|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jan 15, 2004 11:25:46 GMT 1
Is that your letter in the Shrewsbury Chronicle?
Some very good points made, but do you honestly believe that a STFC should swap the freehold on a £10 million+ piece of land to be a tenant of a cheaply built municipal stadium in Harlescott?
You've obviously been reading too much SARA/SABC propaganda. I am really disappointed that they are finally spreading their message even amongst Shrewsbury fans
1) you don't swap a freehold for a leasehold 2) you don't give up a £10 million asset without a fair price 3) You don't allow an organisation that publicly slates you to be your landlord for the next 50 years 4) You don't allow your home to be built with public money, it will be done on the cheap 5) You don't go to a mixed use stadium where you don't control the mix of uses! Do we really want to share with Shrewsbury Rugby club which is the suggestion coming out of the Conservative group? Imagine the state of the pitch!
Please reply and tell me this was another person!
|
|
Ade Plimmer revap 2004
Guest
|
Post by Ade Plimmer revap 2004 on Jan 15, 2004 12:14:21 GMT 1
I have to say the same Chris. I know what your trying to do, but at the end of the day, the club have planning permission for NM, and they aint going to swap that.
What have Town got if they cant own there own ground? What happens in the future if they there is associated trouble at a match. You can see these lot kicking us out of any leased ground they might build and giving it the rugby club. Where would we be then?
I hear that the Tories might come back with this idea of a 6000 community stadium that we would lease. One minute they say they cant spend money, the next they can. It's just typical political balls, that has stiffled this town for years, and the ordinary people in Salop are sick and tired and fed up of our elected leaders making such a balls up of the place, and yet will be sitting in there ivory towers come next month, oblivous to the real needs of the people of Shrewsbury.
I am big fan of theatre in Shrewsbury. I take on board that some theatres do fail, and Wrexham is a well known case, (there again what is successful in Wrexham?) however what about then ones that do do well. Lichfield, Newtown. I went to Theatre Hafren to see Belinda Carlisle five years ago. She wouldn't come to Shrewsbury because the lorry carrying her stage crew would block off the streets around the Square and the traders moaned when other acts did the same.
Why wouldn't a Shrewsbury theatre be successful? We have just had another sell out season of panto, Shed Seven have come twice in the last twelve months and sold out. We cant get bigger acts because the place isn't big enough, then you get idiots like the Civic Society saying ' oohh, whats wrong with the Music Hall'. It's a lovely building, but it's old, not suited to modern theatre, and will actual in the end drain more resources from the council than a new theatre.
I'm not having a go personally Chris. You were probably instrumental in rescuing the NM deal a couple of yearsm ago, but I didn't spend the last three years fighting to get a new stadium, which has planning permission, only to see that dream go by the wayside for a very poor compromise.
Ade Plimmer
|
|
Llanelian
Midland League Division One
Posts: 407
|
Post by Llanelian on Jan 15, 2004 12:22:52 GMT 1
Yup...I hold my hands up, it is me
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jan 15, 2004 12:32:44 GMT 1
I am not having a go at you personally, it just surprised me, that's all!
I totally agree that we should actually have a strategic plan for these things. The flaxmill is a complete farce, it should have been fixed years ago.
But I was just a little surprised to see the leasehold ground thing, I can't see how it benefits STFC in the long term, it certainly doesn't assure our future and it forces us to give up the one thing we own, Gay Meadow, and not really have a lot to show for it.
I wouldn't really want to trust the future of STFC to a council sub-group responsible for a municipal stadium that had Albie Fox as the chairman!
I thinkt he tories are trying to push through this 6,000 stadium thing for two reasons. 1) it gives them more time to stall on GM redevelopment and 2) they can then claim to the people of shrewsbury that STFC is not willing to work with them
It is another political ploy from an unwilling council to support it's football club, that si my opinion, but I do respect yours.
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Jan 15, 2004 12:39:09 GMT 1
Never trust a politician. especially this close to an election.
