|
Post by DulwichShrew on Jan 30, 2004 16:22:49 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Jan 30, 2004 16:31:15 GMT 1
intresting Politicians actually doing omething sensible - shame ther not incharge around here - or is it a snekey vote winner prior to the local elections and then we here nothing about it again? ? lots more questions but overall good news
|
|
|
Post by Reverend on Jan 30, 2004 16:46:05 GMT 1
Me thinks they have been reading this board, so perhaps they don't want us to stand in any elections but badger, nicely of course our local borough Cllrs, does anyone have a link to their e-mails addy's, A few hundred? e-mails each on the subject might convince all partys at borough level..?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jan 30, 2004 16:48:38 GMT 1
The plot thickens again and again and again doesn't it...each and every day there seems to be a new twist...
It's an excellent message though, how long does this really need to be drawn out...I really do think that if the land was to go to housing it would be a great mistake and a great waste. It's a perfect location for a theatre or other entertainment complex...
|
|
|
Post by texmexshrew on Jan 30, 2004 16:48:58 GMT 1
Playing the political game methinks.
me - a cynic??!
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Jan 30, 2004 16:52:41 GMT 1
I think its a sneaky vote winner personally. but labour did vote for the new meadow, but on the other hand it was obvious they were going to lose wasn't it?
I'd like to beleive them, but just press on without them and if they really want this then they will have to act fast. Just don't let them hold this up anymore
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jan 30, 2004 16:56:49 GMT 1
Gentlemen, anything said by any politician can be put down to 'vote winning'...simple as...
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 30, 2004 18:31:44 GMT 1
Well done Danny Moore, colours nailed to the mast, it's up to the people of Shrewsbury&Atcham to decide at election time The Gay Meadow is going to get redeveloped one way or the other, do the people of Shrewsbury prefer housing or a Theatre on the site, the question is now as simple as that ... There's also another article in the Star on the same subject www.shropshirestar.com/news/publish/article_11903.shtml
|
|
|
Post by kickinpretty2 on Jan 30, 2004 18:48:14 GMT 1
Im sorry people but we would have to be barmy to sell up at 9million for the two plots, lets get real here, 9 million will not fund a new stadium and the purchase of the otley road site.
If we sell the land for £10+ million to a developer and then sell off the land at Otley road as well thats a minimum of £14+million - That will buy us a new stadium, whilst i applaud Danny Moore for his efforts, unless they up the offer to a realistic figure the deal will not go through.
I would love a theatre on the Gay Meadow site but if the deal isnt right then SABC only have themselves to blame when its developed for housing, the funny thing though is that the Labour group are now touting the site as suitable for affordable housing along side a new theatre....mmmmmm that should do the covenant argument a world of good.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jan 30, 2004 19:03:13 GMT 1
Labour have not campaigned on the covenant issue, only Tories like Albie Fox under pressure from SARA
the original £14 million plan was a labour-backed motion
the £14 million plan included the land at Oteley road which is owned by alaska not us
the proposed cost of New Meadow has always been £8 million in the past
|
|
|
Post by kickinpretty2 on Jan 30, 2004 19:33:21 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by kickinpretty2 on Jan 30, 2004 19:38:09 GMT 1
Just to clear one thing up TBH - Alaska do not currently own the land, they have first option which apparently runs out in April.
We need to be able to pay for the lansd at Otley and pay for a new stadium - I would be very very surprised if we could do it for £8 million still, more like £9-10 million, so liuke i said selling the Gay Meadow and land at sutton for £9million is not an option.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 30, 2004 19:42:12 GMT 1
Sale of the Gay Meadow site only provides part of the funding for the New Meadow, albeit a large part
Grants from the Football Trust also provide a significant part of the funding for building the New Meadow
|
|
|
Post by kickinpretty on Jan 30, 2004 19:45:31 GMT 1
I dont see your point PPP.
If we dont need to sell for £14 million then why did ask that much? basically you are saying that we dont even need £8 million to build the stadium as we will get lots of free cash.
Just where is the rest of the cash going then?
