|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 8, 2004 20:38:23 GMT 1
recruit wealthier directors, easier said than done I know, but Jack Haywards out of a job. . Bit of a catch 22 situation that ... Serious financial investors are far more likely to be interested once the New Meadow is in place due to the huge advantages it gives regarding raising additional revenue from non match day events and therefore potentially a better return on their investment Whilst we're still at Gay Meadow they're far more likely to err on the side of caution Don't worry Paul, i'm not going to mention multi-millionaires again
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 8, 2004 20:41:08 GMT 1
I was under the impression that the ground had had its capacity cut due to the fact that there was only one entrance/exit to the ground and the concerns re an emergency breaking out. The lack of access to Gay Meadow for vehicles, in particular the emergency services, is the overriding reason why the capacity is so low and may get lower still There could be a 10,000 all-seater stadium at Gay Meadow but 10,000 people wouldn't be allowed in
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jan 8, 2004 21:23:35 GMT 1
The New Meadow saga makes Beowulf look like a haiku. How long did the Mousetrap run in the West End for? This post is itself poetic, although too long for a haiku
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jan 8, 2004 21:39:35 GMT 1
Interesting comments Duncow which I have to support fully.Why move ?? 10000 all seater would this mean we get 3 seats each ?? The support is not there and never will be until we have a successfull team. This is the area the Board should be focusing their full attention on not seeing how much they can make by the sale of the ground. Nothing wrong with the Meadow were it is at the moment.Its central and ideal for a few pre match beers No problem with parking and easily accessible by foot and public transport. Entrance via the Castlefields side has always been adequate and used freqently by supporters from that side of town including myself. Have you thought of a day out at Meole to watch the Town?? A few beers in the Brooklands ?? How do you get there?? Think of the congestion. No Thanks Also who is responsible for the crazy figures being banded about for redevelopement costs.As far as I am aware there has never been a serious quote on the table.
Forget it and concentrate on what is happening (or not) on the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Jan 8, 2004 22:01:38 GMT 1
The only trouble is that even if we stay at the Meadow the ground issue does not go away.
If the club drops its plans to relocate the FLA will insist that the terracing is redeveloped. If that is not done parts of the ground will be closed and the capacity cut. Then we have the thorny problem of whether the ground will up to Football League standards and whether we would get back into the League even if we won the Conference by a dozen or more points.
If the club has to redevelop Gay Meadow then the finance will have to come out of its existing income. Spending money on the ground will mean that the money available to spend on players will be less - so weaking the quality of the squad.
Hence the club wants to fund a new stadium by selling GM for development - in that way the wage bill need not be cut.
I personally believe that unless we get a new stadium the club's long term decline will continue. Financially we won't be much more than a mid-ranking Conference club.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 8, 2004 22:29:21 GMT 1
I tried to ignore this thread, but had to post in the end.
My head may have been persuaded that IRJBA and others are right. I certainly don't know enough to argue convincingly.
But my heart says Duncow & Jonah are right. I dread the thought of going to an out of town concrete box, and while supporters will always turn up to see a successful team, it will be a very lonely place if results are not so good. I will probably still have a season ticket, but a lot of casual support could be lost.
Isn't there a saying along the lines of "Be careful what you wish for, as it may come true"
The current state of the Meadow is a slightly different question. Whatever happens we are going to be there for 2/3 seasons at least, and some money must be spent on toilets, painting, getting rid of weeds etc. That is basic housekeeping, and the place is getting worse because nothing at all is being done.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jan 8, 2004 22:31:30 GMT 1
Thought the Meadow had passed the inspection and the ground is acceptable for league status.Might be wrong
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 8, 2004 22:35:27 GMT 1
For now Jonah yes, but if it becomes apparent to the football authorities that we aren't going to move they will view things differently
Fortunately, football league entry requirements have now been relaxed, but we would be in a very dodgy position if promoted without the New Meadow in place or cast iron dates for it to come to fruition
|
|
|
Post by Redz on Jan 8, 2004 23:46:14 GMT 1
"For now Jonah yes, but if it becomes apparent to the football authorities that we aren't going to move they will view things differently""
They won't change anything they have relaxed them this year infact, i beleive that the capacity required is 4500 and of that 1000 must be seats, however should the team promoted ony have the bare minimum they must guranntee a capacity of 6000 with 2000 seats i think, the meadow has a capcity of 8000 and 3500 i cannot see the FL turning the meadow down because its not moving.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jan 9, 2004 0:12:30 GMT 1
ok-is there anyone out there who not only knows the truth but can also post it on here? what are the required standards for league football? what,if anything,is wrong with our terracing? who decides that we get an 8,000 capacity?
can we increase this by going under the arches, up onto platform 1, or through abbey gardens? is the covenant from river to track or 1 acre? can restaurants/gyms etc not be built into the back of a new stand on the station end above a surface car park? could a new(small) stand on the riverside house bars/cafes over looking the river?
