|
Post by Jonah on Feb 6, 2004 8:29:08 GMT 1
Cracking letter on page 9 of this weeks Shrewsbury Chronicle. Have to agree 100% with Messrs Mills,Jones,Bowen and Butt.
Why has this plan been overlooked ??
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Feb 6, 2004 9:04:05 GMT 1
Can you post the letter our kid or just the general idea?
Thanks...
|
|
|
Post by Withoutapaddle on Feb 6, 2004 9:18:42 GMT 1
One problem- wheres the rest of the money coming from after the grants. I would like to see them prove it with a detailed cost plan.
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Feb 6, 2004 10:11:41 GMT 1
Cracking letter on page 9 of this weeks Shrewsbury Chronicle. Have to agree 100% with Messrs Mills,Jones,Bowen and Butt. Why has this plan been overlooked ?? What a load of rubbish, sorry Jonah but time to move on and move on NOW!
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 6, 2004 14:00:15 GMT 1
I really wish this were possible, but I don't see where the will or finance to make it happen will come from.
The club has clearly made up its mind that moving is best, and I think it will happen, eventually. In the meantime they will leave the Meadow to rot.
|
|
|
Post by mattmmw on Feb 6, 2004 21:09:42 GMT 1
The plans refered to in the Chronicle letter were pretty much dead in the water as soon as they came out. Even if all the grants came through they would only have amounted to about £5 million, and estimates suggested that even the cheapest option for that plan would have cost £10 -12 million. In any case the new extension at the Wakeman school has put an end to those plans going through. The whole issue of the Gay Meadow being redeveloped was covered in the New Meadow planning application, so I don't know why so called "loyal" Shrewsbury supporters didn't no why the redevelopment plans were taken up (Sounds like a Sutton residents letter to me) !
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Feb 6, 2004 21:58:01 GMT 1
same olde crap
I dont mind a fair fight
I dont even mind if we lose the Ottley Road site
What I do mind is the media printing irresponsible lies and thus brainwashing the people who read it
I have nothing against factually correct evidence. This again is a load of tosh.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Feb 6, 2004 21:59:37 GMT 1
Any chance of someone posting the text of the letter for those of us who aren't local enough to buy a copy?
|
|
|
Post by guest on Feb 6, 2004 23:27:32 GMT 1
sorry prof i havent got a copy but they were referring to plans that ALS championed in issue 15 or 16 perhaps one of the ALS boys could post the plans for you.
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Feb 7, 2004 0:06:16 GMT 1
Gay Meadow: Staying Put Makes Sense
I write with the full support of many loyal and long time supporters of STFC who endorse the heading in last week's Chronicle "many fans want Gay Meadow to stay put" A page from the football club's programme season 96/97 headed "House of Lords to Gay Meadow" outlines what is now termed the "Lord Howells Plans" which were widely reported at that period and were drawn up by the club's architect. Indeed, they would appear to be identical to those proposed for the new staduim at Oteley Road. To refresh memories, the Howell plans discussed at follow-up meetins at the GM were for a 3500 all seter stand at the railway end of the ground with a sports hall underneath which would double up as a banqueting hall. This would be for use by the club and Wakeman school and for community use in the evenings and at weekends throughout the summer months. The stand would rank for an 80% grant. A new all seater 4500 capacity stand on the Riverside with restarant and tilet facilities underneath opening up at the rear onto a marina style landing stage for river traffic and available to the public throughout the year. Entry and exit via Abbey Gardens. What agreat tourist attraction that would be and what a continual source of income for the football club. There would also be a pathway from the rear of that stand to the railway bridge. The wakeman end would have acovered standing area, entry and exit via Abbey Gardens. Modernisation of existing stands would provide for a club shop, sponsors lounge etc, together with additional office space. From memory and press cuttings available it was ageed negotiations would take place to re-open the direct link between the railway station and GM. The three funding bodies, sports council, National Lottery, senior Administrator sports council initiative and foundations for sports, were greatly impressed with the excellant case put to them and a lifelong friend of Rt Hon Lord Howell pledged support of his company - leading aechitect and design engineers - who built at Aston Villa FC, Wolves FC, Nottm Forest FC etc. This, also without obligation to the club. Let us now resurrect these plans and campaign for the GM, in its excellant setting, to be redeveloped into one of the best ground outside the Premier League.