I suspect that this is being dragged out until election time so it will be used as one of the main issues in order for the parties to make gains by generating interest in the local elections. And put it this way, a lot more of us are interested in local elections now.
|
|
Llanelian
Midland League Division One
Posts: 407
|
Post by Llanelian on Jan 15, 2004 13:07:47 GMT 1
I'm sorry if this has offended people, but you must try and understand where I am coming from. Ade, you are right to say that I had a major hand in rescueing the NM a couple of years ago, but you need to understand the culture that, as an elected Councillor, I was operating in. I have come out of the woodwork on this issue, not because I necessarily think that all the things I am suggesting are right or likely to happen; I've done it to get the whole scenario, debate or whatever, away from the very insular and increasingly personal battle that has developed. I have tried to put the value of the Football Club in some perspective in comparison to the more 'acceptable' proposals for other cultural and populist schemes. Again, I have to say that, whilst I am full of admiration for all the wok and enthusiasm that has gone into supporting the NM scheme, there are a lot of issues and undercurrents that most people cannot begin to understand. I'm not being patronising, if you see it that way, then I'm sorry. It is so so frustrating not being involved anymore....I remember standing on the terrace at Leigh, and looking at all the folk there, Chester and Northwich were the same, and I just wish there was a way that we could bottle all that synergy and release it in the Council Chamber when the debate is on. That is the real problem....the real conflict is between a group of individuals who want to create a new facility in the town, a group that has massive support and have demonstrated that there is a demand and desire for it, and on the other hand a group of people that, although elected democratically, exercise their own agenda and are verging on abusing the position they are in. The system dictates that which ever party is in control gets its way. At the moment you have a Conservative administration, with a massive majority, that is largely populated by individuals that have no idea what this is all about, and slavishly follow and believe what they are told by their Leader. There are also a lot of big egos and individuals that are driven by power. I've said it now, so that's my political career out the window. Back to the article.....Fiveyears ago, I talked to STFC about redeveloping Gay Meadow in partnership with SABC and the County, all three being landowners down ay the Meadow. We talked about moving the stadium up toward the Railway Station, and closer to the embankment, and of incorporating the redundant part of the station into the stadium/conference centre. Egress would have been through the arches and up and away into the bottom of Underdale. The Environment Agency formed an informal view that this could have been supported because it was moving the stadium away from the flood plain. I mention this, in the same way that I felt we should have explored the Livestock Market scenario more, simply to illustrate that the location for New Meadow as proposed at present, was selected after many many hours of deliberation with officers. Neither of the former proposals were supported by the Conservatives on the SABC. I should point out that most of those Tories in the Council Chamber now were not elected when this was going on. For years we operated with a 'hung council' which at the time I hated, but it did mean that we had proper discussion and informed debate; that cannot happen anymore, because, and they themselves admit this, the present administration do not have to listen to what anyone else thinks or cares. You, we, have the opportunity to change that in June this year. Please do not slag me off for writing the article that has appeared in the Chronicle; my motivation is no less genuine and passionate than everyone else on this board. I have talked to people in Sutton and Bayston Hill; there is no conflict...any bad feeling is being stoked up by those with other interests. The truth is if you were to take the 'whip' away from the Tories in the Council, they would vote for what they perceive to be the most popular scenario, most likely to get them re elected. Don't forget this. You won't change that, by having a go at them personally or by reacting to their actions. Marginalise them and igmore them. We need to promote the positive aspects of the New Meadow development. We all have the chance next June to change the make up of the Council, not to one that is all for developing New Meadow, but to install an administration that understands and wants to promote the much greater opportunities that lie ahead for the regeneration and growth of Shrewsbury. The present Council must hear what we are all saying, but do they listen? If needs be, I will expand further...Chris
|
|
|
Post by Mediolanum Shrew on Jan 15, 2004 13:55:44 GMT 1
I agree with what your saying that the council need to hear what we are saying, and that can be done and is being done at present. And certainly in the run up to the election if the New Meadow is still an issue we will ask for everyones help in making sure that it gets put at the top of the agenda.
As regards your plans, yes they are all valid. Trouble is of course that the Livestock Market was ruled out as one of the sites during the planning application, deemed as being not suitable. Then of course you'll get the SARA equivalent up Harlescott starting and we are back at square 1. And believe me after all the trouble Morris's had in getting there development through, and think we are a lot better off continuing with the plans for NM.
RW was again quoted in the paper as saying that a firm has offered £10 million for GM for housing. Now of course this would eb dependent on planning permission, and removal of the covenant. But to be honest with pressure for housing land rising, and the covenant which will be removed at a Lands Tribunal for a fee, the present course of a new stadium at Oteley Road is the only way to secure Town's future, and the qucikest way to secure Towns future.
|
|