Takemeanywhere Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 How many times were we told by Simon Corney though that there 'was no plan B'? They had no reason to believe that Plan 'A' would fail (excuse the pun), so concentrated all the efforts on that. There will need to be a new plan now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 How many times were we told by Simon Corney though that there 'was no plan B'? Exactly, there's always an alternative you just need to have your eyes open and be able to see it. The status quo wasn't so bad, we don't need a new stadium, it would just be nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 The status quo wasn't so bad, we don't need a new stadium, it would just be nice. Ha! Hilarious. Of course, we get our cash from the money tree growing in the car park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardy Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Think you've posted on the wrong site. Keep this sort of comment on the neandertal sites where the majority will find it amusing UG! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 To be fair it wasnt really us who :censored:ed this up, rather the incompetence of the council? it was the council who identified the site, and TTA bought the lancaster club on the basis that Oldham Council told them they would be ok to develop on the plot? And you know what, as much as it has been laughed off in the past, a move to tameside could be the only way this football club would have a future, cos it sure as aint got a future in Oldham Hmmmm. If I were SC this morning, I'd be on the phone to Charlie Parker pointing out that his clueless :censored:tards at the council have already cost the tax payer somewhere in the region on £2.5m after the Vance Miller debacle, and have now cost OAFC somewhere in excess of £3m on the basis that SC bought the BAe land on the strength of their promise of a long term lease of the Memorial Park land, and if they don't want their arses suing for being incompetent pricks, they should come up with an alternative and fast! Perhaps some investment in one form or another, like to money to erect a new Lookers stand or similar!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeP Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm just waiting for the announcement that SC finds working with Oldham Council untenable and says "I'm out!". And who could blame him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Exactly, there's always an alternative you just need to have your eyes open and be able to see it. The status quo wasn't so bad, we don't need a new stadium, it would just be nice. And this is why we're in the :censored:. This club can't survive on 3,600 gates at BP. The mainstand alone costs a fortune to keep from falling down. Look around. The place is rotting. It's ancient. Half the Chaddy End blew away last year in a light breeze. Stay at BP, as it is, and we're dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Think you've posted on the wrong site. Keep this sort of comment on the neandertal sites where the majority will find it amusing amusing or otherwise - is he wrong? is it not relevant what they'll approve at the drop of a hat and what they won't? look beyond your politics and his Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Hmmmm. If I were SC this morning, I'd be on the phone to Charlie Parker pointing out that his clueless :censored:tards at the council have already cost the tax payer somewhere in the region on £2.5m after the Vance Miller debacle, and have now cost OAFC somewhere in excess of £3m on the basis that SC bought the BAe land on the strength of their promise of a long term lease of the Memorial Park land, and if they don't want their arses suing for being incompetent pricks, they should come up with an alternative and fast! if we can imprison MPs for pilfering a few grand here and there in expenses fiddles when are we gonna start doing the same when councils piss millions of our money up the wall?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Hmmmm. If I were SC this morning, I'd be on the phone to Charlie Parker pointing out that his clueless :censored:tards at the council have already cost the tax payer somewhere in the region on £2.5m after the Vance Miller debacle, and have now cost OAFC somewhere in excess of £3m on the basis that SC bought the BAe land on the strength of their promise of a long term lease of the Memorial Park land, and if they don't want their arses suing for being incompetent pricks, they should come up with an alternative and fast! Perhaps some investment in one form or another, like to money to erect a new Lookers stand or similar!! Which was one of the options outlined in the MEN, and an option I personally hope they take up. Sue them for the total expenditure so far on the scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 amusing or otherwise - is he wrong? is it not relevant what they'll approve at the drop of a hat and what they won't? look beyond your politics and his how can they approve a new health centre that no-one asked for/needed with practically zero parking in the middle of Royton yet can't get this approved??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 amusing or otherwise - is he wrong? is it not relevant what they'll approve at the drop of a hat and what they won't? look beyond your politics and his Yes, yes he is wrong, the council have already given tacit planning permission for the ground. The tired, lazy, ignorant and incorrect stereotype of "put a bloody mosque in..blah..blah...tripe" isn't anywhere near the issue. The charity commission wouldn't give permission for a mosque there either, what type of building it is is so far out of the equation that to even reduce it to this neanderthal level of bull:censored: is laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 how can they approve a new health centre that no-one asked for/needed with practically zero parking in the middle of Royton yet can't get this approved??? Because the decision today wasn't taken by the council. The health centre and this are two entirely different cases, one is taken at a local level by the council and the other is being decided upon by a national body, the charity commission. It isn't about planning permission in our case, it is about status of land and whether that status can be transferred to other land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_lead Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 amusing or otherwise - is