Pressley (6 Viewers)

Ring Of Steel said:

There was no architect involved in that, just someone adept with photoshop to take the old West Stand, tart it up, combine it with Rotherham’s ground and make it look all shiny.

Click to expand...

I *think* it was revealed to be a rejected proposal for Brentford's ground.

There were architects though!

mark82 said:

The SCG (or supporters forum as it now is) has continued and meets about once a quarter. All the supporters groups have a representative and we will have at the next one in Pete.

One of the things we touched on in February and will continue to speak about is how that 2-way communication can improve for mutual benefit.

Click to expand...

SCG was different to the stadium advisory group I think. The one that Garlick headed.

shmmeee said:

Warwick was mooted back in the days of Tim Fisher's badger hunt and Finham playing fields wasn't it?

Click to expand...

Finham was for the academy when they were being kicked out of Higgs by Wasps.

Ring Of Steel said:

“Yet the announcement is the most significant progress made on a new stadium to date.“

how do you work that out? There is zero progress, nothing.

Click to expand...

Every project has to start somewhere. The promise of a partnership with UoW means that they can supply the land and so on. It’s also outside CCC jurisdiction so potentially a local authority who can help the club crack on with the project.

If in 12 months time no progress has been made, we need to kick up a fuss. So I agree that this announcement is meaningless in isolation.

A statement of intent is at least something.

Deleted member 5849 said:

Thing is, we've had stadium consultancy groups and the like before, there's always been the opportunity for constructive dialogue and accountability.

I'd like to, at the very least, credit our owners with some intelligence. If they don't work out that some actual tangible progress keeps fans onside, whereas random statements lose credibility, then I'd have to reassess that.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

The difficulty in delivering a new stadium has almost certainly been the toxic relationship between the club and CCC.

The Council didn’t even call SISU’s bluff when they said ‘we’ll drop the legals if you help us find a site for a new stadium’.

As far as I’m concerned, I recognise the difficulty the club has trying to build a stadium inside the city boundaries, but outside CCC jurisdiction.

Surely that’s a reasonable argument to make.

Mucca Mad Boys said:

Every project has to start somewhere. The promise of a partnership with UoW means that they can supply the land and so on. It’s also outside CCC jurisdiction so potentially a local authority who can help the club crack on with the project.

If in 12 months time no progress has been made, we need to kick up a fuss. So I agree that this announcement is meaningless in isolation.

A statement of intent is at least something.



Agreed.

The difficulty in delivering a new stadium has almost certainly been the toxic relationship between the club and CCC.

The Council didn’t even call SISU’s bluff when they said ‘we’ll drop the legals if you help us find a site for a new stadium’.

As far as I’m concerned, I recognise the difficulty the club has trying to build a stadium inside the city boundaries, but outside CCC jurisdiction.

Surely that’s a reasonable argument to make.

Click to expand...

Ah, if only we could get all confidentiality agreements revoked.

You keep saying this, but Brighton's ground progressed to planning permission, then appeal, and then second appeal in the time we've taken to make a statement. And Lewes were not happy, not in the slightest, and did all they could to stop it.

Ultimately, the council can't block it. They can delay, they can frustrate... they can't stop if there's no reason to. Brighton pressed on, they did. We say we'd quite fancy some land.

I hope all these ‘seeing is believing’ types are fucking atheists

usskyblue said:

I hope all these ‘seeing is believing’ types are fucking atheists

Click to expand...

I await Christ in my beans on toast with eager anticipation.

Deleted member 5849 said:

Ah, if only we could get all confidentiality agreements revoked.

You keep saying this, but Brighton's ground progressed to planning permission, then appeal, and then second appeal in the time we've taken to make a statement. And Lewes were not happy, not in the slightest, and did all they could to stop it.

Ultimately, the council can't block it. They can delay, they can frustrate... they can't stop if there's no reason to. Brighton pressed on, they did. We say we'd quite fancy some land.

Click to expand...

You missed out that the planning permission was submitted to Brighton & Hove City council NOT Lewes Council.

If Brighton & Hove CC were opposed to the stadium as Lewes Council were, do you think that stadium would be built? Probably not.

