Councillor Albie Fox
Guest
|
Post by Councillor Albie Fox on Mar 13, 2004 14:15:40 GMT 1
Dear All, I think the following letter that I wrote to the Shropshire Star sums it all up
Albie Fox
Error over claim of attack on club's fans I found your headline "Fans lash out over councillor's attack" offensive and misleading.
Offensive because the reporter Paul James had spoken to me and should therefore have not allowed such a headline; and misleading as I had explained to him that I had never attacked the fans of Shrewsbury Town Football Club and that they had libelled me on their website.
I have never attacked the fans of STFC verbally or in writing.
I have robustly done my job as councillor for Sutton & Reabrook and opposed the move to the Oteley Road site because of the traffic and parking problems it would generate in the area.
I have also opposed the use of council taxpayers' money to finance a private business.
The letter that the fans have put onto their website is therefore doing to me exactly what they accuse me of doing to them, ie accusing me of behaviour that I have not been part of.
I would like to point out I am not a member of SARA and have only attended its meetings when it has had an outside speaker, such as the police or council officers and have left when the speakers have left.
Finally, the fans of STFC would be better attacking those few so-called fans that do cause problems and damage the reputation of the many thousands of football fans that responsibly support their teams every week.
This sort of attack on me does them no favours at all and I hope Ant Thomas and his co-signatoriesÊare big enough to realise their mistake, remove my name from their letter and apologise.
Albie Fox, Councillor Sutton & Reabrook
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Mar 13, 2004 14:26:45 GMT 1
Ok if thats really you Mr Fox, do you or do you not back and support SARA? Answers on a postcard
|
|
|
Post by Albie Fox on Mar 15, 2004 19:31:07 GMT 1
Yes it is me. What has SARA got to do with it? As their Councillor I have to listen to their views as I do all other residents in the Sutton & Reabrook ward.
In all my actions on this subject I have made my decisions based on the views of many of the residents and THE FACTS.
I have placed emphasis on the facts as too many reports in the press and media are not based on the facts but are perceptions, half truths and in some cases pure fabrication.
Many STFC fans have emailed me with questions that I have responded to each time with full answers where required.
I also applaud the fact that I have never had direct abuse in the post, on the phone or via email. There have been several letters and articles in the press that have been untrue or at best economical with the facts.
I repeat, I have not at any time attacked the fans of Shrewsbury Town FC verbally or in writing. I have been attacked, both personally and collectively, in my sport for the actions of one maniac. That is why I would not do the same in this case.
STFC has my full support for getting a new ground at the Gay Meadow or anywhere it won't cause traffic and parking problems but I cannot at present support the use of public money unless there is a return in real terms for that money.
Albie Fox Albie.Fox@shrewsbury.gov.uk
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Mar 15, 2004 19:41:06 GMT 1
This is nice.
Hi Mr Fox. Could you clear something up for me.
It has been reported that building a Theatre on the Gay meadow would cost the council £32 million, building the same theatre on Smithfield Road would cost £34 million. I believe these are council officers figures. Are they correct?
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Mar 15, 2004 19:41:44 GMT 1
Pilch, Dock him his B&A points because his name is Albie Fox
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Mar 15, 2004 19:43:12 GMT 1
Councillor,
As a member of this community from outside your community, although I can't speak for every one here, and can't necessarily condone the decisions of yourself or your fellows, I feel it necessary to at the very least say Thank You for taking the time to address the members of this board directly. Perhaps it would be in the mutual interest of the supporters herewithin and yourself to maintain a dialogue regarding this subject, possibly upon this very board.
That, however, is something for Yourself and those who use and administer said board to decide!
