LaticMark

I've singe(d) both of them.

The plans for a new Saddleworth school in Diggle were halted when the coalition axed the BSF funds last June. Not sure who owns the land now, or how big the whole site is, but P&R do use some of it for their warehouse facilities. Transport links wouldn’t be good enough for football stadium and there would definitely be NIMBY opposition. Like Failsworth it would probably be opposed by some fans as the site would be at the far end of the borough. Fine by me though

Could be opposed by the Chad Residents Action Party!

Following the collapse of the Failsworth plans Corney was also asked “what now?” He replied “ It’s really very very difficult, but there are one or two alternatives for us to check out”

It's on the BBC i player, about 7:20am.

When I clicked on this site I thought someone had found a new site for a stadium. Bugger.

I'm hopeful of winning the lottery this week! Sorry, just checking I can still post on the new site!

2, 4, 3 in that order for me. The blue stripe on 2 needs to be a little broader. In some of the original designs the sleeves were also half blue and half white.

One little footnote of the Kaskenmoor site possibility is that one of the local residents in nearby Massey Avenue, who may be interested in any development, is none other than the esteemed leader of the opposition on Oldham Council, Cllr Jim McMahon.

I still like the blue and white half shirts (or the broad stripes) we wore on and off between 1910 and 1966. See singe's avatar for more details

If you mean the Higginshaw Gasworks site, I think it was in the area between Higginshaw Lane and the railway line?

. . . and another one - but only 77 signatures as of now!

Where and when? Are we all hearing the same rumours from the same source, about a possible site close to the Hollinwood/Failsworth border?

This section seems to suggest that think they may be able to work with a different administration on Oldham Council. Are they waiting for the outcome of the local elections on May 5th? Have they been speaking to opposition councillors? Key words here are ‘possibilities’ (plural) and ‘at this stage’, which could be different at a later stage. What could the other possibilities be? The more I read the whole statement the more it seems like sabre rattling to me.

Someone told me last year that on one particular windy weekend night the front door of The Georgian was locked, and there was a notice asking all customers to use the back entrance. Just wondered if it was true?

Steady on!

A politician's answer could be that they now 'find' a site of 28 or 29 acres! Does anyone know the list of sites that were rejected as possibilities before Failsworth was chosen? Stadia developers now suggest it averages out at between £1,000 and £1,500 a seat. The Oldham Arena plan was to develop 3 sides of the ground with just over 11,000 seats. This would suggest a cost of anything up to £16.5m. On Saturday, on Radio Manchester, Alan Hardy said the club had had an offer of £18m for the land at Boundary Park. This would be a short time before the first plans to rebuild the stadium were refused. They would get a lot less at the moment.

In 1899 the professional team, Oldham County, went out of business. One of the liquidators, George Elliot, suggested that Pine Villa move to County’s ground in Sheepfoot Lane. On 4 July 1899 at the Black Cow Inn on Burnley Lane, Chadderton, Oldham Athletic was born. During the 1900-1901 season Latics were forced to move from their ground to Hudson Fold. In 1906 they moved again and leased the current site at Boundary Park from the owners JW Lees Brewery.

In 1897 the licensee of the Featherstall and Junction pub, John Garland, his son, Fred, and a few pub regulars decided to form a football club. They rented out a pitch next to, and under the shadows of, the Pine Mill. Pine Villa was born . . .

Fair point. Latics have been prepared to move out of Oldham (town) for a while as the plans to move to Chadderton or Failsworth demonstrate. In 1974 Saddleworth could have been a part of Tameside, and Middleton was originally going to be a part of Oldham (borough). A lot of people seem to be attaching a great deal to an administrative borough that was set up to run (ruin?) local government services. Although there is no desire on the part of national governments to radically re-organise local government, it doesn't mean that OMBC is here for ever! If the council had taken a generic name like Tameside or Trafford some peoples views might be a little different. real: Do you know of 30 acres of spare land in Middleton?

The Secretary of State for Communities, Eric Pickles, recently talked about councils merging services or even merging all together. If Oldham and Tameside councils merged we would still be in the borough . . .

Chesterfield and their B2 Net Stadium is mentioned in the Chron article as well! No avenue is off limit is one other headline - but then says a groundshare with Rochdale is unlikely. It also mentions junction 22 at Hollinwood as Oldham's major regeneration area! John Battye - remember him - thinks the CC decision set any plans back 18 months to 2 years.

The CC's decision: Following a thorough review of all the material submitted to us we have reached the decision that we are unable to authorise the Council to proceed. This is because, on the basis of the information provided to us we are unable to conclude that the proposal is expedient in the interests of the charity. We are required to reach this conclusion before we can agree to, and authorise, the proposal to exchange the land in question. I have set out below the reasons that have informed our decision, and which have been communicated to the Council. 1. THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS: From the evidence supplied it appeared that the final decision taken by the Council’s Failsworth Trust Committee failed to take account of some factors and issues that were relevant, whilst taking account of some factors that should not have been relevant. For example, on the one hand there was insufficient attention given to the feasibility of retaining the land, whilst on the other there was consideration of outcomes to be achieved under the proposed redevelopment that were not relevant to the Committee's decision. On the basis of the evidence supplied concerning the consultation, this process was not sufficient. In our view, local residents were not given sufficient opportunity to respond, and those who did respond to the consultation were not in a position to make an informed response. It follows that the Trust Committee appointed to make the decision for the Council could not have made a fully informed decision, because they did not have sufficient evidence of beneficiaries’ views or about how those views had been, or were to be, addressed. The majority of people who did respond to the consultation rejected the proposal but we have seen no evidence that the concerns raised by these beneficiaries were considered and addressed. 2. MANAGEMENT OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: There is evidence that insufficient independence was secured in appointing the Trust Committee for it to be able to make an unconflicted decision. In particular two out of the three members of the Trust Committee were too conflicted to participate in the decision: this meant there was not a quorum of Committee members eligible to participate in the decision. It also appears that the Trust Committee did not actively consider conflicts of interest concerning the impact of the re-development proposals on the value of the adjoining land, which is in the ownership of the Council, and how that might affect the value of the charity’s land. 3. WHETHER THE SWAP PROPOSAL WOULD SERVE THE CHARITY’S INTERESTS: From the information provided, there is no clear evidence that the Trust Committee had access to, or considered, certain key pieces of information relevant to their decision. This particularly relates to the value of the site in question, of the Park as a whole, and of adjoining land, both in their present use and under revised use following re-development. CONCLUSION: In order to authorise the Council as trustee to proceed with the decision it has made, the Commission would need to be satisfied that the decision was expedient in the interests of the charity. Given the issues raised above we are unable to reach that conclusion. On the evidence supplied, we are unable to conclude that the decision was fully informed or that the conflicts of interest were properly managed and that the charity's interests are best served by the proposal. We have therefore decided we are unable to provide the authority that has been requested. This decision is based on the information we received in the Council’s application for authority. It remains open to the Council to consider submitting additional information, or whether it can address the issues we have highlighted to allow a fully informed decision to be taken, with the conflicts of interest managed. It could then make a further application to the Commission for authority of this new decision. If a further application is received the Commission will give due consideration to whether the Council has been able to address the issues fully and sufficiently.

UK inflation jumped in December 2010 with the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rising to 3.7%, up from 3.3% in November. Retail Prices Index (RPI) inflation - which includes mortgage interest payments - rose to 4.8% from 4.7%.

It's snow joke, as Alan Hardy contemplates avoiding another financial meltdown at Boundary Park.