rigsby Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Whitebank stadium anyone? Yes,we're fk'd,as i have been saying for years.Just a matter of when the plug is pulled now tragically. The clubs demise started when we were in the Prem,thats a fact,poor ambitions,poor management,poor everything. Ive stated on here Failsworth ws never going to happen and i'll bet my bottom dollar people in high places knew it to. Bail out at end of season,land sold(inc BP),TTA make hay,less than they wanted to perhaps, but hey ho. Hardy retires rich,and TTA swan off into the sunset,the club,what little of it is left will be conference next year. god i hope im wrong,but methinks i'll be there or thereabouts. goodnight vienna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Whitebank stadium anyone? Yes,we're fk'd,as i have been saying for years.Just a matter of when the plug is pulled now tragically. The clubs demise started when we were in the Prem,thats a fact,poor ambitions,poor management,poor everything. Ive stated on here Failsworth ws never going to happen and i'll bet my bottom dollar people in high places knew it to. Bail out at end of season,land sold(inc BP),TTA make hay,less than they wanted to perhaps, but hey ho. Hardy retires rich,and TTA swan off into the sunset,the club,what little of it is left will be conference next year. god i hope im wrong,but methinks i'll be there or thereabouts. goodnight vienna. How will we be in the conference next year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanakapan Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Council should sack parker and the fat lad. What about the land behind rifle range/ ferhurst mill.? What about the land that will be available when counthill/breeze hill merge into the waterhead academy.? What about wellyhole street/ manor flats. What about the site where Ikea wanted to build (matalan, bensons beds retail park ) [/quote counthill will be sold for high value houses......the council is corrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_lead Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 All these suggestions about developing BP. Have I missed something here because to me it's an obvious none starter as there are no means to fund it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forte_Baby Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Correct and where are we expected to build sporting facillites, bars, food kiosks, fuction rooms the sort of thing the club needs as we can longer survive on 24 home games a season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oafc88 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Im not one of them hung up on redveloping Boundary Park, but it could be an option unless someone says otherwise (i mentioned it in a more detailed post a page or two back in this thread). My question in that post was ultimately can the site that can be used down at the lacaster club be redeveloped commercially without a football ground being present? and with it build things to provide a constant revenue to the club 365 days a year. On top of this sell BP off for more commercial development (which could equal more income streams to the club) or houses and thus enabling the club to find a smaller site in the borough. On top of that build a big main stand to encorporate all the other types of facilites that could go in there that create additional revenue other than a match day. So is it possible to create these additional revenue streams without the ground being at the site physically? or is this just not possible? Then again we may all be pissing in the wind as the move may get green lit eventually once the problems have been ironed out and they decide to resubmit going off a post further up this page. Edited February 4, 2011 by Oafc88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Whitebank stadium anyone? Yes,we're fk'd,as i have been saying for years.Just a matter of when the plug is pulled now tragically. The clubs demise started when we were in the Prem,thats a fact,poor ambitions,poor management,poor everything. Ive stated on here Failsworth ws never going to happen and i'll bet my bottom dollar people in high places knew it to. Bail out at end of season,land sold(inc BP),TTA make hay,less than they wanted to perhaps, but hey ho. Hardy retires rich,and TTA swan off into the sunset,the club,what little of it is left will be conference next year. god i hope im wrong,but methinks i'll be there or thereabouts. goodnight vienna. Poor management ? Get real Dollar ? Not american Failsworth not going to happen? There is still a glimmer of hope if the council get there arses in gear. Conference next season? You are a clown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Since I was at the launch for this Unique Stand I've always thought the BP location would be an ideal location to have such a set up for arena gigs, exhibitions etc. Forget the housing. That's astonishing. An absolutely genius innovation... however I would question how much scope there is for an arena of that size in Oldham? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 That's astonishing. An absolutely genius innovation... however I would question how much scope there is for an arena of that size in Oldham? Depends how much the theatre can take- not going to need a massive arena, but something that takes 2-3,000 inside might get used quite a bit. Factor in good conferencing/banqueting facilities and it might get used regularly, especially if you can get a cinema in there too. Think someone else made the point but getting rid of our quite large executive boxes, just when football started to capitalise on conferencing/banqueting facilities when we were in the Prem was a massive error from Stott, Lees and Hardy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Im not one of them hung up on redveloping Boundary Park, but it could be an option unless someone says otherwise (i mentioned it in a more detailed post a page or two back in this thread). My question in that post was ultimately can the site that can be used down at the lacaster club be redeveloped commercially without a football ground being present? and with it build things to provide a constant revenue to the club 365 days a year. On top of this sell BP off for more commercial development (which could equal more income streams to the club) or houses and thus enabling the club to find a smaller site in the borough. On top of that build a big main stand to encorporate all the other types of facilites that could go in there that create additional revenue other than a match day. So is it possible to create these additional revenue streams without the ground being at the site physically? or is this just not possible? Then again we may all be pissing in the wind as the move may get green lit eventually once the problems have been ironed out and they decide to resubmit going off a post further up this page. It is a very intersting concept 88, and not one I am aware of thta any other club has tried. I suppose it's inevitable you have the inhesrest doubling up of costs, so the football clu will lose as much as it does