Back to square one for stadium plan

[robboman]

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-fea...or-stadium-plan

 

[steveoafc]

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-fea...or-stadium-plan

I see mister bates ( have i got that right?? ) has got his face in the paper once more. Why is it that everything is such a toil in oldham?

We'll be living in the dark ages evermore in a crumbling wreck of a town!!

[LaticsPete]

Chron swallows opposition line again.

 

There are a few more twists and turns yet ....

[jsslatic]

Talk about 'yesterday's news'...how about last week's?

 

Good to see the official partner of the club putting a positive spin on things.

[Guest Scratch2000uk]

This town has gone backwards for many years, lots of pretty drawings about how things could be or look like at great cost i might add but, with no real determination to see it out.

They would rather spend £4 milion plus, on a dodgy court case than plough it into something positive for the town

And people wonder why BNP are getting get more votes, with the incompetent tits that iv'e seen over the years running this town it's hardly suprising.

 

[dazlatic]

Talk about 'yesterday's news'...how about last week's?

 

Good to see the official partner of the club putting a positive spin on things.

 

Mr Bates appears to be the stereotypical neighbour from hell with a new found purpose in life, thanks to the stadium plans. Maybe I'm wrong...

But the Chron knows exactly what it is doing.

 

Edit - decided to use The Queen's English after all!!

Edited February 15, 2010 by dazlatic

[Lookers_Carl]

Typical chron reporting on the negative again, but IF what the chron is saying is true, and the high court may have to decide, then in my opinion, the plans are as good as dead in the water, the reason being

 

1) Oldham council have just been told by the high court to pay up 5 million quid for the bungled fraud trial of Vance Miller (will probably end up alot more once he claims for damages), do you think their going to risk paying out another 6 figures of tax payers money to take this to the high court?

 

2) If the answer was no, then this leaves the option of TTA funding it, and given Oldham Council's track record with the original planning permission fiasco, and now this, do you think TTA will take that gamble? I know for a fact I sure as hell wouldn't.

[opinions4u]

Talk about 'yesterday's news'...how about last week's?

 

Good to see the official partner of the club putting a positive spin on things.

I thought the Advertiser was the new official media partner.

 

Which may explain the Chron's approach.

[garcon]

It might explain the Chron's approach if that had changed when they were the club's media partner.

 

Can't be arsed reading the Chron article to be frank. The simple fact is that the Charity Commission has done nobody any favours by failing to be decisive on the matter. On that basis, the "few more twists and turns yet" could involve years of legal wrangling to establish and then challenge a postion; something neither the council nor the owners have the stomach for. Given the council's lawyers can't even establish a decent case against Vance Miller I can't say I blame them.

 

I don't know what precisely is going to be investigated between now and the 3rd of March, but unless that work conjurs up something new I can only see the council reaching one decision with respect to their ability to lease that land.

[Hank Kingsley]

Typical chron reporting on the negative again, but IF what the chron is saying is true, and the high court may have to decide, then in my opinion, the plans are as good as dead in the water, the reason being

 

1) Oldham council have just been told by the high court to pay up 5 million quid for the bungled fraud trial of Vance Miller (will probably end up alot more once he claims for damages), do you think their going to risk paying out another 6 figures of tax payers money to take this to the high court?

 

2) If the answer was no, then this leaves the option of TTA funding it, and given Oldham Council's track record with the original planning permission fiasco, and now this, do you think TTA will take that gamble? I know for a fact I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

 

I don't get how the Chron is taking a negative slant here, they're just reporting the facts which on the face of it are bad news as far as the move to Failsworth goes. Given the absence of any positive comments from anyone at the club I don't really see how else they could have reported it.

 

I've nothing to do with the chron btw, jut think they're not at fault on this one

[LaticMark]

I thought the Advertiser was the new official media partner.

 

Which may explain the Chron's approach.

 

Negative stories are usually on the front page, with positive stories on the inner pages.

 

This is a non-decision by the Charity Commission.