RD MILLS..MEOLE VILLAGE G JONES...BROOK ROAD, PONTESBURY JF BOWEN....LONGDEN GROVE F BUTT...ADSWOOD GROVE
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Feb 7, 2004 0:07:30 GMT 1
If anyone had actually found a link or actually typed that and posted before i had finished I was going to do a Bally and throw my teddy out of my pram ;D
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Feb 7, 2004 0:37:33 GMT 1
Gay Meadow: Staying Put Makes SenseI write with the full support of many loyal and long time supporters of STFC who endorse the heading in last week's Chronicle "many fans want Gay Meadow to stay put" A page from the football club's programme season 96/97 headed "House of Lords to Gay Meadow" outlines what is now termed the "Lord Howells Plans" which were widely reported at that period and were drawn up by the club's architect. Indeed, they would appear to be identical to those proposed for the new staduim at Oteley Road. To refresh memories, the Howell plans discussed at follow-up meetins at the GM were for a 3500 all seter stand at the railway end of the ground with a sports hall underneath which would double up as a banqueting hall. This would be for use by the club and Wakeman school and for community use in the evenings and at weekends throughout the summer months. The stand would rank for an 80% grant. A new all seater 4500 capacity stand on the Riverside with restarant and tilet facilities underneath opening up at the rear onto a marina style landing stage for river traffic and available to the public throughout the year. Entry and exit via Abbey Gardens. What agreat tourist attraction that would be and what a continual source of income for the football club. There would also be a pathway from the rear of that stand to the railway bridge. The wakeman end would have acovered standing area, entry and exit via Abbey Gardens. Modernisation of existing stands would provide for a club shop, sponsors lounge etc, together with additional office space. From memory and press cuttings available it was ageed negotiations would take place to re-open the direct link between the railway station and GM. The three funding bodies, sports council, National Lottery, senior Administrator sports council initiative and foundations for sports, were greatly impressed with the excellant case put to them and a lifelong friend of Rt Hon Lord Howell pledged support of his company - leading aechitect and design engineers - who built at Aston Villa FC, Wolves FC, Nottm Forest FC etc. This, also without obligation to the club. Let us now resurrect these plans and campaign for the GM, in its excellant setting, to be redeveloped into one of the best ground outside the Premier League. RD MILLS..MEOLE VILLAGE G JONES...BROOK ROAD, PONTESBURY JF BOWEN....LONGDEN GROVE F BUTT...ADSWOOD GROVE Thanks JP Well, there's so much wrong with that letter I could write a bloody essay on the subject! Haven't these people listened to the debate over the last few years? Give me strength!!!
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Feb 7, 2004 1:10:08 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2004 1:17:25 GMT 1
Make it a barrell of lager and you've got yourself a deal ;D
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Feb 7, 2004 10:29:21 GMT 1
what i don't understand is what these people think the club have been doing for the past ten years?
it is impossible to redevelop GM even with double the money from grants
you sell the ground to buy cheaper land and a stadium without losing money, that is the current oteley road deal, freehold for freehold, 10,000 all SEATER and that is it
we can't change to terraces and we can't redevelop the meadow, WILL SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE LISTEN!
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Feb 7, 2004 10:35:37 GMT 1
Suggest you boys start writing your essay now because it is pretty obvious there are a lot of 'loyal supporters' out there that are obviously not as convinced as yourselves.
One thing I havent seen is the redevelopement costings for these failed plans.Do the exist ??
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 7, 2004 10:57:09 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by kickinpretty2 on Feb 7, 2004 11:03:02 GMT 1
I think the question is all about funding, its not whether this can be done or not its at what price and wheres the cash coming from.
Access to the club from two routes is obtainable, new stands and money making buildings such as a gym and conference hall are obtainable on the present site.
What we havn't got is the many millions in the bank that will fund this developement, thats why the only way we will see a future for STFC is by moving to Otley and funding the whole thing through land deals.
I would love the club to stay at the meadow and i would challenge any town fan to say anything different, but circumstances mean that the majority of us have accepted the need to move and by so doing, secure the long term viability of the club.
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Feb 7, 2004 11:04:46 GMT 1
The letter is, virtually word for word, one that appeared in the Chronicle under the name A P Page three or more years ago. This issue has been debated, at length, in the Chronicle letters pages for over three years. A letter goes in saying "the plans exist to redevelop Gay Meadow - there is no need for the club to move". Then there a number of letters that go in explaining why this is wrong. The issue dies. Then a couple of months later a letter is published saying "the plans exist to redevelop Gay Meadow - there is no need for the club to move" and the whole process starts again.
The planning officer's report on the New Meadow planning application says:
"Whilst it may be technically possible to construct a new 6,000 seater stadium at the Gay Meadow with all appropriate safety features and facilities in line with recommendations of the Taylor Report, there are still site constraints at the Gay Meadow, particularly the single access point, that do not make redevelopment of the Gay Meadow an ideal location. There are serious safety issues at the Gay Meadow that would still exist with a new stadium that are of concern to both the emergency services and the licensing authority and these groups would welcome the improvements to safety that would be brought about by a new site at Oteley Road. Also STFC cannot afford to do redevelop the Gay Meadow. It is only by selling the Gay Meadow that the Club can raise the funds to build a new stadium in conjunction with funding from the Football Trust and Foundation. Officers accept that the current Gay Meadow site is not ideal for the building a new football stadium and therefore accept the case for the need for STFC to relocate."
