|
Post by Jonah on Mar 18, 2004 23:08:16 GMT 1
Suprised you boys havent commented on the letter'Site must benefit ALL residents,not jusy fans' by Graham Watson published in todays Chronicle. Gives a very factual account of how the 'New Meadow' plan evolved and how its got into the mess its in now. Think your going to struggle to pull this one apart but I'm sure you will try ;D ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2004 23:11:53 GMT 1
Jonah mate, I'm agreeing with you about lots re:football.
However, whilst there are many of us who would say that the New Meadow plan seems to have taken too long, and maybe poor decisions have been made by the club, the current position seems strong.
Do you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Mar 18, 2004 23:12:11 GMT 1
Shall i change you log name in to "the grim reaper"
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 18, 2004 23:15:23 GMT 1
I did read the 16 page essay in tiny print yes
It is not factually correct in everything it says
all it shows is that SARA are still bitterly opposed to the New Meadow project
But notice not one mention of the impact of football fans, interesting
also, the planning permission is passed, the will is there and soon the money will be, so this is all hot air
and his take on the Dunedin deal will offend far more councillors than STFC directors
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 18, 2004 23:17:52 GMT 1
Oh yeah, and the basic premise that "everyone should enjoy the site" is completely flawed
1) give me one place in Shrewsbury that "everyone" can enjoy fully
2) I thought they said it was a greenfield site and shouldn't be developed at all?
3) If "everyone" went there wouldn't that make for worse car parking issues?
it is the usual SARA twaddle mixed in with a few dates and numbers that look familiar to give it credence
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Mar 19, 2004 0:32:02 GMT 1
Well Throb I would like to see any of you reply with such a strong ,factual.argument in favour instead of your usual dismissive attitude.
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Mar 19, 2004 0:42:27 GMT 1
The NM has planning permission................. that can't be changed, if people reply to his letter it keeps them going, let them reply to there own letters, all we have to do is to remind people that we are not thugs and that us 'fans' come from a diverse cross section of the community. There support is very small, even in Sutton let alone elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2004 0:42:54 GMT 1
Well Throb I would like to see any of you reply with such a strong ,factual.argument in favour instead of your usual dismissive attitude. And how do you usually reply to any pro-New Meadow arguments Jonah???
|
|
|
Post by Exkeeper on Mar 19, 2004 1:19:15 GMT 1
Watson suggests that more than 20% of Town fans want the club to remain at Gay Meadow. This figure is pure guesswork. We know from canvassing, that over 50% of Sutton residents are happy to have New Meadow at Oteley Road. Of the remainder, a significant proportion aren't bothered either way. These figures are more reliable than his guesstimates. He prattles on about access through the railway arches. Bear in mind, that to increase the capacity above 8000, we need an additional vehicular access. By taking this through the arches, you would have to take a road across the Wakeman pitches to join Underdale Road. There is NO way this would ever be allowed. Leave this bunch of desperadoes to get used to the idea. Its gonna happen, so lets all look forward, with confidence, to a brighter future.
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Mar 19, 2004 1:29:43 GMT 1
Exactly they are argueing with themselves against arguments that have been exhausted, let them play the politics, people who are bothered do see it for what it is, those who arn't are bored with it.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 19, 2004 2:34:04 GMT 1
Well Throb I would like to see any of you reply with such a strong ,factual.argument in favour instead of your usual dismissive attitude. it is quite simple really, you take the times and dates given, then put a positive spin on it instead of their negative one. take the Dunedin deal, they say the club charged too high a price, utter tosh, the fact is the council asked the club to enter the negotiations because the council thought they could pull off a massive deal and take the glory. The club went with them and then got kicked in the teeth because the council were trying to get too much from both STFC and Dunedin and Dunedin walked away The dates are factually correct, the people involved are true, much of the process happened but how you view any of the events is entirely down to interpretation The 20% of town fans that don't support the New meadow move is definitely true because SUFAN publicised that 80% were in favour of it!!!!!!!!!! That just shows despite several useful historical facts what actualyl happened by whom and why is the subject of as much spin and one sided story telling as anything produced from the club. and he even manages to have a go at Danny Moore on several occasions. Danny Moore was trying to represent the many thousands of local people who enjoy football in the Council chamber. Albie has always denied links with SARA, and I accept his explanation of things, but hammering the leader of the labour group does nothing to counter the allegations doing the rounds in Shrewsbury that SARA is small campaigning tool for the Tory administration, that can say what it wants about the New Meadow deal.
