Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?


Recommended Posts

Two more points, the fact that Waggott keeps making such a big deal of, I.e. that the two planning applications are interlinked is completely irrelevant. If both were granted the Club would be under no obligation whatsoever to act on either of them.

Secondly if the Club really wanted to allay supporters' fears on this then they would guarantee that the entire scheme would be conditional on Category 1 status being retained in any new facility. Not merely on both planning permissions being granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Two more points, the fact that Waggott keeps making such a big deal of, I.e. that the two planning applications are interlinked is completely irrelevant. If both were granted the Club would be under no obligation whatsoever to act on either of them.

Secondly if the Club really wanted to allay supporters' fears on this then they would guarantee that the entire scheme would be conditional on Category 1 status being retained in any new facility. Not merely on both planning permissions being granted.

Why, when Tony can use the £1.9m per annum to give his mates contracts?.  All in the plan....and just get his new Spanish and german mates to send him a few young lads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

Why, when Tony can use the £1.9m per annum to give his mates contracts?.  All in the plan....and just get his new Spanish and german mates to send him a few young lads.

That's exactly what we don't want though!

£1.9m saving - cover new deals for Corry and Bennett for 18 months or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

 

I'm still confused about the covenant thing. According to the article from 2016 your initial research indicated this protection was in place. How can Waggott therefore claim that these expired after seven years in 2000?

One of you must be wrong and I have to say it would be very unusual to impose a restrictive covenant  protecting the use of land which lasted only seven years, there'd be little or no point. Covenants usually "run with the land" in perpetuity.

Our research done I think around 2017 may have been flawed/incomplete. You would have to assume with the sort of money involved that research the legals used by Rovers would be more likely to be correct. 

Basically there is only local opposition/ RVBC standing in the way of this from a legal aspect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much for 2,000 leaflets delivered to each house on Brockhall questioning whether they want a building site outside their 500K house for 2 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.9 mill per year the club have to find is a bargain really considering what's come out of it recently.

If the club had to find over 3 mill a year that's a big ask but nearly half of it is paid in grants.  If a club took JRC or someone like that from another club they'd pay nearly that in compo.

They should be expanding the thing not dumbing it down !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight's 'Virtual Match Sponsor' is 'Rovers Select' - our in house competition. Last week it was the Community Trust.

Anyone worrying about revenues and book balancing would be better getting some sponsors on board rather than simply promoting the clubs own brands. No external cash coming in.

My local amateur cricket club manages to find 20 odd match sponsors a season to raise funds. Why can't Rovers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's another thing under Venkys we've rarely had proper sponsorship of made the best of the corporate stuff.

They've just never seemed bothered about sorting proper sponsorship. Strange seeing as we are always told how much the club needs money at ground level.

If i were in charge i'd maybe be looking to sponsor the academy instead of looking to squeeze it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is again some pure speculation on here as regards the academy. I have not seen one iota of a shred of evidence to support any suggestion Rovers are getting rid or downsizing to a lower category. 
 

It is a pure matter of fact that Rovers will have to concentrate on this aspect of their footballing operation for the future because quite simply we won’t have the financial structure to do otherwise.

From the u23 match yesterday I would suggest there are at least 6 if not more players that could be considered excellent prospects and if we can secure JRC, Nyambe and Rothwell to contracts then it suggests a bright future.

I am prepared to wait and see the results of the public enquiry and planning application before taking it forward. 
 

1 member suggests the billionaire owners want to raise funds by selling when they should be putting in from their pockets, we need those pockets for the footballing operation, pitch and stadium upkeep. By selling we don’t encroach ffp rules.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My questions would be about the fundamental need to do this.

Firstly, the only real reason I can see is to get everybody “under one roof”.

secondly, Venkys haven’t asked for this according to Waggott. “The club” has asked for it. Well, sorry but “the club” doesn’t have a voice, this has to have come from someone with a name. Seeing that Venkys haven’t asked for it - according to Waggott - then the only person who could have asked Venkys to sell off this land is the CEO himself. Why won’t he say that?