Regards
Shane O'Rahilly - ex-Shrewbury resident and continuing STFC supporter
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2004 19:43:58 GMT 1
Albie, you don't do yourself any good by concentrating on the parking issues etc. at the new ground, as that is a done deal thanks to the Planning department You just add fuel to the argument that your opposition to the Council buying the Gay Meadow is based mainly on the fact that you don't want to facilitate a movement to the Otley Road site. Which in effect, is an unofficial blockade of the planning process. Which doesn't look good. Good luck in Brecon and Radnorshire - I hope the voters are sensible enough to reject you though - where you're unlikely to get in, as even Felix missed out after he ran a fantastic campaign.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Mar 15, 2004 19:47:39 GMT 1
Folks,
Whatever our opinions and disagreements, Cllr. Fox has at least taken the time to address and acknowledge this forum, so perhaps it would be an idea to hold any questions until the aforementioned has stated whether he is willing to hold such discussions here. Personal grievances/comments and questions are all well and good, but it is pointless to post them here unless he wishes to answer them here!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2004 19:52:49 GMT 1
He ain't royalty Grinfish. Good of him to come on here and make his views known though.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Mar 15, 2004 19:57:08 GMT 1
He ain't royalty Grinfish. Good of him to come on here and make his views known though. That may be so, but all the same obviously SOME people respect him enough to put him in office, and there's no point being un-civil. If Tony Blair was in front of you and you shouted " Oi Tony you **** !!! Wotcha done to the NHS you *****!?!" would you be more or less likely to get an answer than if you said "Mr Blair, I'm concerned our Health Services are falling short of standards. What action are you taking?" YEs, an exaggeration, but I think you'll get my point.
|
|
|
Post by Biggles Shrew on Mar 15, 2004 22:34:31 GMT 1
Cllr Fox,
I applaude the seniments of your comments above. However, it is the case that a great many opponents of the New Meadow have made some very personal comments about Shrewsbury Town fans in general and named individual supporters in particluar. For example it has been said that Shrewsbury Town fans are only concerned about getting their new stadium and don't care about the residents that live round proposed site. Would you accept that Town fans have no malice towards the residents of Sutton and are sincere in their view that the effect of the stadium will not be as bad as some of the scaremongers would suggest.
I'm interested to note that you would be prepared to support a stadium redevelopment at Gay Meadow. However, the areas around Gay Meadow are much more residential that at Oteley Road. How can you support a stadium at Gay Meadow when it actually effects more local residents than the proposed new stadium at Oteley Road.
Finally do you accept that the decision to grant planning permission for the New Meadow was a properly conducted democratic decision of the Council, even though you profoundly disagree with it. You had the opportunity to make your views and try and sway the decision. As a democrat who aspires to be a member of "The Mother of Parliaments" surely the time has come to accept a democratic decision and no longer and no longer attempt to block it using all the means avaliable.
|
|
|
Post by Albie Fox on Mar 16, 2004 16:03:54 GMT 1
First of all thank you to your moderator for allowing me to post onto this site. In response to Grinfish I am pleased to maintain a dialogue and will answer any queries you have. I will try to check the board as often as I can to do so. If there is no response then a prompting email to Albie.Fox@shrewsbury.gov will get me.
To answer in order, PAB asks about the £32 Gay Meadow option as opposed to the Smithfield £34m. The figures you quote are correct from the officers report but unfortunately all the figures given were very much ‘plucked’ (for want of a better word) from the air and not properly costed. For example the Smithfield road figures include £8m worth of flood defences but the Gay Meadow figures don’t. So on top of the £14m asking price purchase price of the Gay Meadow the taxpayer would have also have had to fund flood defences for the site, any traffic/road changes which will be required on the gyratory system and around £500,000 taxes on the deal.
The figures that were quoted for the Gay Meadow project were all estimated and not accurately researched. The whole costs could have escalated if we had gone ahead with the purchase. There is no doubt that the Gay Meadow would be a valuable asset to the council but not at an over-inflated price.
As a Councillor I cannot see us entering into a scheme that will not come in on price and will become a burden. As it is the theatre, wherever it is, will be a loss leader and we must reduce any risk for the future as far as possible.
You will all be familiar with the new office fiasco (before my time) I hope we will not make the same mistake on this issue.
I hope that answers PAB query.
