|
Post by kickinpretty on Feb 29, 2004 22:44:01 GMT 1
I think if the new ground was built to the same scale as the existing stand at the meadow then we would have a very nice ground indeed, not too big, but big enough to look like a decent sized club.
|
|
|
Post by GrizzlyShrew on Feb 29, 2004 23:00:37 GMT 1
Will there be enough room between the rows of seats to be able to stand up comfortably? (Just for those that don't want to sit down despite it being all seater - unless common sense prevails at a later date )
|
|
|
Post by blueandamber on Feb 29, 2004 23:33:35 GMT 1
I honestly can't see terracing in any stand/part of the ground. It costs too much...apparently.
Anyway, we can still generate a good atmosphere I reckon.
|
|
|
Post by goindownthewylecop on Feb 29, 2004 23:47:03 GMT 1
Of course there should be terracing, STFC havent considered it hard enough. We may lose some part of the grant, but that would be reimbursed in the future with better attendances - plenty of people simply wont go if they have to sit.
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Mar 1, 2004 0:11:31 GMT 1
before we get the bunting out just remember that we have to get planning permission for the GM and see whether we can get around the covenant.
logically this shouldnt be a huge problem but given that these two issues will in part be decided by the tory run council there is liklely to be trouble as they definatley anti STFC.
all the more reason why we should try and vote them out in May.
also although the NM will look similar to Dean Court it wont be as big. The current capacity is over 9,000 and if they finished off the one end it would rise to 12,000, so on that basis the number of rows at the NM would be around 14/15.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 1, 2004 0:30:22 GMT 1
THERE WILL BE NO TERRACING AT THE NEW MEADOW THAT DISUSSION IS CLOSED.
The council are not anti STFC. Fact many Cllrs Cons and Labs are STFC supporters, some have season tickets, and have supported the club for many years, the vote was for spending 14m of public money, those in power decided not.
The board are working very hard with a developer and as business men and women will have taken the covenant into consideration, and discussed this with the relevent authorities.
As Ian keeps saying time and time again if you have any questions ask the board, by letter or E-mail, you will get an answer, Jp and I met Keith last Tuesday to answer our questions on quite a few topics, which he did as openly as possible.
|
|
|
Post by goindownthewylecop on Mar 1, 2004 0:44:04 GMT 1
If the New Meadow/Rowley Park is built with no terracing. and people moan. which they will. it'll be your fault - stand up for what you want, not what you're told you've got!
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Mar 1, 2004 0:59:37 GMT 1
To build the New Meadow with terraces would mean re-submitting the plans, just to stand up, do you want to risk not getting planning permission second time round, have you got the money to do this and pay the extra or terracing, the grants are for seating, no seats no grants. the time to shout for terracing has passed, its too late, we make the atmosphere not terraces. sitting in seats does not stop you shouting or singing, or celebrating.......
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Mar 1, 2004 1:00:28 GMT 1
meole shrew you have more faith in polticans than i do. fact of the matter is that SABC have messed STFC around big time, why do you think we trying to get the NM for so long?, as examples:
SABC suggest land swap at for land at NM for land at Sundorne for housing then pull out SABC suggest buying land at NM for Sports village then pull out SABC suggest buying GM for theatre then pull out even when thier own officers say its a better option than Smithfield rd site. SABC then suggest a community stadium for STFC to lease knowing that they never in their right mind accept so to score political points by saying "we tried to help but STFC declined"
so when i say i have doubts on SABC passing the plans for the GM and removing the covenant without any hinderhance i think the above justifys my concerns. and these are concerns that the board cant answer cos it will be SABC tories who will make the decsion.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 1, 2004 1:09:54 GMT 1
SABC suggest land swap at for land at NM for land at Sundorne for housing then pull out SABC suggest buying land at NM for Sports village then pull out SABC suggest buying GM for theatre then pull out even when thier own officers say its a better option than Smithfield rd site. SABC then suggest a community stadium for STFC to lease knowing that they never in their right mind accept so to score political points by saying "we tried to help but STFC declined" so when i say i have doubts on SABC passing the plans for the GM and removing the covenant without any hinderhance i think the above justifys my concerns. and these are concerns that the board cant answer cos it will be SABC tories who will make the decsion. From here on in it will cost council tax payers money to stop the NM. If the council attempt to filibuster on the covenant then start legal poceedings to get it lifted.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 1, 2004 1:24:02 GMT 1
All those things have some truth, though a change in council rule put a spanner in the works, I asked all the Cllrs questions regarding STFC, and the NM including the covenant, only 2 came back to me regarding the covenant, who disagreed that the NM would more than make up for the covenant, I haven't said the club/developer wont have to pay something or give something for the covenant, only that the board are working on this, that means with the council, there would be little point getting a developer to agree to pay 10m + for the GM if the covenant was still in place. Kieth Sayfritz is very confident, why say what he has, he could just say talks are still on going, to us and the media, things are at a delicate stage and pen hasn't been put to paper yet, but its not far of, to add to that this deal will bring MORE benifits to the club financialy for its future.
