The Decision Day Thread

[garcon]

The trouble is, TTA have (had) a vision for the club. And although in strict QS terms it may be shown that Phase 1 is self-financing, it cannot - alone - create an income stream to finance the development of the club in the way TTA envisage.

 

I very much doubt implementing half the plan is, er, in their plan.

 

As for splitting the applications, I suspect they saw that as a way of getting things moving more quickly - dot the i's and cross the t's on a full second phase application while phase one is under way.

 

Y'know what? I blame the Chron and that feckin farmer at Ferney Fields - we could be on the way to a new stadium by now.

Edited November 14, 2007 by garcon

[chickers]

The trouble is, TTA have (had) a vision for the club. And although in strict QS terms it may be shown that Phase 1 is self-financing, it cannot - alone - create an income stream to finance the development of the club in the way TTA envisage.

 

I very much doubt implementing half the plan is, er, in their plan.

thats is why no one likes qs's!

[chickers]

and that situation is considered very risky?

if that is so,did the TTAs know about that and did they not provide full info into fundings?

seems the more you delve into this,the more they got their case wrong.

doesn't help when you're trying to convince a band of idiots who "run" this town though.

i would assume (even though ya shouldnt) that they thought it would be a easy wham bam thank you mam, and failed to prepare the case fully, should the questions be asked (and its hard to prepare yourself for the unknowns which may be asked of you!)

 

the fact that one of the people didnt know that the clayton was shut, what a 3g pitch was, and had no idea what little wembley was summed up the kinda people the 3 a are dealing with

 

they need the information spoon feeding to them, they know for next time!

[johnny punkster]

thats is why no one likes qs's!

 

 

the traffic wardens of planning??

[chickers]

the traffic wardens of planning??

we aint that liked!

[stebuzz]

Think it all depends on what the TTA want to do? They can do the Lookers then launch another appeal with the cracks filled in? or pack up tomorrow and leave? Well i think thats the current situation.

cannot see them packing up, they dont strike me as easy quitters. launch an appeal with better plans is the answer, it was pretty close. if two councillors had voted the other way, we would have won 6-5. those 2 councillors can be persuaded.

[garcon]

those 2 councillors can be persuaded.

 

Or shot.

 

Er, I mean voted out.

[boundaryblue80]

i aint educated mate, not got my degree yet!!

 

to sum up yes, as they were both issued as separate plans it leads me to believe that they are both self funding, but both beneficial to the owners corporate plan for the football club

 

I honestly can't believe you think that.

 

To me it's been fairly obvious from day one that building the Stadium and revenue streams within, will be on the basis of them selling those flats that got rejected in phase 2. Yes, they will have £80m to build the whole thing beforehand (of their own money) and will spend that if they get approval, but only on the basis that they'll get that back from the dwellings once they're built and sold off. As it is....no dwellings will be being built....so no £80m being recouped, so no Stadium, so no more TTA......unless they take this on.

 

However, I've been told tonight that they were very unhappy at this being pushed back from October to November and are close to the edge with regards to funding us out of their own pockets with no end in sight to this charade known as a council. One which totally refused to believe a report which was put together and backed by those supplying it that had a combined total of 50yrs knowledge in the Highways industry. There was no real substance to rejecting this Outline planning application tonight....just some concerns which should've been discounted by a) the Highways report and b.) through Corney stating they were prepared to reduce the proposals (from 8 storeys to 6) and which were certainly not enough to throw this application out.

 

I really hope Simon Corney wakes up in the morning with renewed fight and heart....but like many of us tonight....it might take a while to come to terms with what the Council have done tonight! And for TTA it might be too long for them to keep on throwing money at!

[Guest amoweb]

I honestly can't believe you think that.

 

To me it's been fairly obvious from day one that building the Stadium and revenue streams within, will be on the basis of them selling those flats that got rejected in phase 2. Yes, they will have £80m to build the whole thing beforehand (of their own money) and will spend that if they get approval, but only on the basis that they'll get that back from the dwellings once they're built and sold off. As it is....no dwellings will be being built....so no £80m being recouped, so no Stadium, so no more TTA......unless they take this on.

 

However, I've been told tonight that they were very unhappy at this being pushed back from October to November and are close to the edge with regards to funding us out of their own pockets with no end in sight to this charade known as a council. One which totally refused to believe a report which was put together and backed by those supplying it that had a combined total of 50yrs knowledge in the Highways industry. There was no real substance to rejecting this Outline planning application tonight....just some concerns which should've been discounted by a) the Highways report and b.) through Corney stating they were prepared to reduce the proposals (from 8 storeys to 6) and which were certainly not enough to throw this application out.