Welshshrew
I hope that from my response to PAB you will see that I am not using other means to stop the move to Oteley. All my decisions based on correct spending of Shrewsbury taxpayers money. I would love to have £100,000 from the council to expand my business. I could justify it on the fact I would employ at least 60 people but I know that would not be right.
The fact is the District Valuer put a price of £7m on the Meadow. So £14m doesn’t cut it.
Before anyone brings up the £5m taken away in 2002, that was done because STFC changed their plan from the original proposed when the £5m was granted. The pitches and facilities had been reduced to only those the club needed.
Thank you for your best wishes for B&R. It is my home country (Llandovery) hence my Welsh speaking ability and Brecon was one of my youthful haunts. Just for interest I am a rugby man and Carwyn James was my Welsh teacher and rugby coach!
Bigglesshrew
Again I hope that from my previous comments you will see that I am not using any means to stop the move to Oteley but am opposing the financing of the move with taxpayers money as I should do. If we had gone ahead and a taxpayer reported us to the Ombudsman and we were found to have done wrong, every councillor who supported the deal could be surcharged to recover the money!
Now if the club were to offer the Meadow for £7m then I would vote to accept or if the club were to offer the council fair compensation in shares, then that would be an investment worth looking into.
Yes, I agree the whole process over the planning was democratic but my only caveats are that there was a buggers muddle over who could be on the committee and who couldn’t and some of the facts in the paper presented were not a full as they should have been. Saying that, the process was not illegal in any way.
The reason I would support redevelopment at the Meadow is that the residents of that area have full knowledge of problems and anyone moving in will know that the ground is there and caveat emptor applies. You only have to drive around the area on match days and see how people grab every parking spot available. It’s human nature especially from visiting fans who don’t know the area. In the past I have done the same when I went to Cardiff for matches especially when I was late.
The Sutton residents did not have a football club when they moved in. Therefore you will always have a NIMBY response but it is an unfortunate fact that people are lazy and will park as close as they can if they can get away with it. The best example of a site that is the same as the Oteley move is the Britannia, Stoke. It is well documented that it has created a nightmare for the residents near the stadium and that is what they fear in Sutton.
I have tried to ensure that when the move happens the traffic regulations will be such for the area that the problem won’t happen but at present under the current regulations it will be difficult to do.
I still believe that the best place for the ground if it must move from the Meadow is the area near to the proposed cattle market. It is away from houses and will have spare parking capacity at the cattle market. It will also enable STFC to be more flexible with concerts etc as any noise generated will not be objected to because of the distance from residential areas.
Finally a Martin Berry of Basildon has a letter in the Shropshire Star today (March 16) and reckons my letter (my first post) ‘suggests followers of Shrewsbury are responsible for trouble’. Can anyone explain where I say that in my letter? Perhaps one of you might like to defend my letter for what it says!
Mr Berry asks for facts. Well there have been 20 arrests during this season, most during local derbys. It is those fans that do you no favours and I am sure you condemn them as much as anyone else. I have no doubt that the majority of all football fans are no problem it is those few fools (who are not really fans) who cause the problem. Enough said I think.
I hope that has cleared up a few points and thank you again for your courtesy in allowing me to address your questions here
Albie Fox Councillor Sutton & Reabrook Albie.Fox@shrewsbury.gov.uk
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2004 16:09:28 GMT 1
Finally a Martin Berry of Basildon has a letter in the Shropshire Star today (March 16) and reckons my letter (my first post) ‘suggests followers of Shrewsbury are responsible for trouble’. Can anyone explain where I say that in my letter? Perhaps one of you might like to defend my letter for what it says! Mr Fox, thank you for posting on here and answering member's questions. Your posts are very welcome. The point that Martin Berry is raising regarding your letter is the following paragraph: "the fans of STFC would be better attacking those few so-called fans that do cause problems and damage the reputation of the many thousands of football fans that responsibly support their teams every week. " Does that not imply that you suggest some STFC fans are indeed troublemakers?
