North Stand Expansion

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

From what I've read on the 1894 Twitter page the NDA is to specifically cover one idea / proposal the club will put to the meeting. That seems fair enough if it's something they want to keep within the club and the attendees for the moment. Other topics can be discussed outside of the meeting.

 

[jrb]

From what I've read on the 1894 Twitter page the NDA is to specifically cover one idea / proposal the club will put to the meeting. That seems fair enough if it's something they want to keep within the club and the attendees for the moment. Other topics can be discussed outside of the meeting.

1894

Some of the information we’ll be allowed to report on. It really relates to one new idea in particular we’re told. That’s why we asked members who said it’s still an opportunity to speak at the highest levels which we don’t usually get. Could be business sensitive from club’s POV

We think it’s for an idea they want to present. Not for all of the meeting or all of the plans. They consulted locals & fans & put out all were onboard. We weren’t after last meeting & asked them to change plans to improve atmosphere.We don’t think they’ll do that but we’ll see.

Also.

1894.

After surveying as many people as we could we suggested club look at 314-315 safestanding as away fans have it. Issues are sight lines to the corner flag from 316 & emergency situation ie someone needs a stretcher up at the top of the stand. It's with club to examine.

 

[Coatigan]

From what I've read on the 1894 Twitter page the NDA is to specifically cover one idea / proposal the club will put to the meeting. That seems fair enough if it's something they want to keep within the club and the attendees for the moment. Other topics can be discussed outside of the meeting.

Unless... The club get 1894 to sign an NDA. Then tell them fuck all. 1894 can't tell anyone they were told fuck all cause they signed an NDA. We all THINK they've been told something significant but just can't talk about it because they areunder NDA and that the club are communicating with fans. Club laughs maniacally.

Oh it is too fucking long till kick-off today!

 

[Coatigan]

1894

Some of the information we’ll be allowed to report on. It really relates to one new idea in particular we’re told. That’s why we asked members who said it’s still an opportunity to speak at the highest levels which we don’t usually get. Could be business sensitive from club’s POV

We think it’s for an idea they want to present. Not for all of the meeting or all of the plans. They consulted locals & fans & put out all were onboard. We weren’t after last meeting & asked them to change plans to improve atmosphere.We don’t think they’ll do that but we’ll see.

Also.

1894.

After surveying as many people as we could we suggested club look at 314-315 safestanding as away fans have it. Issues are sight lines to the corner flag from 316 & emergency situation ie someone needs a stretcher up at the top of the stand. It's with club to examine.

IF in the highlighted bit, they are on about the pac report and that consultation that was a part of the PA, then it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the process on their part. IF, that is the case. Which I think it is as I've not heard of other consultations since then.

 

[Centurions]

IF in the highlighted bit, they are on about the pac report and that consultation that was a part of the PA, then it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the process on their part. IF, that is the case. Which I think it is as I've not heard of other consultations since then.

You've lost me at least on that bud, what are we talking about here?



Separately, why on earth have 1894 ran a poll on whether to sign an NDA on a specific topic? I don't get why they wouldn't want to know what the proposal is that they'll be able to (presumably) report on at some later time.

 

[Coatigan]

You've lost me at least on that bud, what are we talking about here?



Separately, why on earth have 1894 ran a poll on whether to sign an NDA on a specific topic? I don't get why they wouldn't want to know what the proposal is that they'll be able to (presumably) report on at some later time.

The club did a series of consultations for the planning application, of both locals and fans. They pretty much had to, as it is a major application, but they did it extensively and thoroughly, and documented it fully.

Which is the wording 'locals and fans' 1984 use that makes me think they are talking about the same thing.

The club put out a pac report with the application that broadly concluded locals and fans were generally on board. 1894 are saying 'they weren't, and asked them to 'change the plans'.

I think they are talking cross purposes as I read it. That consultation would have been for planning purposes and the development as a whole, and while fan groups may have raised what they want to see, it would have been absorbed into the overall.

For example, if the club put forward plans for 8000 seats and fans say we like that but would like to see xyz. The club can still conclude they are supportive of the proposals at that stage and level of detail, and more will follow. Which is exactly what they have done.

They list out the feedback, and most reading it will likely find what they raised. But the club (or rather their planning consultants) will then take a view whether that is supportive of the development more generally from a planning point, or if it is against it. Some of 1894 may look at that and think, no we said we want to see xyz so we are not 'onboard'. But they are likely thinking detail rather than planning principle.

Again all this is predicted on my assumption that the 1894 comment relates to that run of consultations and the published conclusion they are mildly disagreeing with. Given the wording used and the fact I haven't heard of any other consultations in the interim, I think that is it.