Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2004 14:08:08 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Jan 13, 2004 14:13:33 GMT 1
Arse indeed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2004 14:15:17 GMT 1
So by his thinking the Town's people don't want
- a swimming pool - a cinema etc
What other things attract 4,000 + people every couple of weeks or so in the town?
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jan 13, 2004 14:25:33 GMT 1
how many of the 80,000 wanted to waste £2M on cobbled stones in the town?
plus whatever it cost to rip them up shortly afterwards
|
|
|
Post by BelleVueShrew on Jan 13, 2004 14:27:41 GMT 1
What a complete KNOB!
My blood is boiling having read that drivel. No doubt he lives in a cave, as with that kind of metality nothing would ever get built.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2004 14:32:42 GMT 1
Chris.....go round and drop him mate..........
|
|
|
Post by BelleVueShrew on Jan 13, 2004 15:04:03 GMT 1
Can I borrow your club Paul? ;D
|
|
|
Post by telfordSHREWS on Jan 13, 2004 15:42:05 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Jan 13, 2004 16:46:41 GMT 1
They were only buying the land... all this about STFC using tax payers money is severe libel and utter lies PS anyone live in the Sutton and Reabrook ward and receiving absolutley halarious fact sheets from them... forget the new meadow..now they are complaining about a phone mast going up. Absolute NIMBYS - I hope my mobile signal cuts out should I wish to dial 999 when I see one of thier houses on fire
|
|
|
Post by interested party on Jan 13, 2004 16:50:49 GMT 1
had the council bought the meadow for 14 million what where STFC going to do with cash then?, and if its not tax payers monies whose is it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2004 18:28:21 GMT 1
The £14mil was for the Meadow and part of the Oteley Rd site.
|
|
|
Post by duncowshrew on Jan 13, 2004 18:38:57 GMT 1
He's probably one of these nerds you see at the weekend going round Do-it-All with little wifey getting all orgasmic about bathroom tiles and wallpaper borders.
Some body get hold of a picture of the idiot and post it on the turnstiles so when he tries to sneak in for one of the "big" games we can lock him in the changing rooms with 10 copies of Good Housekeeping.
|
|
|
Post by glasgowshrew on Jan 13, 2004 18:53:02 GMT 1
STFC would have spent the money how they thought best (as detailed above). The fact that it was the council who was interested in buying land makes no difference on how the seller can spend the money Yes it was tax payers money but how else do you expect the council to purchase land in order to build new theatres, offices, toilets. cinimas etc they have to pay the owners money which has been raised through taxation. In this case they decided after 6 months of negotiation not to buy the land, that is fair enough we live in a free market and i am happy about that but it would have been nice of the council to have informed the club sooner. The council will now need use other land to build a new theatre (if they decide to) and they will go through the same process to see if feasable or not ( which costs a fortune) and once they have found their ideal location they will spend tax payers money on purchasing the land. What i do find offensive isthe fact that Mr Naysmith seems to beleive that if the council had bought the land then they would be funding STFC. STFC is a business and always has been, they will fund any move through the sale of the ground at the market rate, they will pay all other bills through the sale of merchandise and entrance fees - they will not get and have not asked for a hand outs. STFC benefits the whole community, the local hotels, pubs, shops benefit through incresed trade ( and therefore pay more VAT, they employ more people who therefore pay more tax - each time STFC play at home both exiles and away supporters get to visit this great town - and don't forget the weekly meadia coverage who else offers that. I hate letters like mr Naysmiths, if he is against a football club being in Shrewsbury then just say so but don't make them sound like they are a drain on the communities resources It is easy to b***h about other projects which are funded by the taxes and offer little in return to myself but i have no reason to take that route so i shant - would mr Naysmith do the same?
|
|
|
Post by robspaceman1 on Jan 13, 2004 19:35:04 GMT 1
i emailed a reply to the star as soon as i read that letter. i dont have all the facts about the situation so i hope if it gets printed you guys are ok with it. it was nothing nasty anyway, just a bit sarcastic.
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Jan 13, 2004 20:03:01 GMT 1
The thing that gets me about these letters is that they assume that football is something totally alien to places like Shrewsbury.
I'm a football fan and I pay my taxes like anyone else. The 4,000 people that regularly watch STFC pay their taxes. I'm quite happy for my taxes going to fund services that I don't use my self when there is an overall benefit to the community.
I'd be interested to know whether Mr. Naysmith opposes the council funding a new livestock market - surely farmers should pay for that.
Also, does he support a council sponsored theatre or should the people who actually go to the theatre pay for it.
How is it that football has to be self funding because it is a minority interest, yet cultural pursuits like theatre, opera and ballet have to be subsidised by public money because as they are minority interests that could survive with out assistance?
|
|
|
Post by duncowshrew on Jan 13, 2004 20:34:38 GMT 1
IRJBA----Couldn't agree with you more. Good post.
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Jan 13, 2004 21:43:07 GMT 1
Out of interest I checked my brand new Shropshire Telephone Directory to see where in Town the guy lives.
You guessed X Directory.
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Jan 13, 2004 21:52:34 GMT 1
I'm glad someone's replied to the Star, I've been so annoyed all afternoon. If you followed his logic, all leisure centres, swimming baths, museums, theatres, art galleries etc etc which recieve taxpayers money would close within a month. What else in Shrewsbury attracts 5% of the population every fortnight??
Moreover, the whole lcoal economy benfits from the club, which ultimately finds its way into the Council's coffers.
|
|
|
Post by Rea Shrew on Jan 13, 2004 22:26:52 GMT 1
PS anyone live in the Sutton and Reabrook ward and receiving absolutley halarious fact sheets from them... forget the new meadow..now they are complaining about a phone mast going up. Absolute NIMBYS - I hope my mobile signal cuts out should I wish to dial 999 when I see one of thier houses on fire dont see the point of what your saying here Matt - I live in Reabrook and I'm for the new meadow - but why should I want a big phone mast at the entrance to the estate? not exactly a nice sight to see every day and possible affect on house prices. The phone signal round here is fine so they can stick their phone mast (up Albie Fox's Rexham).
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Jan 13, 2004 22:35:47 GMT 1
Out of interest I checked my brand new Shropshire Telephone Directory to see where in Town the guy lives. You guessed X Directory. Andrew I have posted a list of all numbers. You Prat ;D
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Jan 13, 2004 22:42:42 GMT 1
I was talking about the guy that wrote the letter to the Star (Peter Naysmith) so you are the Prat
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Jan 13, 2004 22:44:32 GMT 1
I got a bit irritated with it to, also e mailed the star and think more of us should cos we seemed to get a bit trounced in star mail, quite a few letters supporting the prats, sorry, councillors, but too few slating them. If enough write in perhaps the star will devote a page on the debate and people might realise that rather a lot of people actually want this project to go ahead.This is a great message board but it doesnt get across to the general public the strength of feeling out there
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Jan 13, 2004 22:46:36 GMT 1
oh dear
|
|