|
Post by pawlo on Apr 27, 2005 17:04:20 GMT 1
Have i missed something. Doesnt seem to be any debate about what happened. Big article in Sloppy Star. Apparently even a couple of Labour councillors voted against the clubs request to defer building the community pitches Hypocrisy....Spokesman for SARA says they cant be allowed to defer because the facilities are needed NOW , and this from the same people who have campagned long and hard to stop the facilities being built at all. A little bit of honesty from me. After reading what councillor Bushell says about the issue and discovering that they voted against it, i am now more inclined not to ****ing vote at all. This IS relevant to me and it really hurts.
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 27, 2005 17:10:25 GMT 1
maybe you should write to him, and explain the a lot of local people disillusioned with the labour government, feel as if they've been stabbed in the back after the pro STFC they recieved off various local councillors only for this to happen....
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 27, 2005 22:41:26 GMT 1
Every member of the Commitee voted against. Three further Councillors who were not members of the Development Control Committee spoke before the decision was made and each spoke strongly against allowing a delay of 5 years for the Community facilities. The three were Councillors Parsons and Tandy the Labour members for Reabook and Sutton and of course Councillor Armstrong who is Portfolio holder for the Leisure Committee
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 27, 2005 22:50:38 GMT 1
So, in other words, it is difficult to characterise the opponents of the delay as simply, "the usual suspects".
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 28, 2005 8:20:09 GMT 1
I'm not in the know, and I'm not going to pretend to have a friend or whatever who is, I have asked a member of the Labour party who used to sit on these meetings if he can find out the real reason why this decision was made, he has told me that it will take time as he has not been involved in the NM process for over 4 years, I have assured him that if the reason is a sensible one that we are all sensible enough to accept it, we do all want the facilities don't we? it wasn't just a ploy on our behalf to get planning permission for the NM was it? as a local I know that the area is lacking badly in community facilities . I'm hopeful the answer will come sooner rather than later, but doubt it will come until after the elections.
|
|
|
Post by Carter on Apr 28, 2005 8:49:03 GMT 1
it does suck as it was the council who nicked the grants etc for these pitches for their flaming sports village!!!
|
|
|
Post by totallytown on Apr 28, 2005 9:48:32 GMT 1
Personally I think we have to face up to some hard home truths on this one.
Yes, it's true that in the past we have suffered at the hands of petty minded, spiteful councillors. BUT on this occasion we are opposed by a wide cross-section of councillors and among them by some pretty decent individuals. If we honestly want to be objective and consider why, then I'm afraid we have to look closer to home.
Having been involved in campaigns and PR work surrounding contentious planning and related matters in the past, I'm left weeping at how dreadful communication, poor organisation and a general lack of proactivity has resulted in our club being positioned as it is - a grasping, shifty, private concern at odds with the community.
How is it that some truly grasping businesses can create community goodwill (and get decisions against officers advice), yet our great club, loved by so many of us, can fail to capitalise on the natural community spirit and pride that it should engender? Most of the blame for that doesn't rest with petty councillors. Sadly, it rests in our club and in the way it operates.
I know there will now probably be quite a few posts saying how the club is doing its best. I accept that, but we also have to accept that it has clear limitations. It's wrong to try to cover these by saying all councillors have it in for us for no good reason. The fact is we have been uncannily good at supplying ammunition for their guns.
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 28, 2005 10:46:28 GMT 1
I think most of us recognis these points too. The club certanly havent made it esy for themselves. Having said that, cant really immagine SABC applying for European grants, and funding the building of new stadium, with an adjourning concert/theartre arena and all the facilities including gym, like that that is happening in Coverntry.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 28, 2005 10:54:03 GMT 1
totallytown is correct. I think both the local council and the club need to look at themselves at this one.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 28, 2005 11:00:19 GMT 1
Tandy and Parsons are quite within their rights to want community pitches in Sutton
It was Fox who got them moved, much to the outcry of local residents
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 28, 2005 11:25:03 GMT 1
At the meeting on Tuesday it was stated that the Grants received by the council were not available to the Club. To sum up the meeting I got the impression that they did not trust the club to provide the promised Community faciilties.
|
|
|
Post by mattm on Apr 28, 2005 12:26:22 GMT 1
Councillor Armstrong suggested in a letter in The Chronicle a few weeks ago that STFC had know beforeTEXT they submitted the planning application for the New Meadow that funding for the community pitches wouldn't be available at that site - i guess his implication was that the club were just using the comunity facilities as a way of getting the New Meadow application through the planning process.
On the other side STFC directors have siad that they were told that money would be available for community faclities at the New Meadow - until the Council decided to spend the money at Sundorne instead. As we know Mr Fox was at the centre of this council decision.
As I understand the situation this weeks meeting means that the club can go ahead and build the New Meadow, but that they won't be allowed to play their until the community facilities in the planning application are up and running. the club could build the facilities themselves, but would have to charge council fees for the facilities, so couldn't make a profit from them.
