FC United - Oral Hearing - judge rejects appeal (p 82)

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Re: FC United - Lose again, fans not happy bunnies! (page 42)

It was stony's assertion - not yours.

If it's in Bury, that will destroy the rationale. It has to be somewhere close to Newton Heath and suitable for a small stadium.

I'm really not sure you "have nothing against FCUoM".

Why is the land unsuitable?

I know Andy Walsh and two board members very, very well - through my work with the Football Supporters' Federation and one of them through work. My support against the proposals was not taken lightly. I'm sure I'm no longer on their Xmas card list now, but there you go. I have followed FCUM's fortunes over the years and wished them well. Newton Heath was a good spot for them (redeveloping an existing facility in a not too built up area at all). Ironically it has been stated that it was City that had that development stopped.

But Moston is completely different and up until September last year, I had lived there the previous 19 years.
The plans are to build a stadium right opposite a residential area (the car park would be 15 meters from houses) - with a plastic pitch built right at the back of a retirement homes, which would be floodlit and open 7 days a week.
The land is a green field which was fenced off by the council a few years ago (and then run down to look like an eyesore, so when we were told by the very same council that FCUM would turn the eyesore into a nicer looking area we were meant to be grateful)

The area has been approved for a 5000 capacity ground - and is stipulated as being not suitable for more than 5000 in the size of the land and infrastructure such as parking etc. So what happens if FCUM reach the football league and want to expand?

Ok fair points MES.

It's down to the planning process and if they want to expand it will be the same. Preston has many of the same issues.

I have no idea why the council would "run down to look like an eyesore".

Thanks for the fair point comment.
Yes it is down to the planning process if they want to expand - but as one of the terms of conditions is that it wont expand beyond 5000, isn't it a bit short sighted to go ahead with the development. If they can't expand, what do they do? Carry on with that yet losing out financially, or do they bail out of Moston and find somewhere else? If so, what becomes of a white elephant of a stadium?

The council are cutting corners every way they can to save money. So if they didn't cut the grass and surrounding area outside of the fenced in area (which Moston Juniors were to look after) then it just became overgrown.
There is Japanese knotweed all around the field which will cost FCUM a lot to get rid of. The council are happy to let the area overgrow in the knowledge that they no longer are responsible for maintaining it.

 

[stony]

Re: FC United - Lose again, fans not happy bunnies! (page 42)

Do they all come from Bury?

Their first home was Gigg lane, Bury. I would have thought a friend of turncoat fc would know this.

They are an odious bunch of turncoat twats who stink out the lower leagues with their scum fans and hypocritical behaviour

I'm looking forward to you justifying this one.

They turned their backs on their club. I think we can all agree that makes them both turncoats and twats.
Their fans have a reputation for violence and thuggery when they play away from home.
That's pretty much the definition of scum.
One of the main reasons given to turn coat was that the rags had become too comercial and put money before the fans. FC turncoat, scum, hypocrites of Bury are quite happy to take TV money to move fixtures without any consideration for their match going fans.
I'm not sure about you, but to me that makes them hypocrites.

Anything else I can help you with ?

 

[pauldominic]

Re: FC United - Lose again, fans not happy bunnies! (page 42)

I know Andy Walsh and two board members very, very well - through my work with the Football Supporters' Federation and one of them through work. My support against the proposals was not taken lightly. I'm sure I'm no longer on their Xmas card list now, but there you go. I have followed FCUM's fortunes over the years and wished them well. Newton Heath was a good spot for them (redeveloping an existing facility in a not too built up area at all). Ironically it has been stated that it was City that had that development stopped.

But Moston is completely different and up until September last year, I had lived there the previous 19 years.
The plans are to build a stadium right opposite a residential area (the car park would be 15 meters from houses) - with a plastic pitch built right at the back of a retirement homes, which would be floodlit and open 7 days a week.
The land is a green field which was fenced off by the council a few years ago (and then run down to look like an eyesore, so when we were told by the very same council that FCUM would turn the eyesore into a nicer looking area we were meant to be grateful)

The area has been approved for a 5000 capacity ground - and is stipulated as being not suitable for more than 5000 in the size of the land and infrastructure such as parking etc. So what happens if FCUM reach the football league and want to expand?

Ok fair points MES.

It's down to the planning process and if they want to expand it will be the same. Preston has many of the same issues.

I have no idea why the council would "run down to look like an eyesore".

Thanks for the fair point comment.
Yes it is down to the planning process if they want to expand - but as one of the terms of conditions is that it wont expand beyond 5000, isn't it a bit short sighted to go ahead with the development. If they can't expand, what do they do? Carry on with that yet losing out financially, or do they bail out of Moston and find somewhere else? If so, what becomes of a white elephant of a stadium?

