Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[RevidgeBlue]

37 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I can think of an easier solution to stopping this project to a long drawn out and expensive planning battle.

Get rid of Waggott, Mowbray and Venus. 

Do that and this scheme disappears. 

Nail, hammer, head.

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

I can think of an easier solution to stopping this project to a long drawn out and expensive planning battle.

Get rid of Waggott, Mowbray and Venus. 

Do that and this scheme disappears. 

And so to would be the downscale to the Brentford model which these 3 aren't even capable of overseeing.

Then we can get back to the Blackburn Rovers model and making the most of the fantastic set up we have. And the backing thats provided 7 million quid and 5 million quid funding along with loan fees for kids from top clubs and resisted selling our own.

Otherwise next thing this lot will be recommending a 12 thousand seater out of town flat pack stadium.

Edited March 16, 2021 by tomphil

[funny-old-game]

37 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Nail, hammer, head.

Then the next crew of chancers get installed and the merry-go-round starts again.

Not for me to painful.

Venkys out for me as they are the key to this debacal!

[broadsword]

19 minutes ago, funny-old-game said:

Then the next crew of chancers get installed and the merry-go-round starts again.

Not for me to painful.

Venkys out for me as they are the key to this debacal!

Oh, abso-fecking-looterlee-looo brethren.

 

But, are they trying to smash some money out of the club infrastructure to offset the appalling losses that their ineptitude has caused, before putting it up for sale? I'm living in hope.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

I can think of an easier solution to stopping this project to a long drawn out and expensive planning battle.

Get rid of Waggott, Mowbray and Venus. 

Do that and this scheme disappears. 

By Waggott's own admission in the LT he is the one driving this ludicrous scheme but if we had a professional, unbiased, independent CEO who

a) didn't try to flog off his his Club's training ground for housing redevelopment the minute he walked in places and 

b) had a normal  professional relationship at arm's length with the manager

then they might take the view that this scheme is extremely short sighted and clearly not in the best long term interests of the Club.

Just because Mowbray isn't a fan of Academies or can't be bothered taking a one minute commute by car or a 5 minute walk to watch the youngsters, it doesn't mean the next manager won't be or can't.

They may take the view, "I wish you still had that brilliant Academy you had for years." 

[RevidgeBlue]

12 hours ago, only2garners said:

47er - that question was not specifically asked at last week’s Forum but Steve Waggott said that the most important criterion for the development was that Cat 1 status was retained. The Forum minutes are on the club website and there is a link on the Forum thread.
One might infer from that that if there was a risk that whatever was done would mean the loss of status then it wouldn’t be done, although many on here would I think not believe that.

That inference  would run completely contrary to what he has been saying in Public though John.

According to all his public utterances, the two schemes are merely dependent on the screening applications for one another being granted and going forward simultaneously and it being vital that the funds from the sale of the land for housing development cross subsidise the new training centre as far as possible.

Not a single mention of Category 1 status being a key factor.

 

[Roverthechimp]

So Ewood pitch is in shocking condition - perfect opportunity to move a youth cup tie and play it there 🤔🤡

[Herbie6590]

On 15/03/2021 at 23:03, 47er said:

Thanks, I haven't got around to reading those minutes yet. As you suggest I wouldn't be happy with an inference because the element of trust just isn't there.

So we need, imo, categorical answers to 2 questions, the one I've asked "will Cat 1 Status be retained if the sell-off of land goes ahead?" and the question you've raised "if Cat 1 status is not guaranteed will the sell-off still go ahead?"

There is a third question, "why did no-one at the Fans Forum seek these specific guarantees?"

Nobody can give guarantees re Category 1 status - it’s an independent audit process. Think of it like a pseudo-Ofsted inspection. All anyone can do is look at the requirements & make the case that you are meeting them. If the auditors agree then you gain/keep your accreditation.

This is Sunderland’s story...

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sunderlands-academy-retains-elite-category-17692854

 

 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Herbie6590
Wrong link

[Wheelton Blue]

I would think that once the  planning application is made formally and the process kicks off properly, people will be able to raise objections.

For the proposed housing development in Whittle-le-Woods, this is exactly what's happened. People from neighbouring villages (myself for eg being based in Wheelton) have been able to object through Chorley BC's web site. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Wheelton Blue

[darrenrover]

29 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Nobody can give guarantees re Category 1 status - it’s an independent audit process. Think of it like a pseudo-Ofsted inspection. All anyone can do is look at the requirements & make the case that you are meeting them. If the auditors agree then you gain/keep your accreditation.

This is Sunderland’s story...

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/newcastle-shearer-benitez-relegations-hope-20168641

 

 

I despair sometimes...what's going on here Herbie??!

