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

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

Mad Eyed Screamer,

Finally, if the issue is purely about a building being planned on a field in a residential area, and not about football, then why is this campaign being played out on a Manchester City fans' internet forum? What's it got to do with everyone on here? You're not deliberately playing on City fans' existing antipathy towards anything United-related are you, in this non-football issue?

Why has the campaign been played out on Blue Moon?
Why was the fight against the Glazer's played out in the Vodafone store on Market Street, or the Nike store on Market Street. Or on every lamp post and bus shelter all over Manchester with the LUHG stickers?
Publicity by any means necessary.

The local residents against the stadium being sited on the Ronald Johnson Playing Fields have at times felt helpless in the campaign to stop the stadium being built there, with the council instigating the whole development (and ultimately over seeing the planning application....) and the local media appearing to favour the development too - so have taken to campaigning on various forums to gather support and keep the campaign fresh in peoples minds.
Yes there are City fans in Moston that this forum may have reached out to, but lets not forget there are also many City fans within Manchester who are council tax payers and therefore contributors to the £750,000 grant awarded to FC United in times when there are severe job cuts, loss of council services and amenities and council tax rises throughout the city.

Just take a few seconds to think about the anger YOU felt when the Glazer's took over United......
Now spare a thought for the anger local Mostonian's feel about the Ronald Johnson Playing Fields being developed on by FC United........

I of course accept that Moston people have a right to oppose and protest against this proposed development, and if the club thought that organised opposition by the residents' group was truly representative of the people of Moston, then I'm sure we'd have told the council we didn't want it. In fact, it isn't even about numbers - if this small group of residents had put forward what come across as genuine and convincing community concerns, I and other FC fans wouldn't still be supporting the development. I think that's where your Glazer takeover analogy fails - as much as you don't want to believe it, FC are committed to and do actually care about the communities we work with, and recognise that there is an awful lot of good we can do in Moston and neighbouring areas. I know some will see that as sanctimonious, but some areas of Manchester are in desperate need of genuine community engagement - and football clubs are capable of doing that, along with specialist partners of course. The context of cuts to services is of course relevant, but from the council's point of view, because of the cuts they have had to consolidate various pots of money (that's why the Newton Heath development was pulled), so all they've done is keep the money already earmarked for Moston Juniors, and put it together with the money raised by FC, more or less saving them the money they had planned for Newton Heath.

If you want to focus people's anger away from those responsible for the cuts, and towards a not-for-profit football club whose members voted to have community benefit legally enshrined in to its constitution, then go ahead. I think you know where we should be looking if we're really concerned about public service cuts, falling wages and increasing inequalities, and it isn't FC United, and it isn't the council - how about the global class of oligarchs that have 'our' governments in their pockets, you know, the type who use their power and privilege to plunder the mineral wealth from places like Russia and the UAE, for whom concepts like democracy and public ownership of resources are to be laughed at, and who sprinkle their cash around so they can be feted by English football fans desperate for a bit of the success they used to say wasn't that important to them.

I've highlighted 2 bits in bold.
1. So you believe residents around the field's concerns are not genuine and convincing?

2. Please tell me where anyone involved in the campaign has said they do not believe that the club is not committed to your community work?

That's the thing you don't seem to get about the protesters - it's NOT about FC United! It's about the land! But by turning it into ''it's about FC United, it's because of the United connection etc etc, they are all just Blue Bitters'' it is being used to undermine genuine concerns that local residents have.

The club does know the full extent of campaigners feelings - so how about working with those campaigners (and the council) in identifying land in / around Moston that is suitable to all parties?
Or does the fact that the 750K can only be accessed on the Ronald Johnson Playing Fields and that land elsewhere may not be available to lease at 1p for 125 years make the club determined to take what they've been offered no matter what?

 

[luddite]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

I've highlighted 2 bits in bold.
1. So you believe residents around the field's concerns are not genuine and convincing?

2. Please tell me where anyone involved in the campaign has said they do not believe that the club is not committed to your community work?

That's the thing you don't seem to get about the protesters - it's NOT about FC United! It's about the land! But by turning it into ''it's about FC United, it's because of the United connection etc etc, they are all just Blue Bitters'' it is being used to undermine genuine concerns that local residents have.

The club does know the full extent of campaigners feelings - so how about working with those campaigners (and the council) in identifying land in / around Moston that is suitable to all parties?
Or does the fact that the 750K can only be accessed on the Ronald Johnson Playing Fields and that land elsewhere may not be available to lease at 1p for 125 years make the club determined to take what they've been offered no matter what?