I'm not sure who is to blame for this situation but in a years time we could have the daft situation of Town having a brand new 10,000 seat stadium built and ready to use, but not being allowed to by the council.
I'd say build the ground anyway - can you imagine the stick that SABC would get if this situation did occur.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 28, 2005 14:10:33 GMT 1
Re the Grants, you have to go back to when the council(Labour at the time) were going to build the sports village at NM site, part of the 5 million deal would have been made up of 2 million in grants that the council could and have since applied for. Obviously talks have been on going resulting in the towns planning officer's advice that all amendments should be accepted, now the community pitches have been put up as the next hurdle, which could be agreed somehow, such as a minimum requirement for each of the 5 years, like one pitch a year etc to completed on such and such a date, failure would mean we couldn't use the stadium etc. The club will hold out to get the best agreement is thinks is good for the club and the council likewise. Thats how its been explained to me, and I hope the person is right
|
|
|
Post by Bilbo on Apr 28, 2005 14:51:50 GMT 1
What made me sick to the stomach was the thought of how SABC got their lovely New Headquarters via some very dodgy dealings, but with hardly any obstacles. Yet these council barstewards are willing to scupper the enjoyment of 1000's of bloody fans.
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 28, 2005 14:53:46 GMT 1
Im a t a bit of a loss about the council rates though. How long would they apply to the New Meadow facilities? Do any other private leisure finaced schemes have such restrictions placed upon them? And whats wrong with STFC charging more for the use of their facilities??? How does this interfere with council facilities and how many people use them. While I argued that the New Meadow should be built with such facilities, it is conceivable that the club could lose out on running expences if the council force them to keep to council rates.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 28, 2005 15:06:03 GMT 1
What made me sick to the stomach was the thought of how SABC got their lovely New Headquarters via some very dodgy dealings, but with hardly any obstacles. Yet these council barstewards are willing to scupper the enjoyment of 1000's of bloody fans. What about the 28 mill 650 seat theatre.
|
|
graedw
Shropshire County League
Posts: 49
|
Post by graedw on Apr 28, 2005 15:27:16 GMT 1
apparantely afc tu have recived a £1.2 mill grant from the football foundation, they are working WITH the local council to develop facilities at the nbh and tcat, will stfc and sabc ever work together, or are we enternaly doomed to be at each others throats
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Apr 28, 2005 17:26:19 GMT 1
apparantely afc tu have recived a £1.2 mill grant from the football foundation, they are working WITH the local council to develop facilities at the nbh and tcat, will stfc and sabc ever work together, or are we enternaly doomed to be at each others throats A very fair and valid point. Telford and Wrekin Borough Council have won awards for the work that they have done with the new AFC Telford United. If STFC went bust - and if we don't get the new ground that would be the probability - would the council be indifferent to it. I suspect not, they would do all they could to resurect AFC Shrewsbury because they would starkly see what was being lost. Surely then it would be much better for everyone concerened - and probably a lot cheaper as well - to try and help the club now, rather than risk a disaster for the community.
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 28, 2005 17:44:30 GMT 1
I suspect the council members probably spend a great deal of time smoking pot.
Because when we nearly got relegated, when we beat Everton, drew Chelsea, got relegated and then won promotion back (all firmly in the national media spotlight) the council couldnt get enough of the club, about how it was such a positive effect for the town of Shrewsbury, put the town constantly on the national and international map (through things such as the pools and football results) etc.
yet a few weeks later they seem to have forgotten everything that they've said in the press as well as all landmark matches occassions.
They also seem to forget the 1000-1500+ people who come into the town on any given match day, who otherwise wouldnt be in the town, buying petrol, parking in council carparks, buying food from the town centre etc.
Its a shame, and STFC are partly to blame. I may be wrong but I get the impression the club doesnt speak up for itself anywhere near often enough, its to reactive and not proactive enough. As a result we have become a bit of a political football, a club who appear either totally inept or deeply untrust worthy. The council must love us, because they can nob on us at every given opportunity, say whatever they wish, and whats the worst the club will do? Maybe release a statement on shrewsworld as opposed to actively seek out the local media.
The club needs to realise that it is going to have to fight for everything and if that means turning nasty, threatening the council, talking about going bust within a few years then so be it.
Because everytime the council/whoever vilifies the club, and the club stay quiet, it doesnt just reflect badly on the club it reflects badly upon us the supporters, it also airs a completely biased and misinformed side to the argument.
|
|
|
Post by skunkie on Apr 28, 2005 17:53:58 GMT 1
What is now neede is a real partnership,are your local council reps being treated as well as the board of STFC.many people from the county PM..ed your council to get things moving,the grounds stalled over planning,the club is very quiet on the subject of the NM.Guys you are representing all that is bad for the great Town that is Shrewsbury ,and resemble the club badge,three lions at loggerheads.
|
|
|
Post by mattm on Apr 28, 2005 18:56:31 GMT 1
I would have liked the New Meadow site to have become a complex for sport in shrewsbury, with everything included on one site - football, the bowls club, community facilities and new sport facilities.