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Mar 19, 2004 3:47:35 GMT 1
...and here was me thinking the Town of Shrewsbury was growing up...
The well respected Trans Global Underground play the Buttermarket.. Lorries overturn causing traffic updates on BBC Five Live... Cops are after a gay murderer, and Blondie is to play Atcham...
Our small backwater is suddenly starting to sound like a REAL city with REAL things going on.. we shall have a direct rail link to the captial again soon !
Albie Fox denies links with SARA ... oh yes and Gerry Adams didnt have anything to do with the IRA
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Mar 19, 2004 8:39:00 GMT 1
And how do you usually reply to any pro-New Meadow arguments Jonah??? Hi Ant. All I am saying is that this is the best of hundreds of letters I have read on the subject. It is factual to a point regardless of which side of the fence you sit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2004 10:22:36 GMT 1
I'll let you know when I read it Jonah, unfortunatley their website isn't updated until later today.
But in previous discussions you've dismissed facts which support the pro-NM case.
|
|
Shakey252
Midland League Division Two
Member
Look that's 'two goals at Old Trafford" Juninho with his mate Shakey.
Posts: 172
|
Post by Shakey252 on Mar 19, 2004 10:32:54 GMT 1
Can i just ask one question OK with all the stuff you read on here and in the media, the whole issue of the New Meadow honestly confuses me and without sounding the Dumbo, can STFC as a private entreprise afford the costs of the move How much has these costs increased since this all began I am not being a smart ar$e here i honestly want to know. I saw something happen at Exeter and the money ran out Hence the reason the players still change in the old dressing rooms and the builders are one of the major creditors. Btw i had a questionaire drop through my door yesterday from the local Conservatives, Shrewsbury & Atcham Conservative Association, Condover Ward. Question 7 reads "Shrewsbury Town FC is currently asking the Borough Council to buy Gay Meadow for the council to build a theatre. This will cost £14m, but has been valued at only £8m. Should the Council buy Gay Meadow from STFC?" Survey Co-ordinator has a name and a number.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 19, 2004 10:45:03 GMT 1
8 million?
it is £7 million as pasture land and £9 million as development land
oh yeah, and £14 million includes a 22 acres sports village and land they could sell for £10 million
the great difficulty with this whole process is that everyone is putting their spin on things and no-one knows what the truth is anymore
I bet you a fiver we get than £7 million for it though, a lot more!
|
|
|
Post by Jonah2 on Mar 19, 2004 13:47:49 GMT 1
Throb nobody better than you with the spin mate. Read your posts again and tell me I am wrong.
I'm with Shakey and many more on this one. Just cant get my head around 2 what is going on and its good to see someone,even though hes the oposition,explain it the way he has.
Didnt want to bring this up but Jennings Homes are staying remarkably quiet over this,if they are the new purchaser. Think of the publicity they are missing and does it really take that long to do whatever they need to do??
Look at the new tennis developement at Sundorne.
|
|
|
Post by MrCheekyChappie on Mar 19, 2004 13:55:39 GMT 1
Make your bets now
|
|
|
Post by MrCheekyChappie on Mar 19, 2004 13:56:59 GMT 1
do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do
|
|
|
Post by MrCheekyChappie on Mar 19, 2004 13:58:25 GMT 1
[glow=red,2,300]BETTING ENDS![/glow]
|
|
|
Post by TOTE on Mar 20, 2004 1:41:11 GMT 1
if you said "yes,shoesbrie get new meadow"
YOU LOSE!