[lookers87]

The line the Chron takes (has taken) throughout all our Stadium plans over the years is appauling. Contrast this with the way the paper here in Burnley reports on the recent announcement for Stadium development at Turf Moor.

 

They're plans include redeveloping another part of the town and developing on the historic cricket ground and in a much more heavily built up area than Failsworth (or around BP for that matter)...and how do you suppose the development plans were announced??

 

Front page delight, 2-3 pages inside the paper on the plans, showing the areas potentially included. Reaction from the club, council, supporters - not a single objection piece. Unsurprisingly the paper see the development plans as a good move for the town as a whole - they will I'm sure cover objections at some stage, but the feeling is that development is overall a positive thing and therefore any objections will be put within this context and undoubtedly dealt with in a sympathetic, but ultimately 'NIMBY' view from individuals. Why is it that the Chron has seemed to be taking the 'negative' line over this and previous plans as its starting point?

 

 

[razza699]

I thought the Advertiser was the new official media partner.

 

Which may explain the Chron's approach.

 

 

M.E.N

 

http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/page/NewsU...1879745,00.html

 

[Lookers_Carl]

I don't get how the Chron is taking a negative slant here, they're just reporting the facts which on the face of it are bad news as far as the move to Failsworth goes. Given the absence of any positive comments from anyone at the club I don't really see how else they could have reported it.

 

I've nothing to do with the chron btw, jut think they're not at fault on this one

 

Yes their reporting the facts, but they only seem to make the 'facts' front page news when it isnt good reading for the club,

 

It took them nearly a week to publish an article re the stadium design, and even then i dont think it made front page

[JohnnyPimp]

It will be interesting to see what the M.E.N.'s take on this is.

[Senor_Coconut]

I don't get how the Chron is taking a negative slant here, they're just reporting the facts which on the face of it are bad news as far as the move to Failsworth goes. Given the absence of any positive comments from anyone at the club I don't really see how else they could have reported it.

 

I've nothing to do with the chron btw, jut think they're not at fault on this one

 

 

The article is heavily weighted towards the negative side, a major blow would have been the Charity Commission saying the agreed with the NIMBYS which despite what Bates says isn't what they've said at all, same goes for the comment about the first battle being won.

 

 

Anyway, the whole stadium thing is boring me to tears now.

 

[steveoafc]

The article is heavily weighted towards the negative side, a major blow would have been the Charity Commission saying the agreed with the NIMBYS which despite what Bates says isn't what they've said at all, same goes for the comment about the first battle being won.

 

 

Anyway, the whole stadium thing is boring me to tears now.

Ten years on from sports park and we're still no bleedin' nearer!

 

OLDHAM........The town where dreams are discouraged!

[LaticsPete]

Even with gates of 3500/4000 there is still no bigger gathering of the town's community than a Latics home match. It's about time councillors and council officers appreciated that.

[oafc1955]

 

I cannot believe that TTA and the council didn't overcome/know about this obstacle in the begining as several million pounds has been spent already on stadium plans and the purchase of the Bae land.

 

If the whole scheme is once again halted, this time by the Charity Commision then we are fooked....even if we were to get the go ahead it could hold up everything for years and a lengthy court case is not what we want!!!

 

If TTA were to throw in the towel who could blame them.............This football club is cursed!!!!

 

[leeslover]

I’m not sure how all this works, can anyone help me? If the Council have sold us the land with their view being that the charitable status is no issue, are they not under some obligation to follow this through if the Commission can’t reach a conclusion? It would be shabby in the extreme for them not to follow through to establish what they believed to be try and also believed to be in the interests of the town.

[KUNGFOO]

typical oldham

[Diego_Sideburns]

I’m not sure how all this works, can anyone help me? If the Council have sold us the land with their view being that the charitable status is no issue, are they not under some obligation to follow this through if the Commission can’t reach a conclusion? It would be shabby in the extreme for them not to follow through to establish what they believed to be try and also believed to be in the interests of the town.