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 30, 2004 19:49:12 GMT 1
I don't know the figures Kickin, I was just pointing out that the sale of Gay Meadow isn't the only factor in funding the New Meadow Hopefully someone in the know will tell us what is required from selling the Gay Meadow in order that the New Meadow deal is properly funded Maybe the club are going to make a few quid out of the deal?
|
|
|
Post by Reverend on Jan 30, 2004 20:13:28 GMT 1
The price printed in the Shrop Star would mean the land at Otley is worth only 1 million, I think the Star have been a bit sloppy, ie; Hutton enquiry if you think that all the star prints is true, then Mrs Janice Kelly has married Lord Hutton, as she was described under her picture widow,Janice Hutton. Just a lot blurb stop over reacting, I suggest we stick to asking the club for the real facts.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 30, 2004 20:57:17 GMT 1
If my sources are correct the district valuer put a value of £7million on the Gay Meadow site and the land at Ottley Road is valued at a further £1million
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jan 30, 2004 22:22:22 GMT 1
althought the district valuer can only value the land under it's own guidelines, and normally that means what is the least you can do with it. That is normally car parking!
The Barnabas site has a valuation of £350,000 or somehting like that for use as a car park, but over a million as a development site.
In the same way GM may cost £7 million as an empty piece of ground for use as a car park, but you could put up £15 million of flats on that site, leaving a property developer who pays £10 million with a £5 million return in about five years
i wonder what value the district valuer puts on the councils new offices? certainly that land was worth less as a car park than it is now?
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Jan 31, 2004 11:28:43 GMT 1
I'm definitely for the Council acquring Gay Meadow for a civic development. However, Gay Meadow does not become available unless STFC get enough cash from selling it to allow them to build the New Meadow.
I'm not sure that selling the two pieces of land for the district valuer's price will be enough, especially given that the club is being offered in excess of £10m for Gay Meadow alone.
NOTE that there are plans for a public meeting on the future of Gay Meadow. We cannot have such a meeting dominated by the SARA NIMBYS because that will underplay the real strength of feeling about the future of STFC. Please be prepared to go to a public meeting to show support for our football club.
|
|
Llanelian
Midland League Division One
Posts: 407
|
Post by Llanelian on Jan 31, 2004 12:07:37 GMT 1
I can assure you that this is not a cheap political trick....Danny, the labour group, and indeed the lib dems have all been united in their support for moving the town forward. As you will have read from my earlier submissions, the way forward now is to indeed canvas your local candidates, of whatever hue, and support those that support you, by electing them next June (not May by the way). It will hurt those on the notice board that are Tory supporters, but locally you cannot trust or depend on the blue party, so don't even try and get a positive reaction from them because they will all vote as Nutting tells them! This is good news, and Danny et al should be congtaulated on this positive move. At the risk of repeating myself, STFC identified the Otelely Road site having been rebuffed at every opportunity by the Tories, before they the Administration, so, I repeat, it is immoral and it is laughable for anyone from that party to suggest that they have always maintained the best inyerests of STFC at heart. I'm glad Sayfritz has come out into the open and said as much. I know from my own efforts to move things along that STFC have been naive in their negotiations with the council in the past, and it is time to get ral. Incidentally, and this is the worrying bit, STFC do not have the option on the land at Oteley, Alaska have it, and that option is coming to an end; Nutting and co know that. As I have urged many many times, the only way to stop this nonsence is to get rid of the Tories in June, and marginalise the damage they are doing, not just with out STFC, but with the town as a whole. Don't believe anything they say...and yes, there are decent local councillors out there who are sincere and listen, but they ain't tory. My comments are born out of being in there, at County and Boro, and I have expeienced first hand the way they work, so if anyone doubts my sincerity or comments, then I would suggest they find out for themselves. The long term future of STFC is an integral part of the fabric of Shrewsbury, and Shropshire, and we cannot let egos, misinfromed ideals, a lack of understanding of socio cultural dynamics, dishonesty etc etc foul that up. I'm not sure that I want to keep contributing to this debate...my frustration at some of the naive political comment expressed on this board sends my heart rate up to over twice what it was when the final whistle went after the Everton game. I do want my ashes spread in the centre of the pitch, but preferably at the New Meadow, not the Gaye..and the way I'm going it will be this season!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by kickinpretty2 on Jan 31, 2004 12:19:16 GMT 1
...I think that the biggest impact against the tories could be achieved if actual tories (like myself) go out and campaign against the tories.