|
|
|
Post by Norge on Mar 20, 2004 2:05:53 GMT 1
b*ll*x to that
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Mar 20, 2004 2:33:33 GMT 1
Throb nobody better than you with the spin mate. Read your posts again and tell me I am wrong. I'm with Shakey and many more on this one. Just cant get my head around 2 what is going on and its good to see someone,even though hes the oposition,explain it the way he has. Didnt want to bring this up but Jennings Homes are staying remarkably quiet over this,if they are the new purchaser. Think of the publicity they are missing and does it really take that long to do whatever they need to do?? Look at the new tennis developement at Sundorne. Jonah you cant get your head around it because the Tories are twisting the whole thing round and you beleive it. The Council's own officers did a detailed report on the costs of the deal to buy the GM against developing a theatre on Smithfield Road and the GM deal was by far the best. The Tory junta chose to ignore that fact. And why would Jennings want to make an announcement if they haven't yet finalised a deal with STFC, no point its premature. A lot of work will have to go into preparing a planning application for the site, including a detailed Flood Risk Assestment. Reference the Sundorne Tennis developemnt. We're you aware that the planning officers of the Council recommended refusal of the application as there was no policy support for such a facility (unlike for the NM) and it was a green field site. However, despite this the Tory led adminstration approved it. Tennis is a middle/upper class sport and when it comes to looking after thier own the Tories are willing to ignore planning policy and there own officer recommendations as it suits them. So if you beleive all their dribble Jonah then all i can say is more fool you!
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Mar 20, 2004 9:48:45 GMT 1
So now we are down to which sport you play or support decides how you vote Do me a favour please and get away from this political thing. Yes I did know it was rejected by planning. The actual reason being that it was outside the Urban development boundary. It was overturned at committee which happens to be board of people which includes councillors from all parties. So there goes your political conspiracy theory. You may be correct about the councils detailed report but at the end of the day, as the saying goes , the council are now out of the running and its history. Its were we go from here that concerns me because we are back to the clean sheet situation. After the PR farce of the council offer just what is it worth now
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Mar 20, 2004 21:38:45 GMT 1
Cant believe theres no reply.Its gone quiet .Surely one of the B&A spin doctors must have a point to make on this Or are you to busy writing to cancel your Tennis club application because its really a Tory Club in disguise ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Mar 20, 2004 21:56:01 GMT 1
Taking the SARA letter point by point:
ALASKA NEGOTIATED AN OPTION ON THE LAND AT OTELEY ROAD WITH IN ORDER TO BUILD A STADIUM THERE.
True, but so what?
THE LOCAL PLAN LEFT THE OTELEY ROAD SITE AS UNDEVELOPED. THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR.
True.
A POLICY REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW STADIUM WAS INSERTED INTO THE PLAN AT A LATE STAGE.
True. However, the plan did not have provision for a new stadium, which is surprising, as STFC have on three occasions previously attempted to relocate. Given that STFC had announced that it was making another attempt to relocate the plan had to be amended to cover this possibility.
THE POLICY INSERTED INTO THE PLAN WAS WORDED SO THAT THE OTELEY ROAD SITE WAS THE ONLY PIECE OF LAND THAT WOULD MEET THE SPECIFICATION.
The policy states that a planning permission for a new stadium will only be granted on a site adjoining the urban area if there are no suitable sites within the Shrewsbury urban area. If the policy was worded so that it would only apply to Oteley Road why was this stipulation made, as there was always the possibility that a site in the urban area might be identified (and this includes redeveloping Gay Meadow). If you believe that the policy identifies Oteley Road as the best site implicitly accept that Gay Meadow is not suitable and cannot be redeveloped. The policy also contains 10 criteria that a proposed site should conform to, which includes stipulations that there should not be a detrimental impact on the surrounding area.
STFC EXPECTED THE COUNCIL TO MAKE A MAJOR FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS FINANCING THE NEW STADIUM BY BUYING GAY MEADOW SO THAT IT COULD BE THE SITE FOR A NEW THEATRE.
The original plan was for the New Meadow to be totally financed by selling Gay Meadow for development as a supermarket. When this plan fell through it was suggested that it would be financed by building houses on Gay Meadow and on the residual land at Oteley Road. This fell through because the planners would not agree to a housing development next to the New Meadow. The council then OFFERED to help out by first a land swap deal and then a partnership arrangement to develop community facilities and a sports village at the new stadium. It is council policy to progress the relocation of the football club. It was the Council that approached STFC with the suggestion that it would acquire Gay Meadow for a theatre. It was only after the Dunedin deal fell through that the club offered to sell Gay Meadow to the Council, and that was because they appeared to be keen to acquire it. It was not the Club that first suggested that the council should buy Gay Meadow for a theatre – it was the Council.