he wrong? is it not relevant what they'll approve at the drop of a hat and what they won't? look beyond your politics and his Nothing to do with politics and not relevent to the debate. You have no evidence that the Charities Commission would have (or have previously) treated a Mosque development any differently. Therefore in my opinion it is a racist comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) I believe the key is in the detail: They say the council were 'not fully informed' in bringing the swap forward, slammed the consultation process for being 'weak' and said 'conflicts of interest were not properly managed'. A properly run process would probably see the swap being approved, so it might be a case of 'do it properly and come back'. Hopefully. Having calmed down Metty that's how I understand it too. So the council needs to address the conflict of interests and take action in submitting a correct application that EXACTLY follows the charity Commissions due process, they will then re-consider before making a final decision. Then of course there is an appeals process, failing that we sue the council for their incompetence and Vance Millar will be pocket money compared to this case. It was the council that after-all convinced the club to go down the Charity Commission route. What worries me is that this will be a drawn out costly process and time and money are two things we have little of... Edited February 3, 2011 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Which was one of the options outlined in the MEN, and an option I personally hope they take up. Sue them for the total expenditure so far on the scheme. Sometimes you have to continue to work with people, no matter how much they have let you down. If the club sued the council, it would kill the releationship with them forevermore and that would only hinder the club long-term. I would rather that the club used this failing as a stick with which to beat the council into assisting with...whatever comes next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Nothing to do with politics and not relevent to the debate. You have no evidence that the Charities Commission would have (or have previously) treated a Mosque development any differently. Therefore in my opinion it is a racist comment. On this note, lets knock the 'they wouldnt have knocked back a mosque' discussion, on the head, as of now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yes, yes he is wrong, the council have already given tacit planning permission for the ground. The tired, lazy, ignorant and incorrect stereotype of "put a bloody mosque in..blah..blah...tripe" isn't anywhere near the issue. The charity commission wouldn't give permission for a mosque there either, what type of building it is is so far out of the equation that to even reduce it to this neanderthal level of bull:censored: is laughable. everything else gets built, our new ground repeatedly doesn't and everytime, it's been the councils fault in one way or another Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Because the decision today wasn't taken by the council. The health centre and this are two entirely different cases, one is taken at a local level by the council and the other is being decided upon by a national body, the charity commission. It isn't about planning permission in our case, it is about status of land and whether that status can be transferred to other land. so have the council ballsed it up or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 As a member of the anti Failsworth/Newton Heath brigade, unfortunately, there is no solution, as all of TTAs eggs were put in one basket. Lookers was inexplicably knocked down and they've already sold off a chunk of BP. I would guess that the only hope now is if SC can attract new investors. Nope, the club are building the houses themselves and still own the land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Hmmmm. If I were SC this morning, I'd be on the phone to Charlie Parker pointing out that his clueless :censored:tards at the council have already cost the tax payer somewhere in the region on £2.5m after the Vance Miller debacle, and have now cost OAFC somewhere in excess of £3m on the basis that SC bought the BAe land on the strength of their promise of a long term lease of the Memorial Park land, and if they don't want their arses suing for being incompetent pricks, they should come up with an alternative and fast! Perhaps some investment in one form or another, like to money to erect a new Lookers stand or similar!! Charlie Parker I am reliably informed is away skiing!!! :ranting: :ranting: Edited February 3, 2011 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Because the decision today wasn't taken by the council. The health centre and this are two entirely different cases, one is taken at a local level by the council and the other is being decided upon by a national body, the charity commission. It isn't about planning permission in our case, it is about status of land and whether that status can be transferred to other land. You're right about it not being about planning permission Tony, but you would hope the council would be able to identify the status of all of the land that falls within it's administrative borders wouldn't you?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 so have the council ballsed it up or not? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Nothing to do with politics and not relevent to the debate. You have no evidence that the Charities Commission would have (or have previously) treated a Mosque development any differently. Therefore in my opinion it is a racist comment. take his Mosque example out of the equation other stuff gets built, our ground never does and, one way or the other, it's always the councils fault Edited February 3, 2011 by HarryBosch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Sometimes you have to continue to work with people, no matter how much they have let you down. If the club sued the council, it would kill the releationship with them forevermore and that would only hinder the club long-term. I would rather that the club used this failing as a stick with which to beat the council into assisting with...whatever comes next. Would it be the club who sued the council though? Or TTA? Either way if this scheme is dead in the water I think the club have every right to expect compensation of some sort to cover the expenditure on the failsworth project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.