+- COYR NOTTINGHAM FOREST FORUM (https://coyrforestforum.co.uk)
+-- Forum: NOTTINGHAM FOREST - A REBEL CLUB IN A REBEL CITY (https://coyrforestforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Nottingham Forest Fan Talk - Forest All Over The World (https://coyrforestforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: The Infrastructure Projects (/showthread.php?tid=23)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Ciscokid - 11-03-2022
(11-03-2022, 09:31 PM)Fumanchew Wrote: Not sure how things work in the planning departments in london but in rushcliffe you have 3 years to start the work or I guess you have to reapply? So maybe there were revisions to the scheme perhaps going on for like 3 years?
It's 3 years from the permission being granted.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - wassy04 - 26-05-2022
DT has an article about the ground, predominantly going into detail about how awkward the various councils have been to work with and some of the insane costs they were trying to get out of the club. Asking them to pay for bus stops, bridge improvements. The best one is one council wants them to pay for a new school for the extra 20 odd kids that would potentially live in the apartment blocks.
If we do win on Sunday, let's hope that can be the momentum to get through these issues. Although also a potential moment for them to consider alternatives.
Would a 50k capacity mega ground somewhere else be better? Or perhaps 40k with an option to an more easily if enough demand. Not saying I would like to see that but with all the obstacles they must be tempted. Arguably it should really be part of the negotiating process too. If you get plans to move elsewhere it might pressure the council into being more supportive.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - TrentEnd - 26-05-2022
(26-05-2022, 08:36 AM)wassy04 Wrote: DT has an article about the ground, predominantly going into detail about how awkward the various councils have been to work with and some of the insane costs they were trying to get out of the club. Asking them to pay for bus stops, bridge improvements. The best one is one council wants them to pay for a new school for the extra 20 odd kids that would potentially live in the apartment blocks.
If we do win on Sunday, let's hope that can be the momentum to get through these issues. Although also a potential moment for them to consider alternatives.
Would a 50k capacity mega ground somewhere else be better? Or perhaps 40k with an option to an more easily if enough demand. Not saying I would like to see that but with all the obstacles they must be tempted. Arguably it should really be part of the negotiating process too. If you get plans to move elsewhere it might pressure the council into being more supportive.
The rumour is that the council is in massive trouble financially, they are obviously trying to get the club to cover some of the things that they can't.
I'd always rather stay at the City Ground, but if the Council are being difficult, it maybe that we have to move. This would make me sad but we may just have to.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Sniffer Dog (Admin) - 26-05-2022
Is this the same DT who told us a good few months back now that the new stand etc was just a smokescreen and that our owner was just pulling wool over our eyes or words to that effect (I can't remember exactly what he said).
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Sausage Roll - 26-05-2022
This was Taylor's reply to someone asking if he thought us getting promoted would make a move to somewhere else in the city more likely:
"Hope not! I don’t see them ever wanting to leave the CG (thankfully). Just a lot more complex to redevelop than anyone thought. The good news is that a lot of the stranger conditions, courtesy of city council, have now been dropped."
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Salvatore Matrecano - 26-05-2022
Sniff let it go. Its a very good article which is in effect defending why the club hasnt been able to move forward on the plans yet.
If what he is saying is correct, delays have been caused by the 3 councils affected who have seen a football club as a vehicle to get extort funding for any number of transport projects and other spurious things such as new school facilities. It’s utterly ridiculous and thats just the council, then you have all the other busy bodies and residents who want to object.
There are a number pf reports that Vrentzos lost his rag at a planning meeting and to be honest after reading that I dont blame the bloke, I would have done exactly the same.
Im with those who think there will be just too many obstacles put in the way and maybe its best to look elsewhere.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Madforit - 26-05-2022
The council's should be ashamed of themselves, if the report is true and they are trying to get the club to pay for things that they are responsible for, and if they are struggling financially then surely that is their problem, the club should not be held to ransom for their incompetence, they need to rubber stamp the aproval for the new stand and end this farcical nonsense once and for all, the club needs to move forward and if it means that they need to move to a new ground then so be it, or they could make it public and shame the people/council for putting obstacles in the way of progression.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Georgecloney - 26-05-2022
(26-05-2022, 09:03 AM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: Sniff let it go. Its a very good article which is in effect defending why the club hasnt been able to move forward on the plans yet.
If what he is saying is correct, delays have been caused by the 3 councils affected who have seen a football club as a vehicle to get extort funding for any number of transport projects and other spurious things such as new school facilities. It’s utterly ridiculous and thats just the council, then you have all the other busy bodies and residents who want to object.