The Planning Officer's Report also summaries the views of The Chairman of Shropshire County Council Safety Advisory Group:
"The County Council is responsible for deciding the terms on which safety certificates may be issued for sports ground/stadia and in doing so pays particular regard to the views of the Safety Advisory Group. The Group saw plans of the previous scheme and was unanimously of the view that is was far better to have new facilities specifically designed to current guidelines, rather than trying to upgrade facilities which may have passed their "sell-by-date"... From a pure safety perspective, the support for the concept of a new 10,000 seater stadium at Oteley Road is therefore stronger than ever.
"It is not considered particularly fruitful to consider the idea of somehow 'dropping' the new designed stadium on to the existing Gay Meadow site, as there are physical constraints at the existing site which cannot be altered, such as one side of the ground backs immediately onto the River, one end backs onto the Wakeman School and the other end is in close proximity to the railway. However, the most significant problem is the limited opportunities for access/egress through "The Narrows" and the implications that this poses for the evacuation of spectators. In other words, even if a brand new stadium could somehow be 'dropped' onto the Gay Meadow site, those physical constraints would still remain and would have to be taken into account for safety certification purposes."
In other words the weight of professional opinion is that the plans referred to in the letter are now impractical. There is no way that a 10,000 all-seat stadium could be safely accomodated on Gay Meadow.
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Feb 7, 2004 11:08:40 GMT 1
Ironically A P Page is another from Meole Village and he IS NOT a Town fan...more a complaining old bark and his neighbors called him that.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Feb 7, 2004 11:16:40 GMT 1
The letter is, virtually word for word, one that appeared in the Chronicle under the name A P Page three or more years ago. This issue has been debated, at length, in the Chronicle letters pages for over three years. A letter goes in saying "the plans exist to redevelop Gay Meadow - there is no need for the club to move". Then there a number of letters that go in explaining why this is wrong. The issue dies. Then a couple of months later a letter is published saying "the plans exist to redevelop Gay Meadow - there is no need for the club to move" and the whole process starts again. The planning officer's report on the New Meadow planning application says: "Whilst it may be technically possible to construct a new 6,000 seater stadium at the Gay Meadow with all appropriate safety features and facilities in line with recommendations of the Taylor Report, there are still site constraints at the Gay Meadow, particularly the single access point, that do not make redevelopment of the Gay Meadow an ideal location. There are serious safety issues at the Gay Meadow that would still exist with a new stadium that are of concern to both the emergency services and the licensing authority and these groups would welcome the improvements to safety that would be brought about by a new site at Oteley Road. Also STFC cannot afford to do redevelop the Gay Meadow. It is only by selling the Gay Meadow that the Club can raise the funds to build a new stadium in conjunction with funding from the Football Trust and Foundation. Officers accept that the current Gay Meadow site is not ideal for the building a new football stadium and therefore accept the case for the need for STFC to relocate." The Planning Officer's Report also summaries the views of The Chairman of Shropshire County Council Safety Advisory Group: "The County Council is responsible for deciding the terms on which safety certificates may be issued for sports ground/stadia and in doing so pays particular regard to the views of the Safety Advisory Group. The Group saw plans of the previous scheme and was unanimously of the view that is was far better to have new facilities specifically designed to current guidelines, rather than trying to upgrade facilities which may have passed their "sell-by-date"... From a pure safety perspective, the support for the concept of a new 10,000 seater stadium at Oteley Road is therefore stronger than ever. "It is not considered particularly fruitful to consider the idea of somehow 'dropping' the new designed stadium on to the existing Gay Meadow site, as there are physical constraints at the existing site which cannot be altered, such as one side of the ground backs immediately onto the River, one end backs onto the Wakeman School and the other end is in close proximity to the railway. However, the most significant problem is the limited opportunities for access/egress through "The Narrows" and the implications that this poses for the evacuation of spectators. In other words, even if a brand new stadium could somehow be 'dropped' onto the Gay Meadow site, those physical constraints would still remain and would have to be taken into account for safety certification purposes." In other words the weight of professional opinion is that the plans referred to in the letter are now impractical. There is no way that a 10,000 all-seat stadium could be safely accomodated on Gay Meadow. that is all well and good but i think we should rebuild gay meadow because no-one has really investigated that option yet
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Feb 7, 2004 11:22:16 GMT 1
Start a petition to stay at Gay Meadow at the next home game and we'll see how many signatures you get.