 

I really hope Simon Corney wakes up in the morning with renewed fight and heart....but like many of us tonight....it might take a while to come to terms with what the Council have done tonight! And for TTA it might be too long for them to keep on throwing money at!

 

 

Quote from Cllr Bashford from OS

 

"Aside from traffic, the other reasons given by Cllr Bashforth after the vote were the large scale of the development and the loss of open space and amenities."

 

 

What open space is he talking about?

What amenities are to be lost?

 

This guy promised to leave the meet when the vote was made, he didn't. He definately has a conflict of interests in this project and has quite clearly taken the Nimby's side in it all.

[wardlelatic]

Is there anyone who post on here with any experience or friends who work in Law ?

 

Surely, what happened last night was illegal ???

 

 

Conflict of interest by Councillors

Rejecting a Highway agency report - just because he didnt like the outcome ??

[edhunteruk]

Quote from Cllr Bashford from OS

 

"Aside from traffic, the other reasons given by Cllr Bashforth after the vote were the large scale of the development and the loss of open space and amenities."

What open space is he talking about?

What amenities are to be lost?

 

This guy promised to leave the meet when the vote was made, he didn't. He definately has a conflict of interests in this project and has quite clearly taken the Nimby's side in it all.

how can he justify his thoughts and reasons then,when b&q was built on westwood running track.

the town lost more than open space there didnt it???

 

they will just have to realise to scale it down slightly and maybe not make as much money out of it.

[Geordie Blue]

On oldham council's website it has a section where you can have your say on the borough's future - spi@oldham.gov.uk

I've had my say and it might not achieve a thing but go to work thinking my anger has been taken out on a sponging councillor!

Toodlepip

[futchers briefs]

I've sent Senior Bashforth a very 'pleasant' e mail, and it included an article from the Advertiser in April, (which BB has found - good job!!) where it quite clearly states a conflict of interest.

Interesting to see if i get a reply off him!!!!

[wardlelatic]

I've sent Senior Bashforth a very 'pleasant' e mail, and it included an article from the Advertiser in April, (which BB has found - good job!!) where it quite clearly states a conflict of interest.

Interesting to see if i get a reply off him!!!!

 

 

Conflict of interest as a local Cllr .... is this illegal or if not illegal can a cllr get suspended etc for this ???

 

anyone know ?

[Inspiral_Carpet]

Quote from Cllr Bashford from OS

 

"Aside from traffic, the other reasons given by Cllr Bashforth after the vote were the large scale of the development and the loss of open space and amenities."

What open space is he talking about?

What amenities are to be lost?

 

This guy promised to leave the meet when the vote was made, he didn't. He definately has a conflict of interests in this project and has quite clearly taken the Nimby's side in it all.

 

 

You'll need to be careful with these quotes as they are really just what Stu Vose remembered. There was total shock when the result was announced and to be honest, when I spoke with Stu on the way home last night, we both struggled to remember exactly what Bashforth said in his summing up. I think that everyone there was just totally shell-shocked.

 

The main reason why Councillors voted against it was the Traffic issue - and their choice to not believe the facts.

 

Also, there was some debate about The Clayton Sports Hall (those ameneties that were mentioned above) being demolished and not replaced in the new plans. One Councillor said this should not happen as it was depriving children of a place to enjoy Sport. The fact nobody has noticed that it has been closed for a year - and far more importantly that it is a Privately owned facility and therefore none of the business of The Council - means the subject should not even have been on the table.

 

The other reason was the size of the propsal but it was made clear the plans were outline only and that OAFC would continue to work with The Residents to chop off at least 2 stories of the final design.

 

Bashforth did not vote as he was Chair of the Meeting. He cannot therefore be belamed for voting against it. His main problem was that he allowed rumour and rhetoric to thrive before getting the Councillors to vote. The fact that he then gave the reasons for the rejection afterwards is testimony to the fact that nobody in The Council Chambers - including those voting - knew what the hell was going on.

 

Yes it was wrong. Yes we would easily win an Appeal.

 

The question is are TTA still up for a prolonged fight when this has already gone on for 4 Years and cost them millions. I hope they come out fighting and I am certain that they will.

 

Keep The Faith

[Lookers_Carl]

on a serious note, how many people would be in favour moving to a site that was

 

a ) within reason as close as possible to oldham but...

