Guest sheridans_world Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 I think the chron's front page today will make or break its relationship with the club, i know things have been strained latley but if they need to choose sides now and report on which they feel is best. I know the Chron likes to have a go at the council so it could be a 'Pro Latics' front page... We shall soon see, less than an hour until it is published online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astottie Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 (edited) I think the chron's front page today will make or break its relationship with the club, i know things have been strained latley but if they need to choose sides now and report on which they feel is best. I know the Chron likes to have a go at the council so it could be a 'Pro Latics' front page... We shall soon see, less than an hour until it is published online. I can't see them taking sides , that's not the way they normally operate. They will probably manage to report it in a way that is critical of both sides. they will love the row though as they like to do a bit of agitating when they can. Several people on here have commented about the council not supporting the town and neither does the paper. Nothing on the website yet, still yesterday's poke at the hospital. Edited November 15, 2007 by astottie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledwards1973 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 IMO the chron will sit on the fence on this one,not wanting to feel the full venom from the fans or the council. Should be interesting reading Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspiral_Carpet Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 KICKED OUT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 But what does the report read? I imagine that many people are trying to read it, the servers cannot cope, its not loading here.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 KICKED OUT! ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyg101 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Ive got nothing Linky please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Link! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 >>>>Here<<<<< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astottie Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 (edited) Link! Still not changed from yesterday as far as I can see. Edited November 15, 2007 by astottie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspiral_Carpet Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 The E-Chron online version has been updated but not the copy and pastable/ linkable stories. It just reports what was said by Simon Corney and Linda Brooks and then goes on to mention who voted for or against. There is a small paragraph saying "Despite traffic surveys....7 Councillors still voted against the application. There is no opinion either way from The Chron regarding the validity of the decision and no reporting whatsoever about the conduct. Presumably therefore, what we witnessed last night was normal. The Editorial Comment on Page 6 fails to mention an opinion on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyg101 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Youve got to sign up and everything? *sigh* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Free though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 I love the council's fears of a "loss of open space". That's all Oldham's going to be in few years; open, derelict space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Big section on the front page given to the protest group.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyg101 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Cheers Si Its neither here nor there... they dedicated quite a large space to the protestors (*cou-tossers-gh*) and not very much to the club, also threw a few words in there in bold, trying to highlight that the club are bitter about the decision. I didnt know that an 8 storey block of flats was part of the deal, i think that was a major factor for rejecting the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blue Real Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 http://editions.pagesuite.co.uk//PageSuite...cle/2007-11-15/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Cheers Si Its neither here nor there... they dedicated quite a large space to the protestors (*cou-tossers-gh*) and not very much to the club, also threw a few words in there in bold, trying to highlight that the club are bitter about the decision. I didnt know that an 8 storey block of flats was part of the deal, i think that was a major factor for rejecting the decision. The club have already stated that they will be no high than 6 yet people seem to want to bring it up at every opportunity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 I dont think the Chron are behind us, The council dont want it and the people of Oldham dont support the club......what next ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyg101 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They should just do it anyway, f*ck em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 They should just do it anyway, f*ck em. lol, build it and when they say we have to knock it down just say no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oa_exile Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Chron , Owner’s quit threat after £80m Latics scheme kicked out[- Story: DAWN ECKERSLEY OLDHAM Athletic’s future hangs in the balance after redevelopment proposals for Boundary Park were rejected by council planners. Club officials looked stunned following two hours of debate when their £80 million plans for a new hotel, leisure centre, conference facilities and housing were turned down. Hundreds of supporters, including mascot Chaddy the Owl, packed the council chamber in