now, and the non football breaks even or a bit of profit. Certainly worth looking into more though. My gut feeling is that SC has to make Failsworth work for all the money and time invested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oafc88 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) It is a very intersting concept 88, and not one I am aware of thta any other club has tried. I suppose it's inevitable you have the inhesrest doubling up of costs, so the football clu will lose as much as it does now, and the non football breaks even or a bit of profit. Certainly worth looking into more though. My gut feeling is that SC has to make Failsworth work for all the money and time invested. Yeah as you say, its all a concept really, i imagine its probably been thought of by most clubs but would'nt work for the reasons you suggest which is that it wouldnt be worth the extra cost. Would be nice if it could work though! Edited February 4, 2011 by Oafc88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Yeah as you say, its all a concept really, i imagine its probably been thought of by most clubs but would'nt work for the reasons you suggest which is that it wouldnt be worth the extra cost. Would be nice if it could work though! Thanks for managing to decipher my post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 We agreed that The Ashton Arms is the one remaining haven in a dead town centre. To quote him (in relation to said pub): "...like an oasis in the middle of the set of I am Legend." or a fertile area in a barren land. Oops, sorry Dave Og, that's been used before! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Since I was at the launch for this Unique Stand I've always thought the BP location would be an ideal location to have such a set up for arena gigs, exhibitions etc. Forget the housing. That really is fantastic....... I just hope it's the away stand that is far enough away from the pitch to fit that in. Having said that, the Broadway side at BP is already to accept one!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 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. Now the Council has to: Go through the whole process of consultating the residents and FRAG, seeking representations about the benefits or otherwise of the proposed land swap and endeavour to seek a consensus view that the swap would be expedient in the interests of the charity; Appoint a committee, made up of councillors, who have not already been present when the decisions (1) to let OAFC use some of the land for the proposed stadium, and (2) to agree the land swap, were taken, with the committee membership including representation from Failsworth. Ensure that the committee only takes a decision on the land swap when it has, beyond doubt, been fully informed, managed the conflicts of interest and concluded that the charity's interests are best served by the swap. We're taking months rather than weeks for this process to be seen to be done properly. In the light of how it has been mismanaged so far, and the opposition from FRAG, I would rate the possibility of the Council being able to address the issues fully and successfully, as required by the CC, slightly above nil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 What baffles me is why the memorial cannot be incorporated into the stadium development, out of 30 acres surely its only a small area which can be worked around, perhaps someone can enlighten me why this isn't feasible ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Now the Council has to: Go through the whole process of consultating the residents and FRAG, seeking representations about the benefits or otherwise of the proposed land swap and endeavour to seek a consensus view that the swap would be expedient in the interests of the charity; Appoint a committee, made up of councillors, who have not already been present when the decisions (1) to let OAFC use some of the land for the proposed stadium, and (2) to agree the land swap, were taken, with the committee membership including representation from Failsworth. Ensure that the committee only takes a decision on the land swap when it has, beyond doubt, been fully informed, managed the conflicts of interest and concluded that the charity's interests are best served by the swap. We're taking months rather than weeks for this process to be seen to be done properly. In the light of how it has been mismanaged so far, and the opposition from FRAG, I would rate the possibility of the Council being able to address the issues fully and successfully, as required by the CC, slightly above nil. Thank you. I had read the final paragraph of the Charities Commission summing-up as leaving the door very much open to a quick return. It's good to get the position clarified by somebody who understands and has experience of these matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Thank you. I had read the final paragraph of the Charities Commission summing-up as leaving the door very much open to a quick return. It's good to get the position clarified by somebody who understands and has experience of these matters. So in Layman's terms we're up :censored: creek without a paddle... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 So in Layman's terms we're up :censored: creek without a paddle... It appears bleak, doesn't it? Does anybody subscribe to the e-chron or have a physical copy of the paper as yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldhamains Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 What baffles me is why the memorial cannot be incorporated into the stadium development, out of 30 acres surely its only a small area which can be worked around, perhaps someone can enlighten me why this isn't feasible ? I was thinking the same thing Someone enlighten us please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepy Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I was thinking the same thing Someone enlighten us please the architect says it has got to go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alec1954 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 What baffles me is why the memorial cannot be incorporated into the stadium development, out of 30 acres surely its only a small area which can be worked around, perhaps someone can enlighten me why this isn't feasible ? This is an issue.. there is no memorial and there never has been one! It is scrub land!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) the architect says it has got to go Why ?...If he doesn't like get another architect who has the wit to incorporate the land. Edited February 4, 2011 by BP1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepy Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Why ? somebody mentioned why earlier in the thread, sorry i cant remember Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 somebody mentioned why earlier in the thread, sorry i cant remember Please can someone find and repost it, I would like to see the logic behind not incorporating the memorial land and why it can't be overcome. 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.