Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[darrenrover]

1 hour ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Literally Darren.

You're so aggressive.

Just educate and stop belittling literally so frustrating to read through your posts.

You have the knowledge use it and share it rather than argue with everyone and anyone.

I'm only "aggressive" when it's required, I'm naturally a relative pussy cat.

What would you prefer?....another 'nodding dog'?

Have you ever played poker?...

[K-Hod]

If we are going to be aggressive lads, I’m not asking you not to be yourselves, but can we just not be like that on here please?

[Guest]

19 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

No-one accused you of taking any financial consideration for your comments or being "a plant".

Yes they certainly did, they know who they are, and they're lucky I didn't take it further.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, darrenrover said:

Let's cut the crap and cut to the chase Joe:

What exactly is your view on the proposals from Waggott?

Do you feel that as things stand, it seriously jeopardises any Academy status, never mind Cat 1?

Let's see the 'colour of your money', never mind the distraction tactics (IMO) of personal attacks: I agree with you on that by the way, it's abhorrent and totally unprofessional.

So go on then, what's your view, opinion and synopsis of the potential outcome?....

Same applies to any others with a contrary view to the vast majority of folk with BRFC at heart: I open the floor; go on, crack on...state your case!!!..

I've given my views many many pages ago, and tried to have that discussion. I don't need to do it again, and I wouldn't if you paid me - simply not worth it. (and some people think I am paid!)

Edited March 19, 2021 by JoeH

[AllRoverAsia]

Hellsteeth, it's like schoolyard kids chat. I'm going to tell my Mum.

Pathetic.

[RevidgeBlue]

5 hours ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Literally Darren.

You're so aggressive.

Just educate and stop belittling literally so frustrating to read through your posts.

You have the knowledge use it and share it rather than argue with everyone and anyone.

Come on lads, let's focus.

darrenrover isn't at fault,or the problem, or the enemy in this instance.

That would be the man who introduced the "Waggott tax", who put prices by up to 25% in the midst of a pandemic and reduced the season ticket base by 75%, the assistant manager who pitched a similar scheme for housing redevelopment whilst at Coventry, and the manager who presumably had us training on an already knackered pitch to keep everyone out of the surveyors' hair.

One or two people might have attempted to misdirect the thread a bit to stop the issues being discussed properly I don't know.

The rest of us need to concentrate on the issues at hand and not the personalities. 

There are numerous potential downsides. I'm Still waiting to hear a single reason why this scheme would leave us with better facilities than we have now. Other than "under the same roof".

Anyone?

[darrenrover]

Yet again, the silence from a contrarian view is deafening......

I await to hear of the positives from anybody regarding Waggott's proposals..

Are there any?....pray, do tell please.

[Ozz]

[AllRoverAsia]

Surreal.

When they get pants pulled down, bent over and corn-holed they will still vote 'For'

Edited March 20, 2021 by AllRoverAsia

[J*B]

2 minutes ago, Ozz said:

How on earth anyone can vote ‘for’ with such a lack of information available is beyond me. A 14% swing between for and against is frightening. But hey - we’ve seen what happens when you put things to the public in this country. 

[tomphil]

2 minutes ago, renrag said:

287 votes in total! Not much publicity about that ballot then.

If a lot of them are Rovers Trust members though...... 🤔

[Miller11]

9 minutes ago, renrag said:

I join in the Rovers Trust/AgeUK zoom meeting (for ancient fans) every week, and nothing has been mentioned on there. Although, admittedly, that sort of thing is not really the object of the meetings

That’s the Community Trust. Different entity that is run by the club.

Rovers Trust is an independent supporters trust.

[Miller11]

35 minutes ago, J*B said:

How on earth anyone can vote ‘for’ with such a lack of information available is beyond me. A 14% swing between for and against is frightening. But hey - we’ve seen what happens when you put things to the public in this country. 

I’d say that’s actually pretty high numbers against for a Twitter poll.

You only need to look at where the votes went in the legends 11 poll the club ran a while back to see how much recency bias and shallow knowledge exists on that platform.

If/when Rovers Trust poll their paid up members I guarantee the results would be very different.

[Mattyblue]

Labour would win every election by a landslide if it was conducted just with regular Twitter users.

Totally unrepresentative and means bugger all, so I’m not worried about that poll at all. In fact considering how uber positive Twitter is in regards to the club these days, the fact that only 4/10 are in favour isn’t particularly impressive for Waggott...

