|
Post by scooter on Feb 7, 2004 16:46:02 GMT 1
Frankwell this week has proved that flooding is a problem that can be overcome, if the will and the money is there.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Feb 7, 2004 16:47:07 GMT 1
Gay Meadow is a great ground and i'd love to see us stay but it ain't on and it ain't going to happen!
New Meadow now!
If you were deciding on a location for a stadium these day surely Gay Meadow would be just about the worst location imaginable?
|
|
|
Post by guest on Feb 7, 2004 16:54:25 GMT 1
as a football fan i cant think of a better place to watch a match.close to pubs,bookies,chinese,indian,chippys and fast food places.short walk from town centre shops,parking at ground,abbey,cineworld.linked to rail roads and river(ha ha)for access...
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Feb 7, 2004 17:02:06 GMT 1
A piece of land bounded by a river, the railway and a school with one way in and out and a flooding problem is just about the worst possible location
If it were to be proposed as the site for a new stadium these days it would be ridiculed!
|
|
|
Post by Reverend on Feb 7, 2004 17:02:30 GMT 1
Presentation, quite right the clubs board haven't got it all together right, probably a result of them being fans of STFC, they can't be putting up with all this stupidity for any other reason.
The council are not any better, if you could listen to half of what they have to say on the subject, well you'd die laughing, Oh! yea just about all of them agree the club has to move from the GM.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 7, 2004 17:22:48 GMT 1
Going to the match is about so much more than the 90 minutes football. And as our guest has pointed out we have so many amenities within 5 minutes walk which would not be present at the back of Meole retail park.
Has anybody really enjoyed going to an out of town ground ? I got to Rushden at 12.30 and there is nothing there. I went a mile up the road to the lovely small town of Higham Ferrers, returned at 2-30 and was locked out. If the ground was closer to a town I would have parked up and stayed nearby.
I know we will end up moving, but the reasons are solely financial. I would much rather stay where we are if possible, and I do not believe that makes me stupid.
|
|
|
Post by duncowshrew on Feb 7, 2004 17:27:02 GMT 1
I don't think that the letter in the Chronicle was too far wide of the mark. I've expressed my views on this subject on previous threads,and everything I read both on these boards and elswhere,still doesn't convince me that we should go for a new stadium.
Yes,I am aware of the opposing argument ie, that we should move on, access, cost etc,but I am not fully convinced that all avenues have been exhausted regarding developing the existing GM. I don't wish to claim any credit, but until I mentioned about rear access via Castle Walk(the arches), I hadn't seen or read anything about it before.
How much access do the authorities want anyway. I can think of lots of venues that hold considerable amounts of people that would fail the safety requirements currently required by the football authorities. How many entrances/exits can you think of at your supermarket,night club or cinema for example.
Yes, Ultimately it comes down to cost, a factor that none of us has any control over (unless you're a newly appointed Cheif Executive with a multi million pound fortune). But I'm with Kicking and afew others on this board who , just because it's 2004, don't fancy the idea of watching football in a tin box.
Where I sit in the Wakeman Stand, I can't think of 1 supporter that supports the move. OK,they might not sign petitions but they should be heard.
Just 1 final question and it's for someone with a bit of knowledge about planning. Why is an educational establishment entitled to "natural" light, when a private residence is not?
Sorry if I've gone on a bit but not everone wants to "go with the flow"
|
|
|
Post by duncowshrew on Feb 7, 2004 17:28:30 GMT 1
I don't think that the letter in the Chronicle was too far wide of the mark. I've expressed my views on this subject on previous threads,and everything I read both on these boards and elswhere,still doesn't convince me that we should go for a new stadium.
Yes,I am aware of the opposing argument ie, that we should move on, access, cost etc,but I am not fully convinced that all avenues have been exhausted regarding developing the existing GM. I don't wish to claim any credit, but until I mentioned about rear access via Castle Walk(the arches), I hadn't seen or read anything about it before.
How much access do the authorities want anyway. I can think of lots of venues that hold considerable amounts of people that would fail the safety requirements currently required by the football authorities. How many entrances/exits can you think of at your supermarket,night club or cinema for example.
Yes, Ultimately it comes down to cost, a factor that none of us has any control over (unless you're a newly appointed Cheif Executive with a multi million pound fortune). But I'm with Kicking and afew others on this board who , just because it's 2004, don't fancy the idea of watching football in a tin box.
Where I sit in the Wakeman Stand, I can't think of 1 supporter that supports the move. OK,they might not sign petitions but they should be heard.