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Mar 16, 2004 17:51:43 GMT 1
"I have tried to ensure that when the move happens the traffic regulations will be such for the area that the problem won’t happen but at present under the current regulations it will be difficult to do" Im intrestedin what current regluaions would cause you problems - i can quote you the new stadium at Oxford where parking problmes are detered by the simple use of no parking bollards and other measures As a transport coinsultant i have to say that this comment is well and truley unjustified unless you dissagree with the granting of planning permission at otley road in the first place. - as part of the aplication it had to prove that no detrimental effects on trasport network would occer - which i belive (personally and profecinally) it did The fact that goverment parking standards are met and in fact the ground caters for more spaces that is required by law seems to have been overlooked assuming that everyone will fly park. What about the local park and rides that will be provided, there have been measures to combat this - so possible as the counciler for the area you could make the residents aware of the solutions being put forward. I would be intrested in hereing your take on the transport implications!!!! Thanks Glyn Price Ps i cant spell but it does not make me any less able to grasp these issues
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Mar 16, 2004 19:01:21 GMT 1
(grudgingly), for taking the time to answer. I would like to make a couple of points though. Please feel free to correct me if im wrong The district valuer put a value of £7 million on the Meadow. On top of Gay Meadow, my understanding is that the land the council would have obtained as part of the deal at Oteley Road is worth a few more million, potentially, so STFCs asking price on the deal does start to look a little more realistic. The costing of the projects leaves a lot to be desired, and if they are that inaccurate, I would suggest the council officers take a long hard look at themselves, but, I would assume that the cost of smithfield road site would equally be subject to extra costs ect, such as completely upgrading one of the busiest roads in shrewsbury town centre. Shrewsbury Town were not asking for the council to give them money to expand thier business, they were going to sell you some land. If there was a prime piece of land to the North of Shrewsbury, ( your prefered area ), that was owned by, lets say galliers or morisses, would you turn down a deal on the basis that you would be giving money to a private business, or say it was farm land worth £10 million, would you turn down the deal on the basis that the farmer was a private business and you would be financing his other farm work with the land fees? This business of giving STFC tax payers money is a non sence. Its strange how your concern about traffic problems for your residents goes out of the window if the cost is dropped. If the Theatre is not going to be profitable, how can you justify spending my money on it. After all, the council is a business. Thank you for acknowledging that the trouble makers are not really football fans, but can I ask, 20 football related arrests in 8 months, how does that compare to arrests in general in Shrewsbury on a staurday night during the same period, sorry but I dont have access to those figures myself. But I would guess the non football related arrests are rather higher. Thanks ALBIE pab
|
|
|
Post by Albie Fox on Mar 16, 2004 20:38:55 GMT 1
In reply to Ant – ‘the emphasis was on ‘so called fans’. In other words the ones that are not fans but are arrested for trouble making and you get tarred with the same brush. For gpricey – The 106 deals with parking for the 10,000 fans. The ground only has 600 spaces i.e. if the cars are full that is 2400 fans. The rest will be at nominated park & rides e.g. the Shirehall is one. As it stands however, parking is controlled by the police and they have stated that they will not patrol the area dealing with parking (that was the bit in my previous post that was left out at the planning meeting). So the roads of Sutton are fair game as it stands. There will have to be changes in the regulations giving the council the ability to have residential parking permits and allowing the traffic wardens employed by the council to enforce them. PAB “The district valuer put a value of £7 million on the Meadow. On top of Gay Meadow, my understanding is that the land the council would have obtained as part of the deal at Oteley Road is worth a few more million, potentially, so STFCs asking price on the deal does start to look a little more realistic.” The total deal was worth £9m with the Oteley land that still ‘gives’ £5m for nothing in return. ”The costing of the projects leaves a lot to be desired, and if they are that inaccurate, I would suggest the council officers take a long hard look at themselves, “ I totally agree that some of their presentations left me perturbed. “but, I would assume that the cost of smithfield road site would equally be subject to extra costs ect, such as completely upgrading one of the busiest roads in shrewsbury town centre.” The unseen Smithfield costs are not as bad in the Meadow costings as the officers seemed to cover everything at Smithfield (which brought it up to £2m more than the Meadow costings) and we would have had a combined effort