The council are cutting corners every way they can to save money. So if they didn't cut the grass and surrounding area outside of the fenced in area (which Moston Juniors were to look after) then it just became overgrown.
There is Japanese knotweed all around the field which will cost FCUM a lot to get rid of. The council are happy to let the area overgrow in the knowledge that they no longer are responsible for maintaining it.

You're the person with the local knowledge and there are far bigger white elephants round the world.

The only alternative to the planning process is to re-locate and change name as far as I can see.

Are you suggesting a council agenda with cost-cutting?

A whole new can of worms ...

 

[Tueartsoverhead kick]

Re: FC United - Lose again, fans not happy bunnies! (page 42)

and your comment about ''numbskulls, ignorant and stupid'' is your words or that of your FCUM friends?

Paul answer the question ^^^^^^

.

 

[EricBrooksGhost]

Re: FC United - an ode or two about FCUM (pg 44)

and your comment about ''numbskulls, ignorant and stupid'' is your words or that of your FCUM friends?

Paul answer the question ^^^^^^

.

Judging by his response he was probably referring to himself.

 

[pauldominic]

Re: FC United - Lose again, fans not happy bunnies! (page 42)

and your comment about ''numbskulls, ignorant and stupid'' is your words or that of your FCUM friends?

Paul answer the question ^^^^^^

.

I have done. They're my words.

 

[pauldominic]

Re: FC United - an ode or two about FCUM (pg 44)

and your comment about ''numbskulls, ignorant and stupid'' is your words or that of your FCUM friends?

Paul answer the question ^^^^^^

.

Judging by his response he was probably referring to himself.

Perhaps I'm biased because they're good friends, but as I've said previously I really can't see anything wrong with what FCUoM are trying to do.

Having said that, the tone of my post is highly regretable.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Re: FC United - an ode or two about FCUM (pg 44)

.

Judging by his response he was probably referring to himself.

Perhaps I'm biased because they're good friends, but as I've said previously I really can't see anything wrong with what FCUoM are trying to do.

Having said that, the tone of my post is highly regretable.

This is the crux of the issue. None of the campaigners (to my knowledge) are saying there is anything wrong with what FCUM are trying to do. It is the location that they / the council have set their eyes on that is the issue.

Yet it gets turned (conveniently) into ''they are just bitter blues trying to stop FCUM''. It isn't about FCUM, it is about the land.

 

[pauldominic]

Re: FC United - Lose again, fans not happy bunnies! (page 42)

Their first home was Gigg lane, Bury. I would have thought a friend of turncoat fc would know this.

That wasn't my point. Supporting a football club in a particular location isn't the same as coming from that location as MUFC demonstrate.

They are an odious bunch of turncoat twats who stink out the lower leagues with their scum fans and hypocritical behaviour.

You've made a generalisation to answer a previous generalisation.

They turned their backs on their club. I think we can all agree that makes them both turncoats and twats.
Their fans have a reputation for violence and thuggery when they play away from home.
That's pretty much the definition of scum.
One of the main reasons given to turn coat was that the rags had become too comercial and put money before the fans. FC turncoat, scum, hypocrites of Bury are quite happy to take TV money to move fixtures without any consideration for their match going fans.
I'm not sure about you, but to me that makes them hypocrites.

Not all of them come from Bury.
Not all of them are hypocrites.
Not all of them have a reputation for violence and thuggery.

Do you disagree that MUFC aren't too commercial?

I'd say that they always have been since the days of Louis Edwards.

In terms of fundraising for a stadium, why not take money from TV?

As to your final point, I have to disagree at the moment because I don't agree with your argument.

 

[pauldominic]

Re: FC United - an ode or two about FCUM (pg 44)

Judging by his response he was probably referring to himself.

Perhaps I'm biased because they're good friends, but as I've said previously I really can't see anything wrong with what FCUoM are trying to do.

Having said that, the tone of my post is highly regretable.

This is the crux of the issue. None of the campaigners (to my knowledge) are saying there is anything wrong with what FCUM are trying to do. It is the location that they / the council have set their eyes on that is the issue.

Yet it gets turned (conveniently) into ''they are just bitter blues trying to stop FCUM''. It isn't about FCUM, it is about the land.

That certainly hasn't been the tone of the conversations I've had with Peter and Lorraine (names changed) on any occasion.

I'd say from what I've heard is that your argument is with the council rather than the club.

Good luck with the judicial review and lets hope that a satisfactory solution can be found.