Hmm, ok bad choice of phrasing - there are genuine concerns, it will affect them, but I for one am not convinced that the concerns expressed by that residents' group take in the scope of concerns that the council has to take on board. For all the council's faults, they do have a mandate to make decisions on behalf of the various communities they represent. Most decisions will have to take into account the conflicting views of various individuals and groups/communities/organisations etc. I think the 'they're just blue bitters' sentiments are unfortunate, but probably more a result of the use of City forums like this to drum up support - I accept you have to use what means you can to wage a campaign, but the red v blue rivalry has undoubtedly been the main motivating tool in this respect, so you can't now pretend that football rivalry isn't a major factor in inflating the 'No campaign' movement.

The club and the council have carried out extensive consultation, and are satisfied that the majority of residents want this, and that the benefits for the majority (especially those who need it most) outweigh the concerns of a relatively small yet vocal and well organised residents group. That's unfortunately what councils have to do - make decisions in the wider interests of the community, even when some don't like it. Believe me, I am very uncomfortable with the animosity that this has created with some residents, but the bigger picture must in the end be the guide. It's an imperfect and messy picture, but nothing would ever be achieved if full consensus was needed for everything.

You think everyone in Moss Side and Beswick, Clayton etc. were happy when City decided to move grounds? Businesses closed around Maine Road, residents around the new ground had to accept having City moving in, and the new training/community complex your owners want to build is forcing businesses to relocate, but local authorities have to decide such issues on balance. The RURA group don't like the decision, and are free to challenge it, but in the end someone will be unhappy with the decision. In terms of council funding, their job includes supporting initiatives they think will be of benefit to the city, and obviously FC have convinced them and all the partner organisations they work with, that this money will be a solid investment for the city, and Moston.

Mike N - sorry, your name doesn't ring a bell.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

What about the apparent "gerrymandering" by the pro stadium campaign? Do you not think that would cause widespread resentment within the local community?

Do you not think, given the evidence that came to light, the council has a duty to review the results of any consultation, vote or opinion poll and consider the veracity of such before taking a decision?

Or is this set to be yet another Planning Department fait accompli, where and when it suits?

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Moston resident and the only debate about it I have participated in has been via this board. However, I am watching with interest how it all pans out as the outcome, in light of all the evidence from all sides of the debate, speaks to the honesty, transparency and integrity of both the council and your club.

 

[dannybcity]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

.

The club and the council have carried out extensive consultation, and are satisfied that the majority of residents want this, and that the benefits for the majority (especially those who need it most) outweigh the concerns of a relatively small yet vocal and well organised residents group. That's unfortunately what councils have to do - make decisions in the wider interests of the community, even when some don't like it. Believe me, I am very uncomfortable with the animosity that this has created with some residents, but the bigger picture must in the end be the guide. It's an imperfect and messy picture, but nothing would ever be achieved if full consensus was needed for everything.

The bigger picture for who?

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

The decision from the Judicial Review is going to be given tomorrow in a court in Bristol!!! (no idea why in Bristol!)

Come on RURA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review DECISION DAY Friday!!!!! (p 71)

Whatever the decision, I hope it is based on the facts. Good luck.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review DECISION DAY Friday!!!!! (p 71)

Whatever the decision, I hope it is based on the facts. Good luck.

Thanks
I've heard there is a bit of a celebration going on over at the FCUM forums, congratulating themselves - but the posts have since been deleted.
I was under the impression that the relevant parties would be informed prior to the decision being made public - so maybe that news has leaked out??

 

[Gary-Bralio]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

The decision from the Judicial Review is going to be given tomorrow in a court in Bristol!!! (no idea why in Bristol!)

I believe Sir Keith John Lindblom said something like (when the case closed lunch-time in Manchester Wednesday 19th of December); "I am only in Manchester until Friday, and I will not be ready to rule by then. Does anybody object to my ruling from London, so as to cut the waiting time?" *nobody objected, and agreed that the sooner the better* He then said (again from memory); "I'm in London after the new year, but I'm sitting in Bristol first".

So best guess is that he's had time to look at it, and will rule from Bristol, rather than wait until he's back in London(?). There doesn't seem to be any case up before the "Administrative Court at Bristol" tomorrow (Friday), so he might have found himself with a bit of spare time. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-bristol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court- ... st-bristol</a>

BTW, isn't Sir Keith John Lindblom the one that dealt with the Occupy things outside St Paul's Cathedral?

