+- 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 - Sniffer Dog (Admin) - 26-05-2022
I have a feeling that if we win on Sunday then we will see the council frantically back pedalling.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - DR Forest - 26-05-2022
They can start by selling us the freehold to the CH for a £1 as a token of goodwill
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Tricky - 26-05-2022
Those saying we would be better off relocating and sod the councils need to realise a few things.
Firstly, where do they think would now be an ideal location? The Eastside spot behind the BBC is now having plans submitted for other projects and that comes under Nottingham City Council, one of the three councils currently involved.
Holme Pierrepont is under the stewardship of Rushcliffe and County Councils and has money paid into it from Nottingham City Council. Any other location outside of the City will have the County Council as one of the authorities overlooking it.
The club would however be wise to threaten to look at alternative sites as all three Councils would know full well the implications that would have on them due to the backlash from Forest fans all over the world, but more importantly those within their voting wards and constituencies.
Remember back in the early 20's (somewhere like 05 or 06 i think) when the club refused to pay their instalment for the Trent End loan back to the City Council? I was on the City Council at the time and the Council didn't know what to do. They were worried on the one hand about tax payers money not being returned as part of the agreement, but equally, they knew they couldn't threaten to evict the club from the ground due to the negative backlash from around the world. They knew that that kind of backlash would cost them many many votes, which in turn could make them lose control of the Council. That they would not want to do.
I am sure the club would be required to make a contribution under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as all major developments require. This is quite possibly where the new school thing has come from as S106's can be used to further enhance an area directly being affected by new developments. They can be used towards recreational spaces, infrastructure, health, highways, education and affordable housing.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Salvatore Matrecano - 26-05-2022
(26-05-2022, 02:32 PM)DR Forest Wrote: They can start by selling us the freehold to the CH for a £1 as a token of goodwill
The Freehold for Chris Hughton? Even for £1 I dont want him back even if that does mean we have the right to build on him.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Camms - 28-05-2022
(26-05-2022, 11:54 AM)nffc93 Wrote: 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.
I think we did search for other sites but there aren't any if my memory serves me well.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - ozzyten10 - 28-05-2022
We have looked at other sites around the A453.
Wouldn’t want to but may be forced to…
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Redgirl - 28-05-2022
Really would be disappointed with that but understand you can’t please everyone, they have to do what’s best for the club. A610 would be perfect :)
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Sausage Roll - 01-06-2022
Apparently we'll need upgraded floodlights to comply with Premier League standards. Hope the respective councils can get their backsides into gear and grant whatever permissions are needed for those more quickly than they have done the new stand!
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Sniffer Dog (Admin) - 06-06-2022
(28-05-2022, 12:21 PM)Redgirl Wrote: Really would be disappointed with that but understand you can’t please everyone, they have to do what’s best for the club. A610 would be perfect :)
Whereabouts on the A610 do you have in mind Redgirl?
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Redgirl - 06-06-2022
Someone mentioned we were looking at Phoenix Park at one time which would be fab for me. Only jesting though I would be heartbroken if we had to leave the WFCG.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Tricky - 06-06-2022
(06-06-2022, 05:39 PM)Redgirl Wrote: Someone mentioned we were looking at Phoenix Park at one time which would be fab for me. Only jesting though I would be heartbroken if we had to leave the WFCG.
Talk of leaving the WFCG is pointless. It will never happen. EM knows, as do the rest of the hierarchy, that the old girl will always be our spiritual home. Not only is most of our history tied up in the foundations of the stadium, but the hearts and souls of many thousands, upon thousands of Nottinghamians.
The lynchpin to getting the new stadium rests on the apartment block being built alongside the ground. Those apartments would be pointless being built on Pheonix Park or Clifton Parkway as they are not riverside apartments in those locations, demanding premium prices. The only other viable option for that scenario would be at Holme Pierrepont. This would generate far more traffic to the area as the bus services out there are virtually non-existent and the tram goes no-where remotely near it (at the present time, you can get a tram to the station and walk down or get off along the Meadows/Wilford route to get to the CG).
The apartments being proposed as part of the City Ground re-development, would IMO, be bought by wealthy Forest supporters and Professionals. Certainly not by families. I would strongly suspect that this is certainly part of the problem Forest are facing with regards the requirement to throw £20+ million into a new school in the area, as well as spending millions on new infrastructure to the area at large.
I think the weight around the neck of the club is the reliance on the apartment development being approved as the potential sales on them would go to support the Taylor Stand re-build.
As I have said in a previous post, Forest would be expected to enter into a Section 106 agreement, and I feel that this is quite possibly where the biggest issues are generating from. But that is all speculation on my part, and I could be miles from the true facts
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Sniffer Dog (Admin) - 16-06-2022
(06-06-2022, 05:39 PM)Redgirl Wrote: Someone mentioned we were looking at Phoenix Park at one time which would be fab for me. Only jesting though I would be heartbroken if we had to leave the WFCG.
I think that was me Redgirl but if I remember well it was tongue in cheek. It might even have been April fools day, I think it was.