That's cos he ain't a defender!

Quite conceivably only 3 out of tonight's starting 11 2ill be here next season. Kaminsky, Lenihan and Brereton. You've got to love these "slow builds"!

I'm on the red button and no commentary?

Agreed. Hopefully any concerns will be shared with all relevant parties in due course. However you have to start somewhere and it would be odd to have concerns and not air them on here.

Good grief. Waggott can shed crocodile tears all he likes about how important Cat 1 status is to him (a week after nearly everyone kicked off about it btw). However he is driving a move to a new facility and site both roughly half the combined size of our existing ones that would seem on perusal of the Cat 1 regulations to be extremely unlikely to meet the requirements for a variety of reasons. That would tend to suggest that despite what he claims it isn't that important to him at all!

Exactly! What do you think? In my view, actions speak very much louder than words in this instance!

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.

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.

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."

Nail, hammer, head.

You can build what you want but you can't magic up space that doesn't exist John. What if the proof of concept applications both go through but further inquiry reveals that the more restricted site is completely incompatible with Cat 1 Regulations? (Which I think it clearly would be) Do you actually think the Club would scrap the plans at that stage? Can we afford to take that risk?

I really don't know where you're coming from on this John, the Cat 1 status relates to the existing SEPARATE facilities. Surely if we have to rebuild a completely new training facility from scratch then the existing classification becomes redundant and we would have to go about obtaining Cat 1 status all over again. To use an extreme example to prove a point, if the Club sold the STC site, knocked down the original facility where the Academy is now, and replaced it with a large portakabin, that wouldn't attract Cat 1 status merely because we'd had it in the past would it? In the current case, we'll give the Club the benefit of the doubt and assume they are going to build what they say they are if both proposals are passed. The screening application refers to a facility of "similar scale" and identical specification m to the existing STC. How can we possibly be sure that cramming everyone into a building the size of the existing STC and losing at least half of our pitch space would meet Cat 1 requirements? Have the Club told you that they've taken any precautionary steps to try and ascertain whether we would be Cat 1 compliant?

Been reviewing this thread and found this in relation to Crystal Palace's new Academy which surely lays bare the motivation behind our scheme. They have seemingly drawn up detailed plans of a sparkling new facility and received confirmation of Category 1 status before it was completed. So seemingly it is possible to do that. If our genuine intention was to upgrade the training facilities, surely we would have drawn up the detailed plans a la Palace and obtained confirmation that Cat 1 status would be approved for the new facility BEFORE taking any steps to sell one of the sites? http://cpfc.co.uk/news/2020/july/crystal-palace-fc-secures-category-1-status-for-its-academy

Balaji the Builder in his little hard builders hat is admittedly a very pleasing image and would at least bring some financial sense to these bizarre plans, if not footballing ones. It doesn't take into account anything that happened at Coventry though does it?

Exactly. Top post. You can't expect a Damien Duff or a Phil Jones out of the Academy every season, they only come along once every ten years or so at best but we do seem to be producing a string of decent youngsters who could do a job for us and who probably would under a different manager.

Ozz said £15m from the sale of the land as a ball park figure. Maybe that was a figure Waggott gave to the Supporters Trust? Less than a year's running losses. Then you have the new training centre to build (supposedly).

He was talking about years in the future I think.

I wasn't a supporter of the original Venky's out campaign because I didn't see the point in ousting multi billionaire owners in favour of people who can't afford to fund us. Still don't. If a genuine alternative with sufficient financial clout comes along then it's a discussion worth having but not until then for me.

Funny you should say that............

If that was the case it would be a rationale, yet he appears to be claiming the owners may well have to fork out towards it. Who commits to any sort of redevelopment project without any idea of the likely cost?

It's not just people who used to go to QEGS who are dissatisfied with Mowbray though is it? I'm surprised at the level of apathy to darren rovers suggestion in general, not just from you. I see where people are coming from and my own personal view is that people are unlikely to be flocking back to Ewood in any sort of numbers until Waggott Mowbray and Venus leave . Simply because they aren't up to the job and will never produce the football or results. However an initiative to try and do something positive should surely only be applauded, if it doesn't come off then there's nothing lost, the only people losing out are those that have put their time and effort into it, it's no skin off anyone else's nose.

Jus Just trying to make sense of why anyone would want to bother with a scheme which will leave us with worse facilities than the ones we already have, will almost certainly lose us Category 1 Academy Status, will probably leave us with nowhere at all to train for a considerable period and which we are told , may need the owners to fork out yet again to meet any shortfall! No suggestion at all anything illegal would be going on but as matt says it appears on the face of it that it appears to raise moral issues.

👍

Good point, cheers.

Yes, but if it was me I would have qualified that comment along the lines that whilst that was what the Club had said, my own view was that it was extremely odd there was no detail whatsoever available about the proposed new combined training centre as without that it was impossible to say whether it would be a desirable thing or not. I realise you're a lot more diplomatic than me but there you go. Would you mind me asking what your own view is on the desirability of the project?