Just 1 final question and it's for someone with a bit of knowledge about planning. Why is an educational establishment entitled to "natural" light, when a private residence is not?
Sorry if I've gone on a bit but not everone wants to "go with the flow"
|
|
|
Post by duncowshrew on Feb 7, 2004 17:37:46 GMT 1
sorry about the 2 posts the dial up connection faied "mid flow"
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Feb 7, 2004 17:40:36 GMT 1
If you haven't done so already I suggest you read 'the case for relocation' in the link provided by ianwhit earlier in this thread
|
|
|
Post by duncowshrew on Feb 7, 2004 18:12:37 GMT 1
PPP, to be fair, and in deference to Whit, we know all that. I'm just left wondering whether some posters on this subject would be so keen on leaving the current site, if the required investment in the current GM, had been spent over the years, rather than leaving it go to rack and ruin.
Most clubs plan for the future, no matter at what level you're at. I just have more than a sneaky suspicion that there's a hidden agenda behind all this. I'm pointing no fingers but I suspect everyone on this site has heard rumours regarding pocket lining, certainly on the part of Alaska/ dunedin or whatever. Nobody does nowt for owt.
SORRY,BUT I'M NOT CONVINCED!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Feb 7, 2004 18:15:11 GMT 1
It's a commercial development, Alaska are a business, would you expect them to do it without making a profit?
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Feb 7, 2004 18:21:17 GMT 1
as a football fan i cant think of a better place to watch a match.close to pubs,bookies,chinese,indian,chippys and fast food places.short walk from town centre shops,parking at ground,abbey,cineworld.linked to rail roads and river(ha ha)for access... Im sorry but if your a Town fan and you are putting these infront of STFC and a brighter future I think you should hard at yourself and say Do I actually support the club? Other's have said about the pub situation and that the NM is nowhere near one, so you cant wait a few hours for a bevvy? Whats to stop you pub goers and I have nothing against you, leaving the pub early and getting on a bus to the new ground or drinking at the ground and keeping the money inhouse....there should be bars.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Feb 7, 2004 18:21:25 GMT 1
It's a commercial development, Alaska are a business, would you expect them to do it without making a profit? thats exactly what the club expect the council to do though.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Feb 7, 2004 18:22:55 GMT 1
What?
|
|
|
Post by duncowshrew on Feb 7, 2004 18:26:22 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Feb 7, 2004 18:29:01 GMT 1
PPP tyhink hes on about the council being asked and rightfully refusing to pay 5 million over the odds for the site.
Please dont come back with the 'we have been offered 10 million by an unnamed company'.
Will somebody please put a name to them or forget this rumour.
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Feb 7, 2004 18:29:43 GMT 1
Jennings...common knowlege!
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Feb 7, 2004 18:32:42 GMT 1
PPP--- Be honest. If I had £20 million and could gua rantee that the GM could be re-developed,meeting all requirements, and have a capacity of approx 12000, would you still want to relocate to an annexe of Percy Thrower. No, but that's not going to happen so the best available option has to be the way forward All things are possible with enough money!
|
|
|
Post by Mediolanum Shrew on Feb 7, 2004 18:34:47 GMT 1
It's this simple really. Even if we had the money to develop GM which we dont, the facilities we could have there wouldnever match what we would have at New Meadow, and for a fraction of the cost of redevelopment, and that means that income streams, would be reduced, less money to invest in the team, and ultimately puts our survival at risk.
I think when Government planning inspectors agree that GM just isn't suitable as a footie ground anymore, I think that argument has to be taken.
The thing is the whole debate about whether to leave Gm or not place 14 months ago. A decision has been made, planning permission gained.
Although I respect those people who want to stay at GM, the facts are quite simple, we stay, we die. If by some mircale we did find the cash, the stadium could never be developed like a new one could, never have the facilities like the new one could, cant guaranteen our survival like a new one could.
[NEW MEADOW NOW!!!]
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Feb 7, 2004 18:34:49 GMT 1
PPP tyhink hes on about the council being asked and rightfully refusing to pay 5 million over the odds for the site. Please dont come back with the 'we have been offered 10 million by an unnamed company'. Will somebody please put a name to them or forget this rumour. Then it was a very badly worded question Jonah! JP has named the company for you, as he says it's common knowledge As for the price being over the odds, that's very open to interpretation and depends how land is valued
|
|
|
Post by duncowshrew on Feb 7, 2004 18:46:45 GMT 1
We move -- we die. I'm sorry but we haven't moved or died in the last 100 years or so. PPP, we are a commercial enterprise, we buy and sell our commodities(players). This has worked quite well,yet again,for 100 or so years. Why,all of a sudden, do we need 5 a side football pitches?