I do think that when we have moved the fans should make a move for a supporters trust, I did say this just after we got religated and got shot down, the government is backing supporters now, having some say in how thier clubs are run, if we had this in place I think most (not all) fans would be happier knowing that there was someone at board level. It would give us more security.
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Mar 1, 2004 1:26:05 GMT 1
Sean Brosely wrote:
"From here on in it will cost council tax payers money to stop the NM. If the council attempt to filibuster on the covenant then start legal poceedings to get it lifted. "
Didnt stop Banks taking the Council to the High Court did it? Defending his Judical Review application would have least cost £20,000.
When its political expeident to do so the Council will spend the tax payers money for thier own means. Remember how the spent a fortune hounding the Wroxeter vineyard people, that situation was politically driven. Put nothing past these tories. I bet SARA would be glad that taxpayers money was being used to fight the clubs plans.
Oh and JP it would take a £110 pounds in planning fees to vary the new meadow plans. If the introduction of terracing meant no increase in capacity there shouldnt really be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 1, 2004 1:31:04 GMT 1
SARA probably would be. But we could then drive a wedge between them and the wider electorate by pointing out what was going on.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 1, 2004 1:32:08 GMT 1
What about the grants, how much would the club lose?
The taxpayers would take a dim view of spending money on fighting the covenant, that question has already been put to the legal eagles, why do you think the council hasnt alreay said they will take the club to court? I think not spending 14m on the GM has won the tories the votes they wanted!!
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Mar 1, 2004 1:42:58 GMT 1
Sean, if they win the elections in May do you think they will care what wedges we may bring up, the next elections after that will probably be years away.
And dont expect the Tories to make any decsion on this subject before May even if the plans went in tommorrow. Having worked in a Local Authoiry its a well known fact that controversial decsions are stalled around election time. Thats why we need to ensure that the Tories are voted out.
Meole Shrew if you know Keith can you ask him whether the grants are for the NM are still available now we are a non league club?
I know im sounding negative but people are taking Keiths comments and thinking everythings sorted, potentially theres plenty of mileage left in this saga yet.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 1, 2004 1:48:16 GMT 1
Meole Shrew if you know Keith can you ask him whether the grants are for the NM are still available now we are a non league club? That is still a matter being negotiated/discussed with the relevant authorities, according to KS on Thursday night. There's clearly an issue there, and I think it's quite a big one.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 1, 2004 1:55:36 GMT 1
I'm not talking about comments, I'm talking about very direct questions and the answers.
No I don't know Keith, No mention has been made of losing the grants, these grants are being given to leagues below the conference, I don't think they are anything to do with league status.
Why do you and others ask questions on this board if you don't believe the answers given? Ask the club, I did I got the answers, some are not what I wanted to hear, but I was given reasons, which were reasonable. They are just fans like the rest of us, they sure as hell are not in it for the money.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 1, 2004 1:57:37 GMT 1
Sean, keith told me quite clearly this deal would build the NM and give the club extra benifits.
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Mar 1, 2004 2:03:54 GMT 1
if the club dont get the grant then thier argument about not having terracing would no longer apply? i await the discussions with interest I am not questioning the answers the club has given, just pointing out the fact that some things needed to get the NM are out of their hands, and thats why im just saying that although what Keith says in the NLP sounds good its by no means certain.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 1, 2004 2:06:11 GMT 1
I though the issue with the grants was that they would be reduced for a non-League club.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 1, 2004 2:11:02 GMT 1
Your right, are you sure you didn't have your ear against the door when we were talking, ;D As i'm someone who can't stand I have learn't to make plenty of noise from the seats, i've learnt to be seated and shout, i'm sure more could, the seating argument goes beyond grants etc, there is the police costs to consider, how many police could you see in the stands on Sat, they walk past every now and then thats about it. Of course when we go back up the leagues and we have to increase the capacity, well you never know ;D
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 1, 2004 2:15:22 GMT 1
Again Sean, Keith was adamant that the deal would pay for the Stadium to be built, and that it would also bring the club some extra benifits as well, honestly, I haven't been at the sherry ;D I have been mailing the club for weeks about all sorts and getting answers. He said the contracts are being sorted still and hopefully would be finished in the next few weeks.
|
|