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

I've highlighted 2 bits in bold.
1. So you believe residents around the field's concerns are not genuine and convincing?

2. Please tell me where anyone involved in the campaign has said they do not believe that the club is not committed to your community work?

That's the thing you don't seem to get about the protesters - it's NOT about FC United! It's about the land! But by turning it into ''it's about FC United, it's because of the United connection etc etc, they are all just Blue Bitters'' it is being used to undermine genuine concerns that local residents have.

The club does know the full extent of campaigners feelings - so how about working with those campaigners (and the council) in identifying land in / around Moston that is suitable to all parties?
Or does the fact that the 750K can only be accessed on the Ronald Johnson Playing Fields and that land elsewhere may not be available to lease at 1p for 125 years make the club determined to take what they've been offered no matter what?

Hmm, ok bad choice of phrasing - there are genuine concerns, it will affect them, but I for one am not convinced that the concerns expressed by that residents' group take in the scope of concerns that the council has to take on board. For all the council's faults, they do have a mandate to make decisions on behalf of the various communities they represent. Most decisions will have to take into account the conflicting views of various individuals and groups/communities/organisations etc. I think the 'they're just blue bitters' sentiments are unfortunate, but probably more a result of the use of City forums like this to drum up support - I accept you have to use what means you can to wage a campaign, but the red v blue rivalry has undoubtedly been the main motivating tool in this respect, so you can't now pretend that football rivalry isn't a major factor in inflating the 'No campaign' movement.

The club and the council have carried out extensive consultation, and are satisfied that the majority of residents want this, and that the benefits for the majority (especially those who need it most) outweigh the concerns of a relatively small yet vocal and well organised residents group. That's unfortunately what councils have to do - make decisions in the wider interests of the community, even when some don't like it. Believe me, I am very uncomfortable with the animosity that this has created with some residents, but the bigger picture must in the end be the guide. It's an imperfect and messy picture, but nothing would ever be achieved if full consensus was needed for everything.

You think everyone in Moss Side and Beswick, Clayton etc. were happy when City decided to move grounds? Businesses closed around Maine Road, residents around the new ground had to accept having City moving in, and the new training/community complex your owners want to build is forcing businesses to relocate, but local authorities have to decide such issues on balance. The RURA group don't like the decision, and are free to challenge it, but in the end someone will be unhappy with the decision. In terms of council funding, their job includes supporting initiatives they think will be of benefit to the city, and obviously FC have convinced them and all the partner organisations they work with, that this money will be a solid investment for the city, and Moston.

Mike N - sorry, your name doesn't ring a bell.

Again the bit highlighted in bold.

Having been involved in the voluntary sector for the past 20 years (minus the last 16 months I emigrated) every time i hear the words ''public consultation'', I cringe.

The residents of Moston found out about this development via an article in the Manchester Evening News. They read about how the council and FC United had agreed upon the Ronald Johnson Playing Fields being earmarked as the new site for FC United's new stadium.
There was no public consultation prior to this announcement.
It later emerged that the two sites at the Wythenshawe Park athletics stadium and Broughton Park RUFC's Hough End stadium had also been considered - and ironically rejected as it was felt local residents hostility to the proposals would be high.
So they chose Moston - where they either thought opinion against wouldn't be high or they could simply walk all over the views of the local residents.

Public consultation??? Don't make me laugh.
The council did NO public consultation. They assumed locals in Wythenshawe and Chorlton would object yet assumed locals in Moston would not?????
FC United did organise 6 public meetings at venues in Moston, New Moston and Harpurhey. These were not consultations but presentations.
FC United presented to the people of North Manchester their plans as to what they were going to bring to the area. Didn't seem much of a debate to me.
And an FCUM leaflet was pushed through the doors of houses in the Moston area - again, a pro stadium leaflet presenting the clubs' plans - not a leaflet from the council outlining their proposals for the field.

In fact, when I contacted one of the Labour party councillors when the plans were announced (in April 2011) I received a reply saying that she couldn't comment until after she had seen the full proposals of the development (which would conveniently be after the May elections!) When I informed her that my vote in the following months election was dependent upon her support or non support over this issue, she side stepped the subject and became very defensive!
It then transpired that her husband was (at the time) the Principle of Manchester College who had forged partnership links with FC United.....
Unbelievable Jeff!

This issue has split Moston.
I await