[Ozz]

Possibly influenced by none Rovers fans. 

[windymiller7]

What I don't understand is how ANYONE can vote 'for' without having full details of what is proposed.

Against, yes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

Don't know, again, fair enough. Not enough info to say yes or no.

But how the hell can you say yes until you see detailed plans & confirmation that this meets Cat 1 standards!

FWIW, I'm against it, BUT, if by some minor miracle they're able to put everything we need onto one site then fair enough, I might change my stance. However, without building upwards, I can't see how this can possibly happen & there's not a cat in hell's chance of being able to that in the RV.

So, thank you for your time, but it's a no from me.

Edited March 20, 2021 by windymiller7

[RevidgeBlue]

56 minutes ago, windymiller7 said:

What I don't understand is how ANYONE can vote 'for' without having full details of what is proposed.

Against, yes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

Don't know, again, fair enough. Not enough info to say yes or no.

But how the hell can you say yes until you see detailed plans & confirmation that this meets Cat 1 standards!

FWIW, I'm against it, BUT, if by some minor miracle they're able to put everything we need onto one site then fair enough, I might change my stance. However, without building upwards, I can't see how this can possibly happen & there's not a cat in hell's chance of being able to that in the RV.

So, thank you for your time, but it's a no from me.

The screening application referred to a new facility of "similar scale" to the existing STC on roughly the same footprint as the existing Academy building so as not to drastically reduce the outdoor pitch space any further. The specification for the facilities inside the proposed new build was also almost identical to that of the existing STC.

Fast forward to when the plans were uncovered by an Eagle eyed fan and everyone started kicking off about the potential loss of Cat 1 status and Waggott suddenly starts talking in the LT about a 2 storey build being necessary to maintain Cat 1 status.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but as far as I can remember the existing STC is on one floor only (not 2 floors) so a 2 storey build is not what it says on the plans. And bear in mind you need a very high roof for an indoor pitch, the existing STC is still roughly 14m in height at just the one floor.

A move to the new site would also seemingly only leave us with 4 full size outdoor pitches.

Make of the above what you will, I certainly know what my view is.

If I'm factually incorrect with any of the above, I'm happy to be corrected.

 

[darrenrover]

Just saying.....

Keep the faith!!!

[RevidgeBlue]

Should this thread not be pinned whilst the proposals are still live?

[K-Hod]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Should this thread not be pinned whilst the proposals are still live?

Fair one, thought it already was tbh.

[RevidgeBlue]

14 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Fair one, thought it already was tbh.

Thanks.

When is the next stage in the planning process does anyone know?

[AllRoverAsia]

14 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Thanks.

When is the next stage in the planning process does anyone know?

I was just about to ask the same question.

The Brockhall Village and Old Langho Residents’ Action Group have in excess of 400 signatures of villagers opposed to the plans, a Go Fund Me Page and committed people running it.

Best of luck to them in their endeavours. They are the best chance of opposing this.

The Club in their response to the Villagers actions say ''If approved, the residential development would come with a comprehensive package of investment into community services and infrastructure, as is a required part of the planning process."

The club also say that, as with any planning application of this type, there would also be a series of financial contributions the club would make on receipt of planning permission.

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/campaigners-say-blackburn-rovers-development-19953691

So plenty of Jam promised ...... for tomorrow.

[Guest]

Does that vote perhaps suggest that contrarian view is actually what's been so far perceived on the message-board as the majority view?

[Mattyblue]

Since when is 4 out of 10 people in favour a majority? 

Voluntary polls on Twitter are notoriously unreliable and worthless, we’ve no idea who is voting and what their connection to Rovers is - see any poll on who will be getting voted for in elections and who actually wins as further evidence of the pointlessness of social media polling to gauge sentiment.

Twitter is skewed to a younger, more tech savvy demographic than our support base (certainly our paying customer base), so it’s entirely unrepresentative, as unrepresentative as any other social media platform.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Mattyblue

[AllRoverAsia]

13 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Does that vote perhaps suggest that contrarian view is actually what's been so far perceived on the message-board as the majority view?

I think it shows that the residents in the Village are concerned about their Village and its future.

That article is a little old so now maybe more have signed as against?

I don't know how many people live at the Village but assume those 400+ are adults?

It is not, unfortunately, necessarily representative of how Rovers fans think.

However the Village opinion will at least be listened to.

Edited March 23, 2021 by AllRoverAsia