Back to square one for stadium plan

[garcon]

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.

Nice rant and all that, but let's not let the FACTS get in the way, eh?

 

Since a peak about five years ago, the BNP vote in Oldham has been decimated.

[martjs]

Per my regular internet viewing pattern, I read the Chron Online this afternoon (PST) before logging in here and I thought "Bloody hell they'll be on suicide watch on OWTB"! But all is calm...

 

So all that Chron 'stuff" is nothing to worry about then?

[Diego_Sideburns]

Per my regular internet viewing pattern, I read the Chron Online this afternoon (PST) before logging in here and I thought "Bloody hell they'll be on suicide watch on OWTB"! But all is calm...

 

So all that Chron 'stuff" is nothing to worry about then?

 

We dealt with it last Friday.

http://www.owtb.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=28436

[Matt]

Per my regular internet viewing pattern, I read the Chron Online this afternoon (PST) before logging in here and I thought "Bloody hell they'll be on suicide watch on OWTB"! But all is calm...

 

So all that Chron 'stuff" is nothing to worry about then?

 

*deathly silence*

[Diego_Sideburns]

*deathly silence*

 

Eh? 27 replies on Friday's thread and 28 on today's.

[Guest Scratch2000uk]

Nice rant and all that, but let's not let the FACTS get in the way, eh?

 

Since a peak about five years ago, the BNP vote in Oldham has been decimated.

 

I think that's arguably down to inactivity in the town, since their 16% poll in the general election 2001, and then their 7% in 2005.

 

What i meant by the post Garcon is, the disaffection with the council causes its rise.

 

 

** edited, got some facts before shooting off mouth **

Edited February 15, 2010 by Scratch2000uk

[Matt]

Eh? 27 replies on Friday's thread and 28 on today's.

Take yer Sanatogen and Horlicks and calm down.

[Diego_Sideburns]

Take yer Sanatogen and Horlicks and calm down.

 

You're so predictable.

[Matt]

You're so predictable.

You're so boring.

[slurms mckenzie]

Whether for or against the move to Failsworth, the whole thing is pretty depressing. Why can't Oldham ever get anything right?

 

 

[robboman]

If failsworth does go down the pipe then the only other possibility i can see is to ground share with rochdale or bury for a season or two until boundary park gets redeveloped...

 

ok that was a dream... and what!

Edited February 15, 2010 by robboman

[razza699]

[LaticMark]

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.

 

Not quite! I read somewhere that Latics would buy the BAe site on the proviso that the council would agree to lease the club the adjacent land. Watch this space!

 

[garcon]

Not quite! I read somewhere that Latics would buy the BAe site on the proviso that the council would agree to lease the club the adjacent land. Watch this space!

That's close to what I would have thought, but there are some who seem convinced the land has already been bought for £3m.

 

Maybe the question is whether they took the council cabinet decision of July 2009 as the green light.

[jimsleftfoot]

That's close to what I would have thought, but there are some who seem convinced the land has already been bought for £3m.

 

Maybe the question is whether they took the council cabinet decision of July 2009 as the green light.

 

If TTA have bought the BAE land, I would imagine that they will probably try and develop it regardless of whether there is a ground or not.

[BP1960]

If failsworth does go down the pipe then the only other possibility i can see is to ground share with rochdale or bury for a season or two until boundary park gets redeveloped...

 

ok that was a dream... and what!

 

And finish up sharing Limeside with the rugby.

[al_bro]

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.

Agreed, but if TTA sue the council what chance will they have in future for possible redeveloment plans being passed or help with another site? In the end Oldham council tax payers suffer not the idiots who sit in the concrete carbunkle surveying their many cockups.

[LaticMark]

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.

 

What is the size of the (ex) BAe site, compared to the size of BP? Could we manage without the additional 11.75 acres that's in dispute?

 

Just a thought! Answers in acres please!

 

[De_La_Vega]

Sounds familiar...

 

However, while it is great fun getting on the anti-OMBC bandwagon and they certainly do not do themselves a huge number of favours, they do represent too easy a target for the general pissing and moaning that makes up 90% of this messageboard. My old man used to work at the Council in the counting house and he saw a different story from below the demise of a number of schemes that have now been classified as examples of "OMBC cocking up again".

 

Bottom line is that while sending incomplete documentation is a joke, not everything in this town is the Council's fault. Why are we not up in arms that the Charity Commission has this level of power? What is of more value to this town at this stage - a memorial to a rapidly receding war or a sustainable sports team? In Australia they didn't put up memorials and gardens, they built swimming pools and tennis courts which were endowed with memorials and civic guardianship. Why can the legacy of Ina Clayton ensure that a potentially wonderful site becomes shabbier than ever and serves only dog-walkers and a small group of easily relocated sporting clubs? I'm not sure if that is all the Council's fault.

 

Oldham is a :censored:hole and part of that reason is that civic pride is at an all-time low and external companies don't want to get involved with the place. Part of that will be down to the self-obsessed NIMBY's who complain about EVERY initiative put forward by the club / town / central government. We are a town of people who blame someone else for everything to make ourselves feel better, and that is reflected on this site every day. It is boring.