at Smithfield with Dunedin who are planning to have a rebuild of the shopping area. ”Shrewsbury Town were not asking for the council to give them money to expand thier business, they were going to sell you some land. “ The Meadow and the land at Oteley are worth around £9m the other five million is for what? Farming land is a lot cheaper than building land by the way. “If there was a prime piece of land to the North of Shrewsbury, ( your prefered area ), that was owned by, lets say galliers or morisses, would you turn down a deal on the basis that you would be giving money to a private business, or say it was farm land worth £10 million, would you turn down the deal on the basis that the farmer was a private business and you would be financing his other farm work with the land fees? “ If the land is not valued at £10 million I would oppose it otherwise they would be profiting from taxpayers money. “Its strange how your concern about traffic problems for your residents goes out of the window if the cost is dropped.” Surely that shows that I am not opposing the buying of the Meadow to stop it moving to Oteley. The Gay Meadow is a strategic piece of land but it is valued at £7m. If we were offered it for £7m I could not justify refusing it as it is a fair deal and the taxpayer would be getting value for their money. “If the Theatre is not going to be profitable, how can you justify spending my money on it. After all, the council is a business. “ Now we are entering a whole new debate and I’ve got reams of paper about the pros and cons. The experts say that the theatre will make things happen for Shrewsbury and the spin offs will be beneficial. There is no doubt that the current Music Hall management will make it work but I want ‘Key man Insurance’ on them before we spend money building as if anything were to happen to them we need to be able to recruit people as capable to replace them and ensure continued success. Overall most of the councillors (of all parties) are for a theatre so it will happen when we sort out where. ”Thank you for acknowledging that the trouble makers are not really football fans, but can I ask, 20 football related arrests in 8 months, how does that compare to arrests in general in Shrewsbury on a staurday night during the same period, sorry but I dont have access to those figures myself. But I would guess the non football related arrests are rather higher.” Again I was only responding when challenged. I was pointing out that despite the immaculate record of the overall majority of fans there are some idiots that are spoiling it for the rest of you and that attacking people like me unfairly when you ire should also be directed at the very few yobs who claim to be fans when they are patently not. The fact is that the media will cover a punch up by one fan and blow it out of all proportion. If you agree with that then can you understand that the same happens with all their reporting. That is why people like me are forever having to defend themselves because we are misreported in order to get a good story to sell their papers. For a good example see: news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=273972004www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=14030109&method=full&siteid=89488now that is story that takes everything out of context (a ninety seconds taken from an hour and 15 minute debate on terrorism and home defence). It does not remotely reflect what was said at the meeting and they did not have the courtesy to speak to me about the matter especially as I believe in tighter gun laws that work. Albie Fox
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 16, 2004 20:50:32 GMT 1
Given that the council no longer wishes to purchase the GM and it is in the process of being sold to a developer why are Sara and other Cllrs still going on about taxpayer money being spent on a private business when that’s no longer the case. Also as a local resident to the soon to be NM if any parking problems come to light, do the residents etc really think we will say stuff you we couldn't care less, that’s the accusation I have had put to me, oh! Your a supporter you couldn't give a ****, how have they backed this up, with a piece of paper from Sara shoved in my face, telling me what’s written on it is fact. When I started getting replies to my e-mails I was stunned by some on ill informed answers, funny ones like the board are lining their pockets, I’ve put that to them direct, the laughter in response was answer enough, although they do look forward to seeing a return for all the money they have personally pumped into the club, the NM and the club standing on it own financially, trading in some form 7 days a week. There are very few boards that make money out of football; they are guilty of being the same as the rest of us FANS
As to the 'fans' arrested in town again not fact, unless the dear police man I asked about the arrests decided to lie for some reason, some of these 'people' We real fans use the term 'people' loosely have banning orders on them, meaning they shouldn't be anywhere near town on a match day, they use our football club as an excuse, STFC did not give birth to them, their family's are responsible for them not the football club, they are probably the same’ people' that are picked up on a Friday/Saturday night by the Police. We have a good relationship with our local force, one of which pops on here now and again.