Sadly we going to end up with bits and pieces of 2nd rate sports facilities all over town rather than one top class venue. I think that there are some very good (Unelected) officers in SABC who do have a vision for the future of shrewsbury, but they are constantly brought down by the elected Council officers.
I have worked with some of the Councillors in the past and to be frank some of them just don't have the ability to do teh job, but simply get elected because of the political party they represent.
if you want proof as to the daftness of our councillors you only have to look at their lack of vision over the new theatre, their own offices, and the shambles over the cobbles in the High Street.
Most mindnumbing of all came in the late 80's when they thought Brother Cadfeal was a better tourism marketing figure than Darwin! They built the Cadfeal Centre in Abbey Foregate - which went broke.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 28, 2005 19:04:17 GMT 1
Im a t a bit of a loss about the council rates though. How long would they apply to the New Meadow facilities? Do any other private leisure finaced schemes have such restrictions placed upon them? And whats wrong with STFC charging more for the use of their facilities??? How does this interfere with council facilities and how many people use them. The rates are written into the 106 agreement which is a legally binding agreement, they can't charge any more.
|
|
|
Post by Link51 on Apr 28, 2005 19:04:50 GMT 1
More problems for the embryonic New Meadow. [MrBurns] Excellent! [/MrBurns]
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 28, 2005 19:08:51 GMT 1
More problems for the embryonic New Meadow. [MrBurns] Excellent! [/MrBurns] Amere and not unexpected hiccup in the scheme of things, the heavy plant machinery should be on site any day now
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2005 19:44:08 GMT 1
If STFC went bust - and if we don't get the new ground that would be the probability - I can't agree with that Ian, and I can't see how anyone else can, unless someone can tell me in black and white how much £££ is needed to upgrade GM so we can continue to play football there.
|
|
|
Post by Link51 on Apr 28, 2005 19:59:11 GMT 1
I can't agree with that Ian, and I can't see how anyone else can, unless someone can tell me in black and white how much £££ is needed to upgrade GM so we can continue to play football there. We'll never get an honest answer on that one. Too many vested interests in STFC moving and those nice luxury apartments being built on the site of GM. What has surprised me all along is the acceptance - indeed embracing - of the option of moving to an out-of-town shed by most Town fans, and the subsequent transport problems, lack of places to eat and drink etc. that go with it (never mind losing an atmospheric ground in the heart of Shrewsbury). If GM truly was a lost cause, then I would expect an accept a resigned gloominess towards our future as another Sc***horpe/Chester/Northampton playing out by the A5. But thinking that the NM will be the promised land? Barmy! Have any independent supporters groups examined in detail the possibilities of staying at GM? Not just taking the STFC/SABC propoganda - genuine independent studies. I'm exiled and do well to get to six matches a season; but STFC and GM mean enough for me to hack out a few lines to other fans to try to persuade them to see my POV. How can regulars see the NM as anything other than a 'better than no club at all' option?
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 28, 2005 22:18:05 GMT 1
The cloaks and daggers of SABC are in full swing again
Remember that our current council only gained a majority by having 4 anti-new meadow condidates in sutton and meole brace
It looks like they created the issue in order to get into power
Opposition to NM has only ever been a sham in order to maintain political control
and to answer Link 51
aside from GM to build a new ground costs approx 1k a seat - that is cheap. so if we want NM for championship footie it would cost about 8 million, and we would only have to football foundation grant
selling the old land allows a new ground to be built, that is the basic economics of the move
I know very few fans who think the NM will actually be a better stadium than GM, we love GM, it is our home, but times have changed and were are 15 years behind other clubs.
It is like trading in an amazing old Beetle and getting a Ford Fiesta instead. It won;t be half as much fun but it will tranport us into the future safely
|
|
|
Post by theoldcodger on Apr 28, 2005 23:31:44 GMT 1
Earlier it was was said that a couple of councillors from Sutton and a Mr Watson spoke against the proposals. According to the council's website, one person may speak to support an application & one to oppose it. If more than person wishes to oppose/support then they should decide amongst themselves otherwise the chairman will decide. So, how come three people were allowed to speak against the proposal?
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 29, 2005 0:18:01 GMT 1
because there was no one present to speak in favour of the proposal???
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 29, 2005 10:20:11 GMT 1
Only one member of the public is allowed to speak for or against the item. In this case it was Graham Watson. Additionally Councillors who did not sit on the Committee are allowed to speak on the item. In this case it was the Councillors for the Reabrook and Sutton Ward, Parsons and Tandy who both wanted the delay in the community facilities thrown out.
|
|