DUNEDIN ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH STFC BUT DECIDED THAT THE ASKING PRICE WAS NOT VIABLE.
Dunedin has not publicly stated why they decided to withdraw from the proposed deal with STFC and SABC, so this may or may not be true. Perhaps SARA has inside information on this!
THE £14 MILLION ASKING PRICE SET BY STFC GROSSLY OVER ESTIMATES THE VALUE OF GAY MEADOW AND OTELEY ROAD.
The key point here is that the only way Gay Meadow could become available for development as a theatre is for STFC to raise the finance necessary for it to build a new stadium. There is no point the club selling Gay Meadow for less than what it costs to move as you can’t move – just like anyone wouldn’t sell their house for a price that is not sufficient to allow them to buy their new home. If the Council wanted Gay Meadow then, one way or another it had to help STFC to move to a new stadium. The interesting thing is that if the Dunedin deal had gone a head to actual cost to the council would have been £15 million. As it was the Council rejected the offer made by STFC without attempting to see if it could negotiate a lower price – a missed opportunity?
THE COVENANT ON GAY MEADOW WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO GET PLANNING PERMISSION FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE.
Totally untrue. The existence of the covenant is not a planning issue and will not be considered. Planners only consider whether an application conforms to local and national planning regulations.
BUILDING A THEATRE AT SMITHFIELD ROAD WILL BE CHEAPER THAN DEVELOPING ONE ON GAY MEADOW.
Not according to the SABC Management Team’s report directly comparing the Smithfield Road and Gay Meadow options. That concluded that a theatre on Gay Meadow be £2 million cheaper and would up to be three years quicker to deliver. The council leader said recently said that the Council was looking at alternative sites for a theatre – that would suggest that Smithfield Road is not the ideal option. Only time will tell whether a theatre will be built in Shrewsbury and where it will be located.
THE PLANS DRAWN UP IN 1996 TO REDEVELOP GAY MEADOW ARE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE PLANS FOR OTELEY ROAD.
Completely untrue. The plans for Oteley Road cover 12 acres while Gay Meadow is only 6.47 acres. The Oteley Road development will include expanded car parking, community sports facilities and training facilities all of which cannot be accommodated at Gay Meadow. The capacity of the stadium included in the 1996 plans is 10,000 – the safety authorities have confirmed that they will limit the capacity at Gay Meadow to 8,000 even if the stadium was redeveloped.
NONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN WHY GAY MEADOW COULD NOT BE REDEVELOPED HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIATED.
Totally untrue. Both the SABC Planning Officer and the stadium licensing authorities have accepted STFC’s case for relocation. They accept that the physical constraints at Gay Meadow prevent it from being redeveloped as a football stadium sufficient to meet the current needs of STFC.
THE FACT THAT GAY MEADOW COULD BE DEVELOPED AS A THEATRE, CAR PARK, HOUSING, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, ETC. DEMONSTRATES THAT IT COULD BE REDEVELOPED AS A FOOTBALL STADIUM.
Absolute nonsense. You are not comparing like with like. With a football stadium you have to consider the impact of up to 8,000 people leaving the site within a short period after the end of a match. It is also necessary to consider the safety implications of evacuating a crowd of up to 8,000 people in the event of an emergency. The new proposed Shrewsbury Theatre will have a capacity of no more than 1,000. Housing and recreational redevelopment will mean that only a few hundred people will be on the site at any one time, so the same conditions do not apply.
CONTINUED...
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Mar 20, 2004 21:57:50 GMT 1
...CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
THE MAJORITY OF FUNDING FOR THE 1996 REDEVELOPMENT PLANS WOULD HAVE COME FROM GRANTS.
This is questionable. The only grant the club would definitely have had was approximately £2 million from the Football Trust (as it then was) and that would not have met the majority of the cost. Even if further grants were available, the club still needed to find a substantial amount of money from its own resources. Money it has not got!
THE CLUB ONLY WANTS TO MOVE BECAUSE OF THE MONEY IT WOULD RAISE FROM A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON GAY MEADOW.
That is to an extent true. It is only by selling Gay Meadow to a developer that STFC can raise the money to build a modern stadium (at any location), because even if Gay Meadow was suitable for development as a football stadium it cannot afford to do it. However, this particular argument contradicts the earlier part in the letter where SARA claims that Gay Meadow is of limited value as a residential site, with a value of only £7 million. You can’t have it both ways!
