Jump to content

BRFCS

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

Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 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.

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?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 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?"

I think you will find Tony and Tesco weighing up Blacksnape over the summer for the kids to play on....didn't do me any harm. Up the Blues.! We will soon be finding  better down plezzy literally....

Funked we are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mattyblue said:

This is the best way to try and stop this plan, support the villagers, their concerns will havecarry weight with councillors/decision makers than our concerns as fans of the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In just one article quoting local village residents, I read more about the potential wrecking of Jack’s legacy than from any of our ‘fan groups’ since this whole swizz began. Obviously there’s self interest there, but striking all the same...

Edited by Mattyblue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that there is a suggestion that a large number of residents haven't been contacted about this scheme despite the consultation period ending soon.

Wouldn't be Rovers trying to do the minimum and get this through quickly would it?

Unfortunately I'm not confident that the stuff around Jack Walker's legacy and the betrayal will be relevant to the councils decision. We need to hope that there's a Councillor or two living in Old Langho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by tomphil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Herbie6590
Wrong link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Wheelton Blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by RevidgeBlue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by darrenrover
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.