Only a part of some of the land which was being built on was under the jurisdiction of Lewes Council. Yet, to think that still caused a massive delay?

The Brighton example, if anything, demonstrates the importance of the support for a stadium project by a local council. Likewise, another example you cited to me: Rotherham.

The relationship between CCFC and CCC is that toxic and broken, it is inconceivable they would work together to build a new stadium.

In fairness to CCC, it is a tremendous waste of land to build another multi-purpose sports stadium when there is the RICOH. My sympathy ends here as they closed off any realistic chance of part ownership.

Assuming that SISU were 100% committed to building a new stadium... Do you believe that CCC would work with CCFC in good faith in building a stadium in their jurisdiction?

Mucca Mad Boys said:

You missed out that the planning permission was submitted to Brighton & Hove City council NOT Lewes Council.

Click to expand...

And it was Lewes who objected, and it didn't go through because of that. It went to the Deputy PM to decide, and Lewes appealed that, successfully, and it was Hazel Blears who passed it, against the advice of planning officers.

So... what does that tell us?

A site at Warwick can still have interest from CCC.

A council objecting doesn't mean if planning permission is not passed, it doesn't go through.

SISU love the litigation, so an appeal or two would be no matter.

I deal in evidence for a living. Show me some evidence of something happening, anything, and it'll be a start.

Deleted member 5849 said:

And it was Lewes who objected, and it didn't go through because of that. It went to the Deputy PM to decide, and Lewes appealed that, successfully, and it was Hazel Blears who passed it, against the advice of planning officers.

So... what does that tell us?

A site at Warwick can still have interest from CCC.

A council objecting doesn't mean if planning permission is not passed, it doesn't go through.

SISU love the litigation, so an appeal or two would be no matter.

I deal in evidence for a living. Show me some evidence of something happening, anything, and it'll be a start.

Click to expand...

Hang on, the reason Lewes objected to the planned work was because some of the land being developed fell under their jurisdiction. That’s a big difference to what you’re claiming.

Hypothetical situation where we decide a plot of land: a part of it falls under CCC jurisdiction is a completely different proposition if the plot of land was completely outside of CCC jurisdiction. That’s a fair comment to make.

The announcement was last week, lets see if any progress is made this year. If not, I’m in the same boat as you, my friend.

The new announcement has bought the ownership more time. Perhaps that’s what they intended, perhaps not. Time will tell.

Like I’ve insisted before, it’s up to us to constantly badger the owners for answer.

Perhaps @mark82 and @Sky Blue Pete could put together a thread, and collate all of our questions to put toward Boddy, Joy and so on.

Mucca Mad Boys said:

Hang on, the reason Lewes objected to the planned work was because some of the land being developed fell under their jurisdiction. That’s a big difference to what you’re claiming.

Click to expand...

Not really. You said that Coventry City Council can stop it. If there are no grounds for refusing planning permission, it could not be refused. If process was not followed and it was refused, it could be appealed. Of course you want them onside as it makes it a hell of a lot easier and, to begin with, you can have sympathy about obstructiveness. For all we know... they might have suggested a site or two as well. When you're seven years down the line and doing the same circles however, it's a madman who thinks that's acceptable, and turns to others to blame them. Now it's in SISU's hands.

You're seriously telling me a bunch of crack land consultants can't find land that's suitable, in seven years? That a bunch of land consultants aren't versed in planning law, to make a judgement as to its success or otherwise? Maybe they should have hired the Brighton lot then.

In fact, maybe they should have hired somebody, *anybody* really, who isn't a crack statement writer. Wish they'd hired me for that as they must have spent a *fortune* on them.

Nick said:

I just think it's giving them far too much credit, that would be genius.

Click to expand...

Nick said:

The masterstroke would be keeping it from CCC, letting Warwick Uni get all the stuff through and then announcing it.

Just to prevent another Butts situation.

Click to expand...

But someone could just as easily claim keeping the sale of the Ricoh to Wasps quiet and stringing CCFC/SISU along was a 'masterstroke'? Or are they lying, deceiving cunts?