There are a number pf reports that Vrentzos lost his rag at a planning meeting and to be honest after reading that I dont blame the bloke, I would have done exactly the same.
Im with those who think there will be just too many obstacles put in the way and maybe its best to look elsewhere.
It's beginning to look that way. To compete at the top level we need a bigger capacity, and better returns from hospitality. The current ownership have tried to keep everybody happy but these plans were first submitted nearly 4 years ago and every time one hurdle seems to be resolved another is put in the way. It would seem Rushcliffe Borough Council do not want this development. Actions speak far louder than words. It is reaching a point that we should look at alternatives as difficult as that would be for many of us.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Paplane - 26-05-2022
(26-05-2022, 09:03 AM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: Sniff let it go. Its a very good article which is in effect defending why the club hasnt been able to move forward on the plans yet.
If what he is saying is correct, delays have been caused by the 3 councils affected who have seen a football club as a vehicle to get extort funding for any number of transport projects and other spurious things such as new school facilities. It’s utterly ridiculous and thats just the council, then you have all the other busy bodies and residents who want to object.
There are a number pf reports that Vrentzos lost his rag at a planning meeting and to be honest after reading that I dont blame the bloke, I would have done exactly the same.
Im with those who think there will be just too many obstacles put in the way and maybe its best to look elsewhere.
With respect Salv I think Sniff is bang on the money here with his criticisms of Taylor. These aren't new developments Taylor's reporting today, you can see from documents on Ruschcliffe's planning website that these issues have been around for a while. They were probably there when Taylor made his last series of criticisms and had he done some decent research then, like it appears he now, it may have changed his approach. But of course then all he wanted to do was find a myriad of reasons to be critical. You say yourself that you understand why Vrentzos lost it in a meeting with one of the councils. After reading the article any fair minded person would agree he had reason to be miffed taking into account the ridiculous requests being made. But back then Taylor was intent on painting Vrentzos as an incompetent lunatic. Looks like he's now decided the club are good. Funny that, with some possible success on the horizon.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - wassy04 - 26-05-2022
(26-05-2022, 11:02 AM)Paplane Wrote:(26-05-2022, 09:03 AM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: Sniff let it go. Its a very good article which is in effect defending why the club hasnt been able to move forward on the plans yet.
If what he is saying is correct, delays have been caused by the 3 councils affected who have seen a football club as a vehicle to get extort funding for any number of transport projects and other spurious things such as new school facilities. It’s utterly ridiculous and thats just the council, then you have all the other busy bodies and residents who want to object.
There are a number pf reports that Vrentzos lost his rag at a planning meeting and to be honest after reading that I dont blame the bloke, I would have done exactly the same.
Im with those who think there will be just too many obstacles put in the way and maybe its best to look elsewhere.
With respect Salv I think Sniff is bang on the money here with his criticisms of Taylor. These aren't new developments Taylor's reporting today, you can see from documents on Ruschcliffe's planning website that these issues have been around for a while. They were probably there when Taylor made his last series of criticisms and had he done some decent research then, like it appears he now, it may have changed his approach. But of course then all he wanted to do was find a myriad of reasons to be critical. You say yourself that you understand why Vrentzos lost it in a meeting with one of the councils. After reading the article any fair minded person would agree he had reason to be miffed taking into account the ridiculous requests being made. But back then Taylor was intent on painting Vrentzos as an incompetent lunatic. Looks like he's now decided the club are good. Funny that, with some possible success on the horizon.
Or you could say that the club took notice of some of his criticisms, made some changes and they've massively paid off.
For me massive props to the club for acknowledging things needed to change. Lets not forget how heated it was on here until pretty much when CH left. Criticisms of Dane too funnily enough despite him only being there for 5 mins. They've aged about as well as my Samba comment on the POTS thread :giggle:
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Fumanchew - 26-05-2022
Being a parish councillor with 4 housing developments happening where I am, I’m not surprised at some of the contributions being asked for (apart from those that would be a yearly and continuing one) and the club would or should have known that would have been the case, especially the schooling costs though I do agree that the numbers seem a little high and that there would be enough schools in the catchment area to spread the estimated numbers out into.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - nffc93 - 26-05-2022
If i was Forest i'd be inclined to search for other possible sites. Provided it's not a bowl and some thought goes into it i'd relucently endorse a move away from the City Ground. If the council don't want what comes with bigger and better facilites and potentially Premier League football then sod them.