italiahorse
Well-Known Member
And when its finally built a generation of fans will be lost.
All true.
But supposing no deal can be agreed to keep the club at RA for the long term, and suppose sisu actually goes on to buy this (or any other) site.
Then at some point in the future there will be a new 'reality' where other agenda's will gain priority. Just think for a second about the potential job creation. It will require thousands of labor years and I think a few politicians would welcome that.
And a lot of money is involved - I would expect a lot of people and businesses would be attracted by the potential to make a nice profit. Their influence cannot be underestimated.
yeh the ricoh should be the clubs not the councils.
Here's a thought, 2 sites have been identified 1 site has been made public, the skyblues, in theory require 2 sites, 1 for the training complex and academy and 2 would be for the new stadium...... Brandon to me looks like a potential area which would cater comfortably with a new training and academy set up, with a potential second site identified as well i get the feeling this will be the new site of the training ground rather than the new home..... The problem i have is what its replacing, where would the Bees go......
Although I agree that this might be highly tactical, the article does say
"The site has been sold to the Sky Blues subject to contract."
Which suggests more than just bluster!
I believe CCFC will seriously look at any last minute deal for the Ricoh that is offered but they want to "OWN" their own stadium, be it the Ricoh or an alternative.
So far CCC/ACL have not been prepared to seriously offer any ownership of the Ricoh.
If CCC/ACL don't believe that CCFC will leave they think they can impose whatever terms they like (some might call that bullying).
CCFC need CCC/ACL to believe that they will leave so that a realistic and mutually acceptable deal can be discussed.
imp:
Having re read the article in full. This announcement is a joke. So SISU have agreed terms with Brandon. That means nothing. This is purely publicity for today's meeting. For all we know it could be a highly inflated bit, that SISU have no intention of progressing. As nothing is legally binding until contracts are exchange.
It looks like on the other site, that they are looking to agree an exclusivity agreement. These are when heads are agreed and confirm that pending exchange of contracts, that the seller will not enter into any negotiations with any other parties, but again, if SISU do not progress to exchange of contracts, it expires and we are where we started.
Site has been sold subject to contract, is the same as...
I have made an offer on your house, you have accepted. So it is sold subject to us exchanging contracts. In English property law, this means nothing, as nothing is legally binding until exchange and any party can walk away
Works both ways as well. If I was selling I would want to be sure the potential buyer has the money.
Brandon Stadium owners currently wasting a lot of money checking out SISU. IMHO
I just can't see a hope in hell of getting Planning Permission for Brandon. They couldn't even get permission to use the car park for a Sunday Market:
http://www.planningportal.rugby.gov...sPrefix&Sort2=DateReceived+DESC&Submit=Search
Look at the reasons for refusal. Inappropriate development in Green Belt, Noise & Nuisance, Inadequate transport amongst others.
Imagine how much bigger those hurdles are to cross for a football stadium. And any one reasons of those would block this.
You'll also note the presumption against retail development in this location, which scuppers SISU's plans of selling off some of the land for retail to fund the stadium.
This is utterly bogus, imho. They can buy the land, but I can't see how they'll ever get a stadium built there.
im not sure planning permission will be a problem, to build a stadium where there is already a stadium? should the local authority refuse that i believe another judicial review would be applied. its not going to happen, this is sisu welding their power - saying to the council "if you really love the club as you say - sell up - let us own a proper football club. If not - this is what we will or can do. either way the tide of opinion may start turning against the council very soon if and when the fans start to see the council are the actual stumbling block to us simply playing in the Ricoh.
M6, A46, A45, M45 and the M40 are all close by, also the M1, so the Brandon site would bean ideal location in my opinion. Ok there will be a higher volume of traffic on matchdays, but that's the case at most stadiums up and down the country.
I believe SISU mean business and whether they agree to play at the Ricoh for the next 3 seasons rather than Sixfields (this has to happen) or not, a new stadium will happen.
Planning permission will not ever ever get granted - Rugby Borough will not grant it and with a stadium already inexistence neither would the Secretary of State - this is another smoke screen.
I don't disagree with you on the difficulty of obtaining planning for the site, but this planing application is of no significance. Planning law has changed significantly since 2007 and the implimentation of the CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy)
I am sure you are right - permission will not be granted following public enquiry - but probably not for the reason you give. The fact there is another stadium nearby (relatively) is of no consequence whatsoever - not in planning terms anyway. You don't decline planning permission for an office development because there are other vacant offices within a 10 mile radius.
It will probably fail because of access - I simply do not see how they can resolve that issue. An access road across greenbelt or through woodland just isn't going to happen.
This is just tactical for me - and there is no risk in buying the land, it has value. I'd be worried if I were a speedway fan though - that site is ripe for housing development, but then who'd but unscrupulous enough to turf out the Bees to make way for that? Oh, hang on a minute...
In truth I thought it was the NPPF that might change things rather than the Levy. Or are you thinking that Rugby BC could be bought off to approve PP for this, in the face of all of the likely objections?
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the same objections to the development above would apply in a much larger scale to the build of a stadium at Brandon. Green Belt is still protected under the NPPF, seemingly, and there are clear requirements in terms of travel and transport plans.
If RBC's development plan goes against the concept of a new stadium, which presumably it will, then I can't see how this can possibly go ahead even given the changes to PP.
Happy to advised if anyone knows different though.
The only incentive for Rugby council is the business rates - but that won't be enough to persuade them followingn the resdents wrath!!
In truth I thought it was the NPPF that might change things rather than the Levy. Or are you thinking that Rugby BC could be bought off to approve PP for this, in the face of all of the likely objections?
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the same objections to the development above would apply in a much larger scale to the build of a stadium at Brandon. Green Belt is still protected under the NPPF, seemingly, and there are clear requirements in terms of travel and transport plans.
If RBC's development plan goes against the concept of a new stadium, which presumably it will, then I can't see how this can possibly go ahead even given the changes to PP.
Happy to be advised if anyone knows different though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?