 

In the rarely wrong Chron, in a joint statement issued by the Council and the Club announcing the stadium proposal, Simon Corney said:

“Subject to Cabinet approval, Oldham Athletic will next commission architects to work up more comprehensive plans”.

 

Cabinet approval was given to the lease of the land to the Club on 22nd July 2009.

 

The Cabinet took that decision in the light of information about which Cllr Mohib Uddin, cabinet member for regeneration, was quoted in the Advertiser. He said:

“The council believes the additional land of 11.75 acres – which it is proposed will be leased to Oldham Athletic – does not form part of Lower Memorial Park.

 

When the council checked the status of this land with the Charities Commission they advised that the identified development site was ‘not held upon specific charitable trusts’ and they would therefore ‘not need to be involved or advise on its disposal’.

 

Furthermore, upon checking the deeds within the proposed stadium site, officers have advised that the land does not hold any legal connection to those who died in the First World War.

 

However, it is also possible – if the development eventually receives detailed planning permission – that Oldham Athletic might be asked to make a contribution to the improvement of the formal Lower Memorial Park area which is, of course, to be retained."

 

I understand that since the original advice sought from the Charities Commission, the Council's officers have gone back to the CC twice with newly-found documents, resulting in this mess.

 

TTA bought the Lancaster Club site and commissioned architects in good faith based on the Cabinet decision, which in turn was based on the advice of the Officers who are now charged with the task of reporting back to the Council on 3rd March.

 

TTA must have recourse to compensation from the Council and the Ombudsman may well find the Council guilty of maladministration.

[thelaticsfan]

Lets just pick up our coats now fellas, no matter what happens and no matter who comes in to develop anything in oldham there is always someone who is fighting desperately to stop it, wether its for us or someone else, no one can bring oldham anywhere near the 21st century without an 80 year old complaining that it may possibly give them a 0.1% percent chance of being disrupted, excellent, thank you very much

[BP1960]

In the rarely wrong Chron, in a joint statement issued by the Council and the Club announcing the stadium proposal, Simon Corney said:

“Subject to Cabinet approval, Oldham Athletic will next commission architects to work up more comprehensive plans”.

 

Cabinet approval was given to the lease of the land to the Club on 22nd July 2009.

 

The Cabinet took that decision in the light of information about which Cllr Mohib Uddin, cabinet member for regeneration, was quoted in the Advertiser. He said:

“The council believes the additional land of 11.75 acres – which it is proposed will be leased to Oldham Athletic – does not form part of Lower Memorial Park.

 

When the council checked the status of this land with the Charities Commission they advised that the identified development site was ‘not held upon specific charitable trusts’ and they would therefore ‘not need to be involved or advise on its disposal’.

 

Furthermore, upon checking the deeds within the proposed stadium site, officers have advised that the land does not hold any legal connection to those who died in the First World War.

 

However, it is also possible – if the development eventually receives detailed planning permission – that Oldham Athletic might be asked to make a contribution to the improvement of the formal Lower Memorial Park area which is, of course, to be retained."

 

I understand that since the original advice sought from the Charities Commission, the Council's officers have gone back to the CC twice with newly-found documents, resulting in this mess.

 

TTA bought the Lancaster Club site and commissioned architects in good faith based on the Cabinet decision, which in turn was based on the advice of the Officers who are now charged with the task of reporting back to the Council on 3rd March.

 

TTA must have recourse to compensation from the Council and the Ombudsman may well find the Council guilty of maladministration.

 

 

My bet is they won't reach a decision and it will be deferred for umpteen months.

 

Will compensation come from the council taxpayers ?

Edited February 15, 2010 by BP1960

[garcon]

TTA must have recourse to compensation from the Council and the Ombudsman may well find the Council guilty of maladministration.

Utter bollocks.

 

If TTA really have unconditionally bought the AVRO land before final planning permission for the development is in their hands, let alone at such a ridiculously early stage of the project, then they only have themselves to blame. No-one could guarantee that the project would go ahead unhindered and the council certainly didn't.