im looking for facts not a simple no.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 9, 2004 0:18:29 GMT 1
Amended Football League entry requirements www.confguide.com/cgi-bin/news.mpl/2003/07/11/bCurrent capacity restriction is far more to do with lack of vehicle access for the emergency services than any lack of pedestrian access Stadia regulation and safety is overseen by the Football Licensing Authority, but the safety certificate is issued by the local Council www.flaweb.org.uk/The covenant covers the entire site and it's terms prevent things like resturants and gyms existing on the site
|
|
|
Post by faginy on Jan 9, 2004 0:38:33 GMT 1
i heard from a reliable source ( ) that the covenant only covered one acre (the pitch) and was basically a non-issue.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 9, 2004 0:42:27 GMT 1
i heard from a reliable source ( ) that the covenant only covered one acre (the pitch) and was basically a non-issue. Don't think thats right faginy owd lad, but stop gossiping or you'll have Mr Downward after you
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jan 9, 2004 0:48:31 GMT 1
i thought that the covenant only stipulated that the meadow should be used for leisure which would allow for a gym. thanks for the links.
|
|
|
Post by faginy on Jan 9, 2004 0:52:42 GMT 1
Don't think thats right faginy owd lad, but stop gossiping or you'll have Mr Downward after you trust me prof, i've just checked where i read it and it came from the man at the top (plimmer
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 9, 2004 0:52:51 GMT 1
Fairly sure it prevents commercial gain from such things which makes it pretty poinltless putting it in place, can't remember the exact terms of the covenant though ...
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jan 9, 2004 1:19:14 GMT 1
surely being a professional club means making "commercial gains"
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 9, 2004 1:22:24 GMT 1
Running a gym is beyond the 'normal business' of running a football club on the site
Therefore some activities, e.g. the club shop, are permitted, whereas some, e.g. wedding receptions, are not
We really need to see the terms of the covenant to clarify this one
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jan 9, 2004 1:26:28 GMT 1
your right there ppp. surely the council must be able to let us read a copy.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jan 9, 2004 1:30:46 GMT 1
another idea would be build a huge club shop with a gym/restuarant inside.
|
|
|
Post by Exkeeper on Jan 9, 2004 11:30:30 GMT 1
Remember in 2000, Notts County were faced with a bill for £250000 to disinfect the pitch, after effluent from the flooded River Trent had soaked onto the surface. Add this to the fact, that we, like lots of others in Shrewsbury, can no longer get insurance against flooding, and you have a disaster waiting to happen. With regard to 10000 seats, what about Telford and Hereford games? Smaller stadium = people locked out. The bus companies run 52 seaters on some runs. Most of the day they are half-full, but at peak periods, there is room for everyone. Cater for ALL eventualities.
|
|
|
Post by duncowshrew on Jan 9, 2004 12:20:17 GMT 1
No suprise there then. They've always been full of crap in Nottingham!!!!.Thanks for your comments both for and against. If I ever become rich then I'll make it my lifes work to develop the "Old" Meadow" and to hell with the Council!!!!
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jan 9, 2004 15:15:52 GMT 1
passions running quite high people. The Gay Meadow is not an option and its time we stopped clouding the issue by continually arguing the point. A new ground is a must!!!. However Duncower raises an interesting point , one that i hav'nt heard mentioned before, that of involving prominent local business's as backers to a new stadium.One of the major stumbling blocks at the moment is peoples suspicion of Alaska Property Developers.The answer to this problem has been obvious to me for a long time. Get Morris's to build the new ground ,they virtually own the town and get what ever they want built without question.It just means we might have to have a supermarket close by
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 9, 2004 21:35:38 GMT 1
passions running quite high people. The Gay Meadow is not an option and its time we stopped clouding the issue by continually arguing the point. A new ground is a must!!!. However Duncower raises an interesting point , one that i hav'nt heard mentioned before, that of involving prominent local business's as backers to a new stadium.One of the major stumbling blocks at the moment is peoples suspicion of Alaska Property Developers.The answer to this problem has been obvious to me for a long time. Get Morris's to build the new ground ,they virtually own the town and get what ever they want built without question.It just means we might have to have a supermarket close by Morris' have never shown any interest in the club, I doubt that's going to change now, but you're right if they were involved we be playing in it now!
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Jan 9, 2004 22:24:18 GMT 1
The clause of the covenant about the use of the property is:
"Subject to clauses 2(b) and (c) hereof the Purchaser will not use or permit the use of the property otherwise than for or in connection with the activities of a football club or of other games or sports or for cultural activities."
Clause 2(b) relates to the use of part of the site as a car park for the Flower Show and Clause 2(c) relates to a possible right of way in relation to the railway.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jan 9, 2004 22:34:51 GMT 1
reading that makes it sound as if we could do just about anything in order to run the club there!
|
|