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on Feb 7, 2004 18:47:39 GMT 1
Ehhh....when I were a lad, government didn't interfere wi' footy - packin like sardines we were - and we enjoyed it! Nippers passed overhead to front so they wouldn't get crushed - them we're the days - 20,000 in the Meadow and who's the gvt to tell us what to do Footballers didn't train - smoked a fag and had a wee whiskey before kick off, didn't need pitches to practice and we don't know I tell yer. Prefer to p**s at GM than in the outhouse - facilities - my goodness, people nowadays are soft I tell yer, damn soft. We don't need new, we need the good ol' days Attemp at Humour Alert Rowley Park Now
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Feb 7, 2004 18:49:32 GMT 1
Ehhh....when I were a lad, government didn't interfere wi' footy - packin like sardines we were - and we enjoyed it! Nippers passed overhead to front so they wouldn't get crushed - them we're the days - 20,000 in the Meadow and who's the gvt to tell us what to do Footballers didn't train - smoked a fag and had a wee whiskey before kick off, didn't need pitches to practice and we don't know I tell yer. Prefer to p**s at GM than in the outhouse - facilities - my goodness, people nowadays are soft I tell yer, damn soft. We don't need new, we need the good ol' days Attemp at Humour Alert Rowley Park Now Kwality
|
|
|
Post by duncowshrew on Feb 7, 2004 19:02:04 GMT 1
Now we know where we stand. Anybody taking ""the new Gm thrust "" is kwality. I thought I was on an adult site. Perhaps I should transfer to buckss**t.
|
|
|
Post by SlimShandy on Feb 7, 2004 19:19:48 GMT 1
One crucial point. You could raise the Meadow so that it didn't flood (not sure how, but yes, you could).
But you'd also have to raise pretty much the whole of Coleham and Abbey foregate too because if that area flooded, then the raised ground would be cut off. The extra water displaced by the raised Meadow during a flood would have to go somewhere.
We could still play there, but with all the boats we'd need to get in the ground, it'd be like Dunkirk.
As for building a riverside walkway, you don't need pillars, but you do need a canalised river. The Millennium walkway outside the Millennium Stadium was built without pillars. But the Taff has been running through a concrete channel for thirty years. Unless you're going to smother the banks of the Severn in concrete and turn it into an eyesore ALL AROUND THE TOWN, you aren't going to get a walkway.
As for extra exits into Monkmoor or across the river into Castlke Foregate, I can see the residents loving that. Plus the cost would be immense.
Redeveloping the Meadow is a nice idea, but sadly it's a pipe dream. I'm going to be gutted when we move, most fans are. But I want to see a quality team playing in a quality stadium. Or failing that Jimmy's latest bizarre selection playing in a quality stadium.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2004 19:20:42 GMT 1
I,like many other STFC fans love the Gay Meadow to bits. It's got so much character to it and as was mentioned by 'guest' has many local amenities in walking distance of it.
However we have seen the way that football is going. We need other other functions/activities etc... that will make STFC money for more than 20 odd days a year. The New Meadow will provide this through football pitches and conference facilities - things that will financially safeguard this club for the next 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by duncowshrew on Feb 7, 2004 19:33:10 GMT 1
Does anybody want to answer my previous questions regarding access/natural light. Preferably someone with expert knowledge rather than just an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on Feb 7, 2004 19:33:40 GMT 1
[quote author=Guest-Jonah Why has this plan been overlooked ?? [/quote]
Can we agree that the plan has not been overlooked?
For a 100 odd years Gay Meadow has served the Club and the Town of Shrewsbury well. That achievement is to be celebrated.
The next step has been discussed for 14/15 years. Numerous plans, options have surfaced, been discussed, and discarded for various reasons. The regulatory environment has drastically changed in the past 15 years, rendering many options obsolete.
I would love to see Gay Meadow as the permanent home of Shrewsbury Town, but from all I've read, all the discussions over 15 years, I sadly believe that this will not lead STFC into the next 100 years.
Rowley Park Now
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2004 19:38:57 GMT 1
I find some people's views very hard to believe.
There have been reports posted on here conducted by independent professionals stating that it is not viable for the club to re-develop Gay Meadow and that a move to a new stadium is the way forward.
But people still refuse to accept it.
This returns us to a very well made point on the board a week or so ago on the University tution fee debate. It said that people, no matter what the evidence or arguments put in front of them, very rarely change their views on a subject.
Evidently this is very much a case here.
|
|