|
Post by Sherlock Holmes on Mar 7, 2005 20:58:33 GMT 1
It's elementary my dear Watson. Just follow the link. www.landregisteronline.gov.uk/But make sure you've got your credit card to hand my dear fellow - they do charge for the information.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 7, 2005 23:20:27 GMT 1
Clever But will that be the same information when the money from Jennings has hit the Club's account? That's when I will look.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 8, 2005 0:09:59 GMT 1
Clever But will that be the same information when the money from Jennings has hit the Club's account? That's when I will look. Who's names do you think the excess land will be in, not forgeting the constraints the council now have on the frontage.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock Holmes on Mar 8, 2005 1:45:41 GMT 1
SeanBroseley you disappoint me.
Surely you know how the wheels of capitalism are oiled. It's all there if you care to look.
|
|
|
Post by Stevenelsonfanclub on Mar 8, 2005 9:43:42 GMT 1
I'd say Sean has his head screwed on!
Some would say his views are cynical, I'd go for realistic myself!
and Holmes, that citrus tart that was served at the beginning, it was a lemon entree my dear Watson!!
|
|
|
Post by Preston Street on Mar 14, 2005 21:17:20 GMT 1
got an idea who owned it about 2 years ago, .. but not sure if it's been passed on.
what's happing to the old Puffy Meadow? I thought it had s**tloads of restrictions on future use?
sorry to sound so out of touch, but been away for a long time and would appreciate any genuine info.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 14, 2005 23:18:16 GMT 1
As far as the fans are told the restrictions are resolved, not just the covenant but agreements between Jennings and the Council regarding the development of the Gay Meadow site. The question to be asked of Jennings is: where's the cash? If we know anything about Roland Wycherley we can be confident that that is a question he has been asking of Jennings. I have made a number of comments on the official board about undeveloped land as an investment, which are very important to consider given the club's position: www.shrewschat.com/mb/viewtopic.php?t=200That thread shows that it is also three months to the day since I first openly asked the relevant question of the football club. I think firstly, before other channels are explored, it would be nice for the football club to openly answer the question. Presumably Keith Sayfritz is still checking out the answers. Fair enough. I can only hope that Roland Wycherley is minded to tell him. Once the work starts on the New Meadow I will take that as a signal that Jennings have paid over the necessary cash. I will then go on to the Land Registry website and have a look for myself. If only I knew someone who worked at the Land Registry. It's a pity if that has to be done, but I'm interested in our Football Club. It is also a pity that the Club has not made a more thorough effort - cynics (of which I am not one) may suggest any effort at all - in engaging with the fans over the recently submitted amendments to the plan at the New Meadow. Perhaps we do not have the right to know in a strict sense but it would be terrific if the surfeit of information that was made available when we were expected to campaign for the New Meadow was also available today. How many of us have actually seen the plans that caused consternation over the small size of the bar at the tail end of last year? How many of us have seen the amended drawings that some of us have been assured address, at least in part, the concerns we forcibly and correctly expressed on 13th December 2004? This is the sort of stuff that should trumpeted right there on the front page of the official site. It is most disapointing that it is not. I am sure, given the opportunity, Whitters could put them on there with little trouble. In the meantime the information vacuum will be filled with rumour and speculation because we are interested in our Football Club. Heaven forbid that our interest should wane or cease.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Mar 14, 2005 23:45:08 GMT 1
i've got you an answer...
as i said at the time it was more of a question for ask the board, i asked this last month but keith wanted to check the facts, it's been asked again as ask the board is monthly feature and the answer will be up tomorrow.,
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 24, 2005 2:55:41 GMT 1
I think my comments here remain relevant. The land registry site is down I notice.
|
|
|
Post by Carter on Mar 24, 2005 10:33:12 GMT 1
As many of us are shareholders I should think that we have a right to know.....
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 24, 2005 11:15:21 GMT 1
That's right Carter and you can use the AGM as a means of asking and hopefully getting answers. The rest of us can't do that - and are dealing with a club who won't provide straight answers to straight questions. Shame that.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Mar 24, 2005 11:41:42 GMT 1
sean, as a fan who much of the inner workings of the club do you think should be made public?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Mar 24, 2005 11:49:27 GMT 1
Appreciate the question was to Sean but...
Why would this information not be shared with the supporters? Or any information for that matter? How would this damage the club?
|
|
|
Post by Shrews and Royals on Mar 24, 2005 11:54:54 GMT 1
As a shareholder am I entitled to know without having to wait for an AGM?
|
|
|
Post by True_Shrew on Mar 24, 2005 12:01:54 GMT 1
Shareholders could also ask if there was a conflict if interest relating to the New meadow site.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 24, 2005 12:04:00 GMT 1
How about the clubs objectors, for instance don't add fuel to the fire
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 24, 2005 12:47:37 GMT 1
sean, as a fan who much of the inner workings of the club do you think should be made public? Ian, when does the Club want us to stop being interested in it? I have been asking this question for a number of months now Ian. Firstly - after several weeks - I'm told that I am asking the wrong the people. Secondly - the answer needs to be checked. Thirdly - its not a question for other people to answer and not the club. Fourthly - I asked a question I didn't intend to ask. Fifthly - Should I have asked the question anyway?
|
|