[leeslover]

Bottom line is that while sending incomplete documentation is a joke, not everything in this town is the Council's fault. Why are we not up in arms that the Charity Commission has this level of power? What is of more value to this town at this stage - a memorial to a rapidly receding war or a sustainable sports team? In Australia they didn't put up memorials and gardens, they built swimming pools and tennis courts which were endowed with memorials and civic guardianship. Why can the legacy of Ina Clayton ensure that a potentially wonderful site becomes shabbier than ever and serves only dog-walkers and a small group of easily relocated sporting clubs? I'm not sure if that is all the Council's fault.

It's a shame that government bodies were trusted to look after the gifts of land but I fail to see why a set of grasping :censored:ty councillors who were asked to undertake that duty should be able to ride roughshod over the wishes of the benefactor, who if they'd known that would happen might well just have tarmaced the lot and left their families more money.

[De_La_Vega]

If the Council sees fit then they can issue a compulsory purchase order to enforce the sale of land if it is manifestly in the best interests of the Council and therefore the town, so why should Clayton playing fields be any different?

 

Where do we send the Town's only remotely viable sporting concern? If we don't take action then the team ceases to exist, and if that means building over some playing fields or charity land that is a war memorial then we should do - such action should not be an immediate recourse but the fact is now that the stadium question has been plumbed so thoroughly without resolution that I for one feel that it would be justified. After all, if the sports pitches at Clayton were relocated or the memorial garden were reconsecrated elsewhere with due ceremony and potentially a nod towards more recent casualties, then who would be the poorer for it?

[Luke Becketts Anchor]

If the Council sees fit then they can issue a compulsory purchase order to enforce the sale of land if it is manifestly in the best interests of the Council and therefore the town, so why should Clayton playing fields be any different?

 

Where do we send the Town's only remotely viable sporting concern? If we don't take action then the team ceases to exist, and if that means building over some playing fields or charity land that is a war memorial then we should do - such action should not be an immediate recourse but the fact is now that the stadium question has been plumbed so thoroughly without resolution that I for one feel that it would be justified. After all, if the sports pitches at Clayton were relocated or the memorial garden were reconsecrated elsewhere with due ceremony and potentially a nod towards more recent casualties, then who would be the poorer for it?

 

Do you know what, you're right. Let's build it in Tandle Hill Park.

[De_La_Vega]

Why not? It isn't in my back yard!

[leeslover]

If the Council sees fit then they can issue a compulsory purchase order to enforce the sale of land if it is manifestly in the best interests of the Council and therefore the town, so why should Clayton playing fields be any different?

 

Where do we send the Town's only remotely viable sporting concern? If we don't take action then the team ceases to exist, and if that means building over some playing fields or charity land that is a war memorial then we should do - such action should not be an immediate recourse but the fact is now that the stadium question has been plumbed so thoroughly without resolution that I for one feel that it would be justified. After all, if the sports pitches at Clayton were relocated or the memorial garden were reconsecrated elsewhere with due ceremony and potentially a nod towards more recent casualties, then who would be the poorer for it?

I think you are firstly mixing two things up, and then talking a bit of bollocks (no offence intended of course).

 

 

Compulsory purchase orders and the use of land held in Trust (a much maligned word of late) are not the same thing, or even close. Hence, paying over the odds to knock some substandard housing down or take some land for some project is not the same as deciding to override your legal duties to carry through the wishes of the person who left something to the town for a particular purpose. I'm not sure they can force the compulsary purchase of something they effectively own, but only under certain conditions.

 

And you talk off, "manifestly in the best interests of the Council and therefore the town." Forgive me, I think it is well within the interests of the town to have a successful club and associated development, but it's not the be all and end all for the town. Tarmac Tangs to put Latics there? Hmmm. I think it's a bit too hilly thank God, but even if it weren't it's a gem in Oldham's shabby crown, and was GIVEN IN TRUST as a gift to the town of Roytonfollowing peace after WW1, IIRC correctly from a local worthy whose son had died. As much as I want a new ground to happen I am not going to ignore reasonable arguments or fair legal reasons why a certain site isn't available.

[De_La_Vega]

If by Tang's you mean Tandle Hills, then I would have hoped that my reference to back-yards was a joke playing on the idea of the acronym "NIMBY" which means "Not In My Back Yard". Hence I used a clever feint to add levity to an obviously fatuous comment. Apologies, henceforth I will start all such comments with JOKE WARNING: DO NOT TAKE ENTIRELY SERIOUSLY.

 

As for the land held in trust and compulsory purchases, I am not stupid and the reference to talking bollocks does not really suit the proposal. As I understand it the Council has the capacity to enforce sale of land that is required for public use, and if a sale cannot be agreed then compensation is required. I know it is tough, but the "compulsory" part of the title is a clue as to the inevitability of the process. Obviously it cannot be done on a whim, but forgive me if I'm wrong did the club not offer to relocate better facilities nearbye to compensate for the loss of land, and is the survival of one (maybe even two if a CPO were used) of the Town's biggest social outlets not of extreme concern?

 

I never once intended that land held in trust and a CPO be confused, but given that there is a legacy reason for the playing fields being preserved would a CPO not be the correct method of dissolving such a behest? And furthermore, would the relocation nearbye of an enhanced site not provide adequate compensation? As I understand a CPO, land can be bought up through a legal process and decided upon in a court of law - there are no certain conditions beyond what a court decides.

 

Oh, and I never suggested it was "the be all and end all". But playing Devil's Advocate I would suggest that neither are the playing fields, and I would argue that as they are used by fewer people they are less in the public interest - wouldn't you?

Edited February 18, 2010 by De_La_Vega