a show of support for their club but left gloomy faced and wracked with fear that Latics’ owners will now walk away from the League One outfit. Latics managing director Simon Corney told fans outside the meeting that the club would not be appealing the decision and that he may walk away. Although proposals to demolish and construct a new Broadway stand were earlier approved, councillors rejected a second application due to concerns over increased traffic, a loss of open space and fears that the planned 693 flats would not be in keeping with the area. Despite a survey by the Highways Agency stating that the development would not cause a severe increase in traffic, councillors voted by a seven to four majority to refuse the application. Mr Corney told committee members that four years of hard work had been put in to ensure the scheme would benefit the borough as well as the club. He added: We want to see the best for Oldham. We purchased the club four years ago and started our planning straight away. This was never about making money, it was about doing the best for the football club and securing its future. We have always been jealous of other towns with much better facilities, such as Huddersfield, Doncaster and Shrews-bury. We want to provide first-class facilities on our own doorstep — why should business go to other towns? We could be much more than just a junction off the M62 corridor. The planning department received 591 letters of objection from neighbouring homeowners, who formed protest group Residents Together. Spokesperson Linda Brooks said: We accept that the stadium requires upgrading and has done for some time but the proposed development would be totally overpowering for neighbouring properties. There is no evidence to show that we need these facilities in this area — the stadium may need upgrading but the area doesn’t. An apartment block eight storeys high would not be in keeping next to bungalows and two-storey buildings and will not blend in with the neighbourhood. We just want people to realise what it will be like for us if this goes ahead. The increased traffic will be a big issue. We need to sustain our neighbourhood — we can’t live next to an eight-storey apartment block as it doesn’t sit with where we live. Committee chairman, Councillor Stephen Bashforth, said he was not confident that traffic survey data was accurate adding: We are being asked to approve something that could possibly cause chaos on roads around our town. This could affect anybody who is driving on all major roads around this development. Approval for the application to demolish and construct a new Broadway stand was unanimous. The second application was rejected by Councillors Stephen Bashforth, Roger Hindle, Javid Iqbal, Tony Larkin, Keith Pendlebury, Christine Wheeler and Philip Rogers. Voting in favour were Councillors Jeremy Sutcliffe, Rod Blyth, Barbara Dawson and Jean Jones. This morning, Mr Corney said: Obviously we are surprised and disappointed by the decision, but we were in the hands of the council. I do not want to make any further comment as we (the three owners) will be sitting back and considering our options in the light of last night’s decision. Chief executive Alan Hardy added that the club had been inundated with supportive e-mails since last night’s decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemma06 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 (edited) The club have already stated that they will be no high than 6 yet people seem to want to bring it up at every opportunity! It was originally supposed to be 8 but the local residents wanted it reducing to 3 and TTA agreed in talks with local residents that they would reduce it to 6, obviously nobody bothered to tell Linda Brooks this or she chose to ignore it Edited November 15, 2007 by Gemma06 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 We accept that the stadium requires upgrading and has done for some time but the proposed development would be totally overpowering for neighbouring properties. So you say, love. There is no evidence to show that we need these facilities in this area — the stadium may need upgrading but the area doesn’t. What would constitute evidence? People don't go to a place and say "We could do with a hotel here," YOU SILLY MOO. What happens is, a businessman, or businessmen, decide that they might be able to make a bit of money to help with, say, the upgrading of a football stadium, by building a hotel. They then market that facility in the hope that people stay there. Ditto the houses. It's not about what other people decide is necessary, it's about what's possible. An apartment block eight storeys high would not be in keeping next to bungalows and two-storey buildings and will not blend in with the neighbourhood. Not only is this woman a tireless campaigner for the small-minded :censored:s-for-brains, she is an aesthete and architecture critic to boot. We just want people to realise what it will be like for us if this goes ahead. Don't worry, love, you'll find something else to moan about soon enough. The increased traffic will be a big issue. We need to sustain our neighbourhood — we can’t live next to an eight-storey apartment block as it doesn’t sit with where we live. I bet that she'd never even spoken to her bloody neighbours before these plans were publicised. Also, if you don't like living next to something, you can always move to the outback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 This whole article is a disgrace, without any investigative merit whatsover, and gives far more column inches to the minority lunatic fringe who were against the redevelopment than the common sense people who were for. There is no mention of Bashforth's conflict of interest, what a joke. I haven't read the chron in years apart from online. I will also be cancelling my advertisement that I run every week. Disgrace. 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.