We've got Cat 1 Status, it's working well, we're seeing the fruits of it's success manifest itself with First Team Regulars.

What sort of fecking idiot risks that with this bloody barm pot idea???

[RevidgeBlue]

44 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Nobody can give guarantees re Category 1 status 

Surely we could get some sort of indication though, if we were to do X, Y and Z would that on the face of it meet the Cat 1 requirements? 

if we were proposing moving to a single site that was the same size as the two existing sites combined you wouldn't have thought it would be much of a problem. You can build whatever you like subject to planning approval.

However, you can't magic up space that doesn't exist so I can't see how by moving to a site that is half the size of the existing ones we can possible hope to continue to meet Cat 1 requirements in terms of outdoor pitches.

Similarly if the screening application is correct in that the new combined  facility will roughly be the same size as the existing STC, I can't see how the teams sharing facilities can possibly meet Cat 1 regulations.

No matter how Waggott tries to dress it up.

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by RevidgeBlue

[darrenrover]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Surely we could get some sort of indication though, if we were to do X, Y and Z would that on the face of it meet the Cat 1 requirements? 

if we were proposing moving to a single site that was the same size as the two existing sites combined you wouldn't have thought it would be much of a problem. You can build whatever you like subject to planning approval.

However, you can't magic up space that doesn't exist so I can't see how by moving to a site that is half the size of the existing ones we can possible hope to continue to meet Cat 1 requirements in terms of outdoor pitches.

Similarly if the screening application is correct in that the new combined  facility will roughly be the same size as the existing STC, I can't see how the teams sharing facilities can possibly meet Cat 1 regulations.

No matter how Waggott tries to dress it up.

 

Oh, and 89 parking spaces!

FFS, WAKEN UP!!! (or perhaps some don't want to, for whatever reason!)

edit: sorry, not you Rev!

Edited March 16, 2021 by darrenrover

[darrenrover]

5 hours ago, darrenrover said:

I despair sometimes...what's going on here Herbie??!

We've got Cat 1 Status, it's working well, we're seeing the fruits of it's success manifest itself with First Team Regulars.

What sort of fecking idiot risks that with this bloody barm pot idea???

The silence is fucking deafening and says it all for me...hang your bloody heads!!

WE ARE The Rovers!!!

[47er]

7 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

Nobody can give guarantees re Category 1 status - it’s an independent audit process

But surely people know what any audit will cover and whether the new reduced Brockhall can contain all the necessary features. Not asking for an official response from the FA or whoever decides these things. Simply, will the "new" Brockhall have all the features necessary for Cat A status before we knock it down.

[Sparks Rover]

8 hours ago, darrenrover said:

We've got Cat 1 Status, it's working well, we're seeing the fruits of it's success manifest itself with First Team Regulars.

But are we really?  Apart from our friend Bucko, none of the first team regulars (and Bucko isn't a regular) have come from the "academy"....Travis came as a scholar from Liverpool, so did Darragh, Dolan is from the nobbers who got him from.Citeh....  Ryan possibly, he came about 14.....

I think there is an argument for reducing the academy teams to start from 12/13 and get shut of anything below.  Let the local junior clubs have more input into the 5-12 age group and let kids play for fun until it needs to get serious.

Personally I am not a fan of the academy system as it is. For me its all about the scouting.

I do not support anything that Tesco and Tony do, this is not an endorsement 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Sparks Rover

[47er]

Tbh I don't really care where these young lads were playing originally so long as we have them now and they are forming the basis of the first team, or should be.

Could have put my earlier point better. What I mean is that the club must be satisfied that its proposed sell-off of land at Brockhall will still enable the reorganised Academy to meet the existing criteria for Cat 1 status  and should satisfy itself about that BEFORE it embarks on that redevelopment.

Is the club doing that? Does anyone know? Has anyone asked?

 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

9 minutes ago, 47er said:

Tbh I don't really care where these young lads were playing originally so long as we have them now and they are forming the basis of the first team, or should be.

Could have put my earlier point better. What I mean is that the club must be satisfied that its proposed sell-off of land at Brockhall will still enable the reorganised Academy to meet the existing criteria for Cat 1 status  and should satisfy itself about that BEFORE it embarks on that redevelopment.

Is the club doing that? Does anyone know? Has anyone asked?

 

 

Exactly!

What do you think?

In my view, actions speak very much louder than words in this instance!

[Sparks Rover]

24 minutes ago, 47er said:

Tbh I don't really care where these young lads were playing originally so long as we have them now and they are forming the basis of the first team, or should be.

So, why are you so bothered about the Cat status....

[speeeeeeedie]

1 hour ago, Sparks Rover said:

But are we really?  Apart from our friend Bucko, none of the first team regulars (and Bucko isn't a regular) have come from the "academy"....Travis came as a scholar from Liverpool, so did Darragh, Dolan is from the nobbers who got him from.Citeh....  Ryan possibly, he came about 14.....