We want to work with people not against them, we really do think it will benefit the area, but we don’t want letters like there have been recently telling us they hope our club dies peacefully, again slating us. That is the letter that just went to far. Hence the response from members of this board, and other STFC fans.
|
|
|
Post by theriverside on Mar 16, 2004 21:48:30 GMT 1
I'm interestred in your last statement about the theatre, that although it is likely to be a loss leader for the council, it gets cross party support because of it's spin offs and potential to make things happen.
Can you not acknowledge the benefit that our football club gives to the town of Shrewsbury in terms of publicity, profile and revenue brought into the area? STFC entertains more people per year than the Music Hall, and the publicity for the Shrewsbury area brought in by the FA Cup run last year was valued at around £1 million.
So it is fine to spend money to protect the valuable asset of a theatre (which I have no problem with), but not the future of Shrewsburys best supported facility?
To call it a 'private business' is stretching the boundaries and you know it. It's nowhere near as black and white as that.
|
|
|
Post by Albie Fox on Mar 16, 2004 22:32:41 GMT 1
Dear Riverside,
Unfortunately it is black and white. The Music Hall is part of the commitments we have as a council to provide. All profits or losses come back to the council (taxpayer). We have consultation exercises that give us the basis of many of our policies and the new to give it the correct name Entertainment Venue (NEV) comes out very high on the ‘wants’ of the Shrewsbury population. The future subsidy will be covered by capital investment which will the generate money required and therefore the burden will not fall on the taxpayer .
The football club is a private venture. All profits from it (if any) go to the shareholders and therefore taxpayers money cannot subsidise it unless they are offered a return on the investment, for instance shares.
I totally agree that STFC bring a lot of recognition to Shrewsbury nationwide if not internationally which is why I would support a new stadium but you all know my problem with Oteley.
The Music Hall’s limitations are what prevents’ it entertaining far more people who want to attend its functions. A new purpose build NEV with a modern ‘fly’ tower, rehearsal facilities and other modern requirements will bring in big productions from London etc that won’t touch us at present. When it is built the theatre will be able to entertain far more with better productions. We will then be left with the headache of what to do with the Music Hall because that is a drain on the public purse.
|
|
|
Post by Albie Fox on Mar 16, 2004 22:34:27 GMT 1
PS
The figure of approximately 20 arrests were given to me today by the STFC liason police when I inquired.
Albie
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 16, 2004 22:42:53 GMT 1
Ask for a break down next time like we do We are interested, we are bothered. Why on earth you want to get deeper in politics gawd only knows, politics have upset many people in this debate, so have the local media, why oh! why can't we have a civilised debate, surely you can see we are not idiots, we are willing to talk, in fact we love to talk, we are experts at it, there are pages and pages of proof of that on this very board, we are just fed up with being put forward as thugs, mindless idiots, we are not like that, any that get into the ground we try and get them removed, we don't want them, society doesn't want them. The building of the NM will show business rom outside of our county that shrewsbury is a forward thinking town, with ever increasing facilities for its residents a perfect place to live and work, not the retirement tag its getting known for nationally
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Mar 17, 2004 9:58:30 GMT 1
Thank you for taking the time to reply to the posts on here. People in politics are very careful with how they word things, so they can try to say one thing which can mean another. For example, Labour proudly telling the Country they have not raised income tax. Raised National Insurance which in effect is the same thing.
This is why I objected to your recent letter.
You are now saying the EMPHASIS was on "so called fans", this would have been far clearer had you not used the word fan. By using the word fan in my opinion you were tarring us all with the same brush. If I can draw that conclusion so can many other people and I believe that was what you were trying to do.
I am pleased that is not the case but it would have been nice for it to be clear in the first place and to acknowledge the hard work Shrewsbury Town Football Club and the fans have done to try to remove the few idiots that are about.
|
|