These answers don’t give us the truth in my opinion. Either Venkys HAVE asked for Waggott to sell off the land in order to simply cash in on the rewards of a 170 house development and Waggott is protecting them, - or this housing development is going ahead simply because it seems a good idea for “Tony”. I think the second one is highly unlikely. Does selling off such an amount of the academy for the current whim of a manager who certainly won’t be here much longer make any sense? Absolutely not.

 

I suggest Waggott isn’t telling the trust the whole story here and I am very sceptical of what this crew are up to. Someone as yet unknown is behind all this. I hate to think this lot down at Ewood are going to do irreversible damage then clear off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, den said:

My questions would be about the fundamental need to do this.

Firstly, the only real reason I can see is to get everybody “under one roof”.

secondly, Venkys haven’t asked for this according to Waggott. “The club” has asked for it. Well, sorry but “the club” doesn’t have a voice, this has to have come from someone with a name. Seeing that Venkys haven’t asked for it - according to Waggott - then the only person who could have asked Venkys to sell off this land is the CEO himself. Why won’t he say that?

These answers don’t give us the truth in my opinion. Either Venkys HAVE asked for Waggott to sell off the land in order to simply cash in on the rewards of a 170 house development and Waggott is protecting them, - or this housing development is going ahead simply because it seems a good idea for “Tony”. I think the second one is highly unlikely. Does selling off such an amount of the academy for the current whim of a manager who certainly won’t be here much longer make any sense? Absolutely not.

 

I suggest Waggott isn’t telling the trust the whole story here and I am very sceptical of what this crew are up to. Someone as yet unknown is behind all this. I hate to think this lot down at Ewood are going to do irreversible damage then clear off.

 

Spot on den. Waggott's answers are evasive to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, den said:

My questions would be about the fundamental need to do this.

Firstly, the only real reason I can see is to get everybody “under one roof”.

secondly, Venkys haven’t asked for this according to Waggott. “The club” has asked for it. Well, sorry but “the club” doesn’t have a voice, this has to have come from someone with a name. Seeing that Venkys haven’t asked for it - according to Waggott - then the only person who could have asked Venkys to sell off this land is the CEO himself. Why won’t he say that?

These answers don’t give us the truth in my opinion. Either Venkys HAVE asked for Waggott to sell off the land in order to simply cash in on the rewards of a 170 house development and Waggott is protecting them, - or this housing development is going ahead simply because it seems a good idea for “Tony”. I think the second one is highly unlikely. Does selling off such an amount of the academy for the current whim of a manager who certainly won’t be here much longer make any sense? Absolutely not.

 

I suggest Waggott isn’t telling the trust the whole story here and I am very sceptical of what this crew are up to. Someone as yet unknown is behind all this. I hate to think this lot down at Ewood are going to do irreversible damage then clear off.

 

Waggott admitted in the LT he was the one driving it as I recall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, den said:

My questions would be about the fundamental need to do this.

Firstly, the only real reason I can see is to get everybody “under one roof”.

secondly, Venkys haven’t asked for this according to Waggott. “The club” has asked for it. Well, sorry but “the club” doesn’t have a voice, this has to have come from someone with a name. Seeing that Venkys haven’t asked for it - according to Waggott - then the only person who could have asked Venkys to sell off this land is the CEO himself. Why won’t he say that?

These answers don’t give us the truth in my opinion. Either Venkys HAVE asked for Waggott to sell off the land in order to simply cash in on the rewards of a 170 house development and Waggott is protecting them, - or this housing development is going ahead simply because it seems a good idea for “Tony”. I think the second one is highly unlikely. Does selling off such an amount of the academy for the current whim of a manager who certainly won’t be here much longer make any sense? Absolutely not.

 

I suggest Waggott isn’t telling the trust the whole story here and I am very sceptical of what this crew are up to. Someone as yet unknown is behind all this. I hate to think this lot down at Ewood are going to do irreversible damage then clear off.

