I wouldn't be surprised if it's standard for them to ask everyone they engage to sign the NDA and they are told they can relay pretty much all of the meeting, barring maybe commercially sensitive info.
North Stand Construction Discussion
- Thread starter awest
- Start date
Entirely possible, but why would 1894 make a bit of a deal of that if it were standard.
Not that I'm saying that was their intention, just the outcome of the tweet.
Possibly because the only info they have been given is they need to sign an NDA? I'd imagine it's not something they are used to being asked to do. But we are all guessing.
It sounds like City are ready to reveal firm proposals for NSL2, and they don't want those details being made public yet. If that's true, that puts the fan representatives in an awkward position, as the fans will want to know what has been discussed at the meeting.
It does. But should also make them feel at least partly like the club will genuinely engage with them. And is also understandable from the club's point, as there will be quite a few potentially sensitive items. After all, while a fan group representing fans, they are also supporters of the club and not in conflict with them etc. If you say similar has happened previously, then it won't be a surprise or new to them either, they'll know how to deal with it like adults.
I appreciate we're all jumping the gun, but if Alex can't post the answers to the questions we asked him to ask the club at the meeting, fair enough.
I've been there myself, and I know how the club works at the meetings.
Hopefully the club will tell the CMR, 1894, etc, they can disclose to City fans some of the options the club are still looking at or have decided for NSL2?
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
Gene Kelly Stand ?
Invisible Man's Bandage
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 3,204
- Team supported
- Manchester City
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.
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!
Centurions
Well-Known Member
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.
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
How many levels will it be?
Effectively 10, including the high podium and overrun.
Newcastle away end is level 7 of 7, but that is to the base of the level. 140 steps.
Pep will include a training drill for the players running up the stairs as a warm-up to the game hahahaha