We got over 3,000 signatures on our petition in support of the New Meadow.
|
|
|
Post by kickinpretty on Feb 7, 2004 11:27:45 GMT 1
I really do take acception to that paragraph as it is very possible to have access from two directions at Gay Meadow.
There is a council depot on Underdale road that has an access road leading right the way upto the Railway bridge crossing the river. It would be a simple enough undertaking to extend this route to go under the railway bridge and connect to the Gya meadow car park, the ground could be raised a little to combat any efects of the river level rising and preventing vehicle access.
I have walked the entire route and this is possible and could be done at very little cost, so to say only one access at the Gay Meadow is possible is wrong.
If the second access route was built then the problem of crowd capacity is resolved.
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Feb 7, 2004 11:44:16 GMT 1
Jonah.... your last sentance summed you up.
Do the exist..?
You missed out a Y and you are missing out a huge WHY.
To develop the Gay Meadow you need to move the pitch period. The Wakeman School needs natural light as its an education establishment, thus you cant build any move structures or make a roof. There is the small problem of the river, creating a jetty and putting a stand on pillers to support the roof costs millions. (research and look at Fulham). On the otherside is the railway.
STFC would have to play in a different stadium for 2 years whilst redevelopment went on. When they came back there would be even less places to park.
Nice idea. A nice dream. but sorry pal, your idea is totally impractcle and unrealistic.
I love the Meadow, but it's now 2004. Its time to move on.
Nothing can take away our past, but its the future that is important.
|
|
|
Post by Reverend on Feb 7, 2004 12:08:39 GMT 1
The plans would have to be re-drawn if you want to stay on the GM, they involve rather large concrete pillars along the riverside, so the river bank would have to be Destroyed, one final thing lots of new laws have been brought in for the disabled, so the plans would have to be severly altered to accomodate for the new laws, the whole gound would have to be lifted for flood water tanks, the list of why nots goes on. The main factors for me are the disability issue and then the financial isue for the club, compere the two plans and see which the club could increase the revenue from, the land at Oteley offers far greater opportunities for the club and the general public than any plan could for the GM. STFC are moving, New Meadow here we come.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Feb 7, 2004 12:13:00 GMT 1
I really do take acception to that paragraph as it is very possible to have access from two directions at Gay Meadow. There is a council depot on Underdale road that has an access road leading right the way upto the Railway bridge crossing the river. It would be a simple enough undertaking to extend this route to go under the railway bridge and connect to the Gya meadow car park, the ground could be raised a little to combat any efects of the river level rising and preventing vehicle access. I have walked the entire route and this is possible and could be done at very little cost, so to say only one access at the Gay Meadow is possible is wrong. If the second access route was built then the problem of crowd capacity is resolved. no offence kickin, but that is not an access route for thousands of fans
|
|
|
Post by kickinpretty on Feb 7, 2004 12:40:25 GMT 1
No offence TBH - It could be if the funding was in place.
Im not advocating staying all im saying is if the money was there then a developement could be built, the moneys not there so the best thing we can do is move to Otley.
The arches themselves (theres 3 i think) have developement opportunites as they could be converted into a nightclub/conference facility, restaurant with riverside seating, it just takes a bit of vision and lots of money for things to happen, we would also need to buy the land off British Rail, another thing is that theres an old canal bridge that goes under the dana from the back of the buttermarket onto the railway bridge, a developement in conjunction with the council could see a link road being built to the abbey foregate area from castle foregate, giving more opportunities to improve the town centre and get rid of the cars by increasing the paved areas.
Its all about money and vision, something we have very little of in this town.
|
|
|
Post by Reverend on Feb 7, 2004 14:16:54 GMT 1
Where would the five a side pitches go, and the training pitch etc?
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Feb 7, 2004 16:34:08 GMT 1
Jonah.... your last sentance summed you up.
Sorry snapper but what is that supposed to mean ??
Kickin nothing wrong with a vision mate. All about money these days I agree and yes it looks like the move is the only option.
Goes back to some of my original posts that STFC have gone about the presentation to the majority in a very unprofessional way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2004 16:41:07 GMT 1
The arches themselves (theres 3 i think) have developement opportunites as they could be converted into a nightclub/conference facility, restaurant with riverside seating, it just takes a bit of vision and lots of money for things to happen, we would also need to buy the land off British Rail, another thing is that theres an old canal bridge that goes under the dana from the back of the buttermarket onto the railway bridge, a developement in conjunction with the council could see a link road being built to the abbey foregate area from castle foregate, giving more opportunities to improve the town centre and get rid of the cars by increasing the paved areas. Its all about money and vision, something we have very little of in this town. Those arches flood a lot more regularly than the meadow does.
|
|