 

I suspect it’s a good deal for some people not sure they are in Pune though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waggott's job is to cut costs.

He has come up with the idea of amalgamating the training centres because it is cheaper to run one than it is to run two.

He then sold this idea to India by saying building costs for the new centre will be covered by selling the land. So an overall cost saving with no outlay and a brand new traing centre - why would the owners not agree to that ? To them, Waggott is doing a good job - let him get on with it.

However, this move will not guarantee Cat 1 Academy, the fans have not been consulted, Jack's legacy is not being honoured, will a single, smaller centre with less facilities ( no pool or floodlights ) benefit the club ? Is it worth the effort ?

So basically cut costs first, consider the consequences later.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

There is again some pure speculation on here as regards the academy. I have not seen one iota of a shred of evidence to support any suggestion Rovers are getting rid or downsizing to a lower category. 
 

It is a pure matter of fact that Rovers will have to concentrate on this aspect of their footballing operation for the future because quite simply we won’t have the financial structure to do otherwise.

From the u23 match yesterday I would suggest there are at least 6 if not more players that could be considered excellent prospects and if we can secure JRC, Nyambe and Rothwell to contracts then it suggests a bright future.

I am prepared to wait and see the results of the public enquiry and planning application before taking it forward. 
 

1 member suggests the billionaire owners want to raise funds by selling when they should be putting in from their pockets, we need those pockets for the footballing operation, pitch and stadium upkeep. By selling we don’t encroach ffp rules.

 

Have you even looked at the screening application and the specification of the new centre in detail? 

The Club by their own admission also admit they'll lose a number of outdoor pitches and ancillary facilities such as parking. How is this an improvement or an upgrade?

Have you even looked at the requirements for category 1 Academies Stuart kindly posted on here? How could everyone sharing a single new facility built to the same specification as the existing STC possibly comply with that?

Are you aware of the ramifications if Cat 1 status is lost? Running an Academy at all would be virtually pointless as we'd simply  be developing talent for Clubs with Cat 1 status to come in and pinch for next to nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Bit of an odd response 1864, you’ve gone from setting up a supporters group at Ewood WMC that existed to hold the club to account, to now just blindly taking their word on a vital part of Blackburn Rovers’ infrastructure...

Edited by Mattyblue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I've missed it but has there been a suggestion that the swimming pool won't be built in the new facility?

I appreciate what Waggott is saying about one site being intrinsically linked to the other. Sadly i think that once the path is clear on the housing front everything else will become secondary

Having a site ripe for development that has cleared all the planning hurdles will not be left to gather dust just because we have difficulties on the bottom site.

It will either be goodbye to Cat A academy and condense what we can onto the bottom site or find somewhere cheaper like Whitebirk and sell the lot at Brockhall 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair Rev I have had a look at the proposals, some I can see a point some make some I don’t think impact on the overall plan.

Car parking? Not really a big issue, many business worldwide don’t have parking facilities and it doesn’t have impact.

Pitches? Yes I have seen the comment but the reality is not every pitch will be in use at any one time and subsequently if they are of a good standard then there is again little impact.

Academy? There are concerns about classrooms and how they will fit everything into the proposed site, isn’t that what highly paid architects and planners do?

Again looking at Cat 1 status, I haven’t seen anywhere any evidence, you will remember what evidence is, to say the academy is being downgraded or Cat 1 status is being rescinded, it is supposition based on conjecture and speculation. Rovers have to have an academy to blood the players of the future I think that model is perfectly clear as the way forward.

In not just taking Waggot at his word, I am looking at the long term effect and future of our club. Sitting as it is, I really wonder if we will have a club at the end of next season (2021/22 already budgeted for). If venkys pull out or don’t financially support the club, sell up or give it away, sell Brockhall or not, the club is in a perilous position.

I look at Bolton and Wigan as prime examples and how much they have sold off following their troubles.

I think with Rovers, it’s a case of housekeeping and until I see otherwise or am convinced with supporting and condemning evidence my view point remains the same.

Not everything is rosey in Ewood garden, there are many many things wrong and that is what worries me more.

