was because originaly the Football Foundation was giving the club a grant to help provide them but they had now decided to give the grant to the council's schemes for pitches at the Sundorne Sports Village & SCAT instead. Also there were plans to provide all weather pitches at Monkmoor, Pontesbury, Shrewsbury School etc & so the facilities were not needed in the short term. As the committee has gone against the officer's recommendation then I think the decision will have to be called in for reconsideration by another committee. Have a look round the council's web site at www.shrewsbury.gov.uk.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 26, 2005 23:50:11 GMT 1
I am now confused the two reports seem to conflict with each other If we have the 5 year delay that is fantastic news I will wait for a text message of IRJBA in the morning - that normally settles my confusion
|
|