A flyer with the names of tory voters against electing the tories in at local level would really anialate the tory campaign.
Flyer title/ full page Sloppy star advert"Conservatives against Conservative local government in Shrewsbury"
Followed by a short and sweet statement about why the tories should not be re-elected and then the names of tory voters listed below plus an actual number in a huge font size that have signed up to keep the tories out of local government.
MINES THE FIRST NAME ON THE LIST... ;D
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Jan 31, 2004 12:25:16 GMT 1
Keep your comments going I say. You seem to talk a lot of sense and have your finger on the pulse, we all have opinions one way or another, but opinions can be changed and reading stuff like this certainly opens your eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Reverend on Jan 31, 2004 12:53:50 GMT 1
www.shrewsbury.gov.uk/public/council/councillors/default.htm Here is the complete list I think, just about all now can be e-mailed, perhaps we could send a 'signed' e-mail just like we did after the Everton game was not on the TV, Pilch organised that if I remember rightly, all we need now is a well worded e-mail. far better one e-mail with all our names and 'party' on than individual mails which might annoy?
|
|
|
Post by tim gallon on Feb 1, 2004 16:47:46 GMT 1
the issue of Alsaka's option on the Otely Rd site was discussed at the commercial umbrella group meeting.
mal whitrick said that Alaska have a clause that they can extend the date of thier option before it runs out.
he also said that if Alaska didnt do this and the option term lapsed that the club had the situation "covered". he wouldnt be drawn on exactly what this was. he said there was no chance on the council buying up the land.
i can only guess that the club have spoken to the owner of the land and agreed with them that should the option with alaska expire then the club would have first refusal to buy the land.
Ian, do you know when this public meeting about the GM is? If not can you let us all know when you find out.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Feb 1, 2004 19:06:20 GMT 1
From yesterday's Star ... www.shropshirestar.com/news/publish/article_11947.shtmlSomeone should ask the Tories why they can't find £14million for the Theatre on the Gay Meadow but can find £15million for upgrading the Music Hall and a higher figure to build the Theatre on Smithfield Road!
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Feb 1, 2004 19:19:13 GMT 1
I believe the meeting is on 5 February - but haven't heard any definite details.
|
|
|
Post by tim gallon on Feb 1, 2004 19:29:23 GMT 1
Prof, the 14 mil was just to buy both pieces of land. the council would then have to spend several million more in actually buidng the theatre
Ian, i didnt realise the meeting was so soon, do you know if there was an agenda?, think as SUFAN we definatley need someone there to know whats happening and to ensure its not been hijacked by SARA.
if its an evening meeting i could probably make it.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Feb 1, 2004 19:37:03 GMT 1
My point is they can and will find money for projects that suit them, much of what's going on behind the scenes with regard to the Music Hall isn't in the public domain and would probably upset a good few if it was
Their sums don't add up, they have their own agenda and it's not driven by finances as far as the Theatre at Gay Meadow is concerned
|
|
|
Post by Reverend on Feb 1, 2004 19:58:50 GMT 1
The GM site would be superb for a theatre/art complex so much could be made of the site with the river as its back drop, restaurant overlooking the river, with a deck jutting out still further, moorings for the river cruise as well, perfect for traveling art exhibitions, could be built to cater for the disabled (new laws are being brought in all the time, most other town public buildings are not suitable because of their age. The ideas could be really exciting for this town. So with so much going for it, I want to ask the Cllrs a few questions, I think in a form of survey/questionnaire sort of thing. Did you realize STFC at the moment only trade/earn revenue for 94 1/2 hours or just under 12 working days per football year? How if Stfc moved into a council owned stadium would you perceive STFC making extra money other than match day, or do you believe that’s not an issue. Do you want STFC? Do you want STFC to close? At the end of the e-mail I will put that the answers could be made public and also that those who chose not to answer will be mentioned as well. I would really appreciate your help with this. It might come in handy for those who might be attending the public meeting.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Feb 1, 2004 20:13:03 GMT 1
i overheard that jennings are doing some bore tests soon - something to do with the rock beneath the meadow being full of water from the ice age. this rock is probably 200ft below the surface so shouldnt effect any future foundations. wouldnt be surprised if they were £10m bidders
|
|