 

b ) outside the duristiction of oldham council.

[Mooro]

Bashforth did not vote as he was Chair of the Meeting. He cannot therefore be belamed for voting against it.

 

 

I thought he did vote - and against!

[Gemma06]

I dont belive I would stand ANY chance of being voted on. Its all hand sakes and people who know other people etc.....Hear that line said alot, but we both know how these things work.......dont we....

 

My dad is a director on the trust, he has been since the beginning i think, and when he got voted in he didn't know anyone else on the trust. He puts a lot of work in gives up a lot of his time to try and help the club. A lot of work goes on that other people don't see. The trust seem to be disliked by quite a few fans and i can't think why, all they do is give up their own time to try and help the club.

If you do want to help the club and are willing to give up some of your free time then stand, you would have a good chance of getting voted on

[oafc0000]

I thought he did vote - and against!

 

I didnt go but I was lead to belive that the chair does vote.....

 

I was hoping I would wake up this morning with more optimism etc but Im even more down than last night. I cant belive how badly run Oldham is .......

 

I hope the whole fing town goes to the dogs....glad to be out of that stinking roting town!

 

Love the club, hate the town

Edited November 15, 2007 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

My dad is a director on the trust, he has been since the beginning i think, and when he got voted in he didn't know anyone else on the trust. He puts a lot of work in gives up a lot of his time to try and help the club. A lot of work goes on that other people don't see. The trust seem to be disliked by quite a few fans and i can't think why, all they do is give up their own time to try and help the club.

If you do want to help the club and are willing to give up some of your free time then stand, you would have a good chance of getting voted on

 

Thanks both to you for your replys and I appoligies if I do have the wrong end of the stick.....

[oafckev]

"Also, there was some debate about The Clayton Sports Hall (those ameneties that were mentioned above) being demolished and not replaced in the new plans. One Councillor said this should not happen as it was depriving children of a place to enjoy Sport. The fact nobody has noticed that it has been closed for a year - and far more importantly that it is a Privately owned facility and therefore none of the business of The Council - means the subject should not even have been on the table."

 

If they argue about losing sports facilities they are surely contradicting themselves as the club was going to build a new changing room facility for the Clayton fields, by rejecting the proposal they don't get this therefore people who want to participate in sport lose out!

Sounds to me that it dragged out too long last night and therefore rushed into a decision when they wanted to put it off for another meeting. I would think that an appeal would prove successfull.

[chickers]

Option one contains portions of the development which will be self funding, a lot of the office space and what have you will generate a lettable commercial value, as will the conferencing and banqueting suites, not to mention the extra seating which will bring in money

 

a lot of the value of the project is in building of the houses, the hotel, gym etc etc, and as such the value will be recouped when constructed and let

 

option two is indirectly linked to option one in that t3a want it to go ahead to achieve the full corporate plan for OAFC 2004, but for each application on its own to go ahead then there is no link to them financially

 

option one can start tomorrow if need be, and will be finished for say august 2008....option two will only start in say may 2008. that gives them six months to submit a full outline planning application, not a watered down one as they did last nite

[Takemeanywhere]

Bashforth did declare an interest at the beginning of the meeting and did vote against the proposal. He said the reasons for rejection were access, scale and loss of open space. There was no mention of amenities.

[Takemeanywhere]

"Also, there was some debate about The Clayton Sports Hall (those ameneties that were mentioned above) being demolished and not replaced in the new plans. One Councillor said this should not happen as it was depriving children of a place to enjoy Sport. The fact nobody has noticed that it has been closed for a year - and far more importantly that it is a Privately owned facility and therefore none of the business of The Council - means the subject should not even have been on the table."

 

If they argue about losing sports facilities they are surely contradicting themselves as the club was going to build a new changing room facility for the Clayton fields, by rejecting the proposal they don't get this therefore people who want to participate in sport lose out!

Sounds to me that it dragged out too long last night and therefore rushed into a decision when they wanted to put it off for another meeting. I would think that an appeal would prove successfull.

 

I had to smirk when the female councillor said "....Little Wembley, whatever that is..."

 

It was the last time I smiled, actually.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Takemeanywhere

[oafc0000]

Bashforth did declare an interest at the beginning of the meeting and did vote against the proposal. He said the reasons for rejection were access, scale and loss of open space. There was no mention of amenities.

 

I see the councils point......Oldham dosent do ambition plans for a big developments (scale / loss of open spave) that people will want to use (access)....

 

What a hole of a town.....