SABC OFFERED TO BUY THE LAND AT OTELEY ROAD AND LEASE IT BACK TO THE CLUB, AN OFFER THAT WAS ARROGANTLY REJECTED.
A councillor on the Council’s cabinet committee (Charles Armstrong) floated an idea where STFC would lease a new stadium from the council but the site for the stadium was not specified. STFC rejected the idea because the could would be financially no better off – possibly even worse off – than it is now and that it felt it could still proceed with New Meadow under its own steam. It is strange that this regarded as arrogance on the club’s part, since how many people would give up their owning their own home in order become a rent paying tenant in a council flat. It was not a formal offer from the council, only a suggestion made by one Councillor without it being council policy.
20% OF STFC SUPPORTERS WANT TO REMAIN AT GAY MEADOW. THIS IS AN UNDERESTIMATE AND THE NUMBERS ARE RISING.
In which case 80% are in favour of relocation and that is a substantial majority. SARA claim 80% support from Sutton residents against the new stadium – would they concede that it weakens their case that other 20% are in favour of it? Of course not! There is no evidence that the numbers against moving are increasing and all the main supporters organisations continue to support relocation.
A RECENT LETTER FROM SUFAN’S ADE PLIMMER HAS CONCEDED THAT ALL THE REASONS THAT THE CLUB HAVE GIVEN FOR GAY MEADOW BEING UNSUITABLE FOR REDEVELOPMENT ARE UNTRUE.
A complete distortion. The letter states clearly that the access problems make Gay Meadow an unsuitable site for a modern stadium and that these problems cannot be resolved satisfactorily, a point the SABC planning officer has accepted. The letter does say that the main problem about redeveloping Gay Meadow is the inability to raise finance. But by definition, if something is “the main problem” is not the ONLY problem but the most significant of a NUMBER of problems.
SUFAN’S LETTER ADMITS THAT IS CURRENTLY POSSIBLE FOR GAY MEADOW TO COPE WITH 8,000 PEOPLE.
So what? That is a matter of fact and SUFAN has never claimed otherwise. What SUFAN has argued is that more stringent safety regulations in the future could see the capacity of Gay Meadow cut even further.
THE 1996 REDEVELOPMENT PLANS INCLUDE HAVING AN ACCESS ROAD THROUGH THE RAILWAY ARCHES WOULD SOLVE THE ACCESS PROBLEMS.
An access road across Wakeman Fields would come out in the Cherry Orchard area. Underdale Road and the other roads in that area are narrow and would not provide easy access for vehicles from the emergency services, especially if the new entrance to the ground increased the number of fans street-parking in the area. The safety authorities have examined the 1996 plans and are of the view that it is better to have new facilities designed to the current guidelines rather than upgrading facilities that are past their sell-by-date.
THE COUNCIL SOLD GAY MEADOW TO STFC FOR A MINIMAL SUM.
Not true. STFC paid a substantial sum for the land – a price that was negotiated on the basis of a proper valuation, albeit subject to the club making a covenant about the future use of the land. The existence of the covenant does not mean that the Council owns Gay Meadow – STFC are the legal owners and the site is their asset.
THE COVENANT MEANS THAT GAY MEADOW SHOULD BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE RESIDENTS OF SHREWSBURY NOT JUST THE SUPPORTERS OF STFC.
This is a strange argument. Currently, Gay Meadow is purely and simply a football stadium used only by STFC supporters. It offers no recreational facilities for the general resident. That will remain the case if, as SARA argue, the stadium is redeveloped because there is no scope at Gay Meadow to provide additional facilities. The only way that STFC can expand the facilities it offers the community is for it to reclocate.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Mar 20, 2004 23:38:47 GMT 1
Great reply IRJBA which proves ther is an valid arguement which ever side of the fince you sit on. Got to move on now and forget the council fiasco. It will have undoutably devalued the site so the question now is How much STFC are going to get for the GM and will it be enough
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 20, 2004 23:50:52 GMT 1
How much STFC are going to get for the GM and will it be enough Between £12m and £14m. No, not of itself.
|
|