bossrocks Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Let's be honest, OMBC doesn't give a :censored: about OAFC. The borough has a population of what, 200k? And we have a core fan base of 3.5k. That's 1.75%. Its not winning them votes, they don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigsby Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Let's be honest, OMBC doesn't give a :censored: about OAFC. The borough has a population of what, 200k? And we have a core fan base of 3.5k. That's 1.75%. Its not winning them votes, they don't care. no one does apart from the fans. tragically,in this day and age were kids are starving on the streets in some countries footballers earn 100k a week. football as we knew it is dead,forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 There is absolutely no way we will ever move to Failsworth - even if the council get the Charity Commission to approve its plans, FRAG will appeal and appeal and appeal. And Latics nor the Council have the money or time or manpower to see it through. It was a :censored: idea in the first place. debateable, simply a matter of opinion The majority of the fans didn't want to go to Failsworth. Many just accepted it very reluctantly. No evidence / polls on here suggested no strong anti- view The majority of the local residents didn't want us there. Utter nonsense. about 70-100 people very close do not want it, unsurprisingly, the rest - want ti do some degree / otherwise - meh; the job creation element is a favourable factor - has any one really promotied this? The local councillors and the local MP didn't want us there. Eh? a few went nimby, others saw the real benenfit - jobs, profile etc And we were never ever going to get permission to piss about with a memorial to war dead.Before the stadium plan, few (less than 0.1% of failsworth residents even had any idea there was a war memorial connection. it waas scrub land people let their dogs :censored: on - the campaign against is just a bunch on nimbys using the "war dead" as a poor excuse for their personal desires I blame the board at OAFC as much as I blame the Charity Commission and the OMBC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delfer Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 No strong anti Failsworth view????? Get real Real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Dog Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) @real : Oh my dayz. Edited February 11, 2011 by Yard Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 There is absolutely no way we will ever move to Failsworth - even if the council get the Charity Commission to approve its plans, FRAG will appeal and appeal and appeal. And Latics nor the Council have the money or time or manpower to see it through. It was a :censored: idea in the first place. The majority of the fans didn't want to go to Failsworth. Many just accepted it very reluctantly. The majority of the local residents didn't want us there. The local councillors and the local MP didn't want us there. And we were never ever going to get permission to piss about with a memorial to war dead. I blame the board at OAFC as much as I blame the Charity Commission and the OMBC. You know YardDog I put you on ignore for some wild posts some time back, but credit to you but that is the second time in a few hours, your post sums up my feelings very well. And very factual too. Cap duly doffed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 “The anger that was expressed is a risk you always take when trying to deliver a key regeneration project. I've read this part of the statement a few times and still am unsure what it actually means? the use of the phrase " knocked back" is appalling in an official council statement, and We make no apologies for daring – and striving – to find a solution......the conceit and arrogance is unbelievable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 “The anger that was expressed is a risk you always take when trying to deliver a key regeneration project. I've read this part of the statement a few times and still am unsure what it actually means? the use of the phrase " knocked back" is appalling in an official council statement, and We make no apologies for daring – and striving – to find a solution......the conceit and arrogance is unbelievable Oldham Council is the most daring in the country, don'tcha know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Oldham Council is the most daring in the country, don'tcha know. i hear they're making their own series of Jackass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 i hear they're making their own series of Jackass They've been making a Jackass of themselves for years. Seriously, it takes a lot of balls to :censored: up a town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 All councils are the similar, squirecat. I don't think Oldham are any worse than most other councils up north. We're dealt a pretty :censored: hand in that we don't have masses of easily-developable land like Rochdale and Ashton. Our land is in parcels here and there, or it's locked in by residential buildings, or it's hilly as :censored:, or it's contaminated, or it's protected. And most of the middle and top tiers of the council management (the decision-makers) just flit around working for different authorities - moving from one council to the next to the next. The people working at Oldham will have been working for other authorities previously. Its very true, and not just up North. My lcoal council, Tunbridge Wells, has had a very autocratic elader for a while. Grandiose plans to demolish the town ccentre., getting into bed with developers with a joint venture, plans to build 6,000 homes topay part of it, its 90% conservative, it is run by an executive Commitee of in effect 3 people, but the councillors are completely split. They have just turfed out the elader after a vote of no confidence. Maybe that is an option to try and gt councillors to vote on the leader But if Simon Corney goes ahead with groundshare with no money in escrow he is as culpable as them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 It seems to me that the council are suggesting it takes around 10 years to get into a new stadium. At this rate Latics won't be around in a couple of years never mind 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 It seems to me that the council are suggesting it takes around 10 years to get into a new stadium. At this rate Latics won't be around in a couple of years never mind 2021 They're simply attempting to justify their incompetence by citing failures elsewhere (Brighton etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 “The anger that was expressed is a risk you always take when trying to deliver a key regeneration project. I've read this part of the statement a few times and still am unsure what it actually means? It's loud and clear to me. It's the nearest the council would ever dare come to saying, "Oldham is a town full of backward neanderthals who can't accept change." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 The crucial sentence in the council's statement is: There is simply no merit in us wasting time now fighting a war of words in the media about how we got here. It means the Council does not want to have to explain: Why it misled the Charity Commission into saying Lower Memorial Park was not charity land, by not submitting the full evidence, and so leading the Club to believe it was safe to buy the Lancaster Club. Why it treated the proposed charity land swap as a fait accompli, by agreeing it in Cabinet, before letting its appointed committee consider it fully. Why it appointed councillors to the committee who had an interest in the matter, having already been party to the decision already taken. Why the committee did not inspect the proposed land swap sites, as strongly urged by the Council officers. Why the committee did not carry out a full consultation process and justfy the benefits of the land swap, as required by the CC. If this matter had been dealt with properly it could have achieved the desired solution, and the blame for the current situation is firmly at the Council's door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 The crucial sentence in the council's statement is: There is simply no merit in us wasting time now fighting a war of words in the media about how we got here. It means the Council does not want to have to explain: Why it misled the Charity Commission into saying Lower Memorial Park was not charity land, by not submitting the full evidence, and so leading the Club to believe it was safe to buy the Lancaster Club. Why it treated the proposed charity land swap as a fait accompli, by agreeing it in Cabinet, before letting its appointed committee consider it fully. Why it appointed councillors to the committee who had an interest in the matter, having already been party to the decision already taken. Why the committee did not inspect the proposed land swap sites, as strongly urged by the Council officers. Why the committee did not carry out a full consultation process and justfy the benefits of the land swap, as required by the CC. If this matter had been dealt with properly it could have achieved the desired solution, and the blame for the current situation is firmly at the Council's door. Hear hear Diego. 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.