I think there is an argument for reducing the academy teams to start from 12/13 and get shut of anything below.  Let the local junior clubs have more input into the 5-12 age group and let kids play for fun until it needs to get serious.

Personally I am not a fan of the academy system as it is. For me its all about the scouting.

I do not support anything that Tesco and Tony do, this is not an endorsement 

Before academies clubs couldn't touch players until they were 12/13. The big clubs reengineered the system to benefit them. Satellite centres, parents driving kids all over the place. I read today that Man U are advertising for a job scouting 6 year olds. 

Has it helped the English game? 

Anyway, back on topic. I read the Telegraph article. t seems like Brockhall village is getting an action group together. The comments as always are the best read.

[Ben Frost]

3 hours ago, darrenrover said:

The silence is fucking deafening and says it all for me...hang your bloody heads!!

WE ARE The Rovers!!!

It's not really clear who is guilty of being silent or who should be hanging their heads. Or why you are throwing various forms of the "F" word into every post you make in this thread. 

Personally I expect this whole thing to fall over at the first hurdle, ie these speculative applications for proof of concept will fail.

But let's play devil's advocate for a minute and imagine a scenario where RVBC ignore the lack of infrastructure, inadequate roads etc, and go after the council tax revenue from some new houses, so this actually goes to the next stage. 

That would then be the time to study the detailed plans for the new Training Centre which would inevitably follow. It would also be the right time to raise objections if those plans didn't come up to scratch.

The club is clearly and publicly committing to Category 1. Steve Waggott in the Fans Forum minutes says "the most important criterion for the development was that Category 1 status for the Academy must be retained". The website is even clearer "we are 100% committed" (screenshot) 

The club has achieved and then retained Category 1 ever since the Elite Player Performance Plan was introduced in 2012. That has taken a lot of money and even more hard work.

It also means that the relevant staff at BRFC know exactly what is required to maintain Category 1, and are very proud that Rovers continue to aspire to it and retain it. That's not achieved at CEO or Board level, that's people lower down the admin structure and more particularly the Academy management. 

So personally I don't agree with the speculation that Category 1 can't be done on the new site even if combined with the Senior facility, it will have been discussed and scoped with the people who have kept the club Cat 1 for the last 9 years.

There ends playing devil's advocate. But as above, the only way this moves forward is if RBVC chase the cash above looking after their residents in Brockhall. 

[darrenrover]

1 hour ago, Sparks Rover said:

But are we really?  Apart from our friend Bucko, none of the first team regulars (and Bucko isn't a regular) have come from the "academy"....Travis came as a scholar from Liverpool, so did Darragh, Dolan is from the nobbers who got him from.Citeh....  Ryan possibly, he came about 14.....

I think there is an argument for reducing the academy teams to start from 12/13 and get shut of anything below.  Let the local junior clubs have more input into the 5-12 age group and let kids play for fun until it needs to get serious.

Personally I am not a fan of the academy system as it is. For me its all about the scouting.

I do not support anything that Tesco and Tony do, this is not an endorsement 

I agree and I don't Sparks.

Kids should play for fun, as my lads were growing up, I ran junior teams for twenty odd years and loved it. Many of the lads that were involved as kids, I'd consider now as my mates (the eldest are now in their late thirties) Some left us and joined various Academies and hated it. Parents actually had to do a bit, rather than some bugger else provide a taxi/child minding service....you'll know where I'm coming from! Most jacked it in after a while and came back to us.

However, that is not the point here IMO: Jack Walker provided BRFC with a facility for the future betterment of the club, it's about the infrastructure. The fact that individuals employed by the club within that structure haven't come up to scratch is no reason to 'chuck the baby out with the bathwater'.

If people employed are not up to the job, do not achieve pre-determined goals and objectives, they should be potted. End of story.

This situation is nothing whatsoever to do with the Academy, any training centre or even BRFC. It's about bloody greed and grubby money, with a couldn't give a shit attitude to our club, heritage, history or community. I just wished that everyone who supposedly cares could see this.

I'll jump off mi soapbox, sorry but I'm fecking wound up!

[Sparks Rover]

4 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

I agree and I don't Sparks.

Kids should play for fun, as my lads were growing up, I ran junior teams for twenty odd years and loved it. Many of the lads that were involved as kids, I'd consider now as my mates (the eldest are now in their late thirties) Some left us and joined various Academies and hated it. Parents actually had to do a bit, rather than some bugger else provide a taxi/child minding service....you'll know where I'm coming from! Most jacked it in after a while and came back to us.