This project is in its infancy and may well fall at the first hurdle. If it does then I am pretty sure we might have more to worry about that we have now and that really is a worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get to the Prem is supposed to be the ultimate aim and get back established there. What happens if that came true and the operation needed expanding again ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@1864roverite Whilst the JTC site is being redeveloped under the plan ie knocked down and then a new facility built, there will be no Academy. There will be no facilities. There will be insufficient pitches for the number of teams we have and safeguarding issues. Had there been enough space at the JTC for what Jack wanted to do, he wouldn't have acquired the STC.

All the money raised by the sale of the STC will go directly to India. None of it will stay in this country. There are no Premier League or Brexit factors pushing anything. That's more club bs.

The costs of running the centres do not come under FFP. This is not a move pushed for by Venkys. We've also got the Ladies Centre of Excellence, too, that needs to be factored in. This proposal adversely affects our Ladies team, whose development Madam Desai has pushed since Venkys took over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, den said:

My questions would be about the fundamental need to do this.

Firstly, the only real reason I can see is to get everybody “under one roof”.

secondly, Venkys haven’t asked for this according to Waggott. “The club” has asked for it. Well, sorry but “the club” doesn’t have a voice, this has to have come from someone with a name. Seeing that Venkys haven’t asked for it - according to Waggott - then the only person who could have asked Venkys to sell off this land is the CEO himself. Why won’t he say that?

These answers don’t give us the truth in my opinion. Either Venkys HAVE asked for Waggott to sell off the land in order to simply cash in on the rewards of a 170 house development and Waggott is protecting them, - or this housing development is going ahead simply because it seems a good idea for “Tony”. I think the second one is highly unlikely. Does selling off such an amount of the academy for the current whim of a manager who certainly won’t be here much longer make any sense? Absolutely not.

 

I suggest Waggott isn’t telling the trust the whole story here and I am very sceptical of what this crew are up to. Someone as yet unknown is behind all this. I hate to think this lot down at Ewood are going to do irreversible damage then clear off.

 

I asked Waggott a direct question " Whose baby is this?"

He replied ...I think its an amalgamation...not India.they take their advice from us really..it started internally...its about player development.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let’s get this right, Richard, you are saying the academy closes down for 2 years? Ladies football regresses for 2 years and the DS spoil all the hard work done in the last 2 years whilst the first team declines further into the abyss? And all this without any interim planning?

Please be real about this suggestion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1864roverite said:

So let’s get this right, Richard, you are saying the academy closes down for 2 years? Ladies football regresses for 2 years and the DS spoil all the hard work done in the last 2 years whilst the first team declines further into the abyss? And all this without any interim planning?

Please be real about this suggestion!

Get real, yourself.

It's not a suggestion. If there are no facilities available to be used at the JTC for 2 years, where do all our teams train? If it's at Ewood, that's £2m a year to re-lay the pitch  Where does the Academy go? Where can it go? There is nowhere. It's gone.

Burnley will welcome those scholars with open arms. It's a massive own goal.  We'll not get them back or keep Cat A Academy status.

Interim planning? From Mowbray and Waggott? Apparently, apart from a rectangle where the proposed new TC is, the redevelopment of the JTC is a complete mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ozz said:

I asked Waggott a direct question " Whose baby is this?"

He replied ...I think its an amalgamation...not India.they take their advice from us really..it started internally...its about player development.. 

its not all about player development though, is it. You don’t need to build 170 houses on the academy land,  to further develop players. You just don’t. 
 

The bottom line to youth recruitment at any club is to attract the best young talent there in the first place. Having great academy facilities is a big part of that, especially for Rovers who are at a disadvantage to the bigger NW clubs in the first place. The idea of bringing everyone under the same roof will make no difference to developing young players. 
 

were told it’s not about Venkys or money. The best plan then is keep a current category 1 academy and build on the existing infrastructure that Jack Walker left them.

 

Edited by den
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • J*B unpinned this topic
  • K-Hod pinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.