However, that is not the point here IMO: Jack Walker provided BRFC with a facility for the future betterment of the club, it's about the infrastructure. The fact that individuals employed by the club within that structure haven't come up to scratch is no reason to 'chuck the baby out with the bathwater'.

If people employed are not up to the job, do not achieve pre-determined goals and objectives, they should be potted. End of story.

This situation is nothing whatsoever to do with the Academy, any training centre or even BRFC. It's about bloody greed and grubby money, with a couldn't give a shit attitude to our club, heritage, history or community. I just wished that everyone who supposedly cares could see this.

I'll jump off mi soapbox, sorry but I'm fecking wound up!

I agree from the legacy point of view.  I have no issue with down scaling the academy and putting the money into good scouting

[Oldgregg86]

22 minutes ago, Ben Frost said:

It's not really clear who is guilty of being silent or who should be hanging their heads. Or why you are throwing various forms of the "F" word into every post you make in this thread. 

Personally I expect this whole thing to fall over at the first hurdle, ie these speculative applications for proof of concept will fail.

But let's play devil's advocate for a minute and imagine a scenario where RVBC ignore the lack of infrastructure, inadequate roads etc, and go after the council tax revenue from some new houses, so this actually goes to the next stage. 

That would then be the time to study the detailed plans for the new Training Centre which would inevitably follow. It would also be the right time to raise objections if those plans didn't come up to scratch.

The club is clearly and publicly committing to Category 1. Steve Waggott in the Fans Forum minutes says "the most important criterion for the development was that Category 1 status for the Academy must be retained". The website is even clearer "we are 100% committed" (screenshot) 

The club has achieved and then retained Category 1 ever since the Elite Player Performance Plan was introduced in 2012. That has taken a lot of money and even more hard work.

It also means that the relevant staff at BRFC know exactly what is required to maintain Category 1, and are very proud that Rovers continue to aspire to it and retain it. That's not achieved at CEO or Board level, that's people lower down the admin structure and more particularly the Academy management. 

So personally I don't agree with the speculation that Category 1 can't be done on the new site even if combined with the Senior facility, it will have been discussed and scoped with the people who have kept the club Cat 1 for the last 9 years.

There ends playing devil's advocate. But as above, the only way this moves forward is if RBVC chase the cash above looking after their residents in Brockhall. 

we will 100% respect jack walkers legacy etc etc 

nothing these people say or do can ever be trusted.  

 

[darrenrover]

58 minutes ago, Ben Frost said:

It's not really clear who is guilty of being silent or who should be hanging their heads. Or why you are throwing various forms of the "F" word into every post you make in this thread. 

Personally I expect this whole thing to fall over at the first hurdle, ie these speculative applications for proof of concept will fail.

But let's play devil's advocate for a minute and imagine a scenario where RVBC ignore the lack of infrastructure, inadequate roads etc, and go after the council tax revenue from some new houses, so this actually goes to the next stage. 

That would then be the time to study the detailed plans for the new Training Centre which would inevitably follow. It would also be the right time to raise objections if those plans didn't come up to scratch.

The club is clearly and publicly committing to Category 1. Steve Waggott in the Fans Forum minutes says "the most important criterion for the development was that Category 1 status for the Academy must be retained". The website is even clearer "we are 100% committed" (screenshot) 

The club has achieved and then retained Category 1 ever since the Elite Player Performance Plan was introduced in 2012. That has taken a lot of money and even more hard work.

It also means that the relevant staff at BRFC know exactly what is required to maintain Category 1, and are very proud that Rovers continue to aspire to it and retain it. That's not achieved at CEO or Board level, that's people lower down the admin structure and more particularly the Academy management. 

So personally I don't agree with the speculation that Category 1 can't be done on the new site even if combined with the Senior facility, it will have been discussed and scoped with the people who have kept the club Cat 1 for the last 9 years.

There ends playing devil's advocate. But as above, the only way this moves forward is if RBVC chase the cash above looking after their residents in Brockhall. 

Apologies for effing and jeffing, I hope you weren't offended because none was intended.

On here, today and previously, I'm wearing jeans, polo shirt and trainers..it's the virtual equivalent of a tap room, the language is appropriate for such an environment.

Tomorrow, I'll be 'suited and booted' and totally 'different gravy' pal, I can assure you!

I really cannot believe your post is serious...is it?  Where've you just appeared from?

Read up on Coventry City and then come back on here and say that you don't see similarities with the same individuals involved.

Edited March 17, 2021 by darrenrover

[darrenrover]

3 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

I agree from the legacy point of view.  I have no issue with down scaling the academy and putting the money into good scouting

Sparks, if that is what it was all about, then I wouldn't have an issue but it's not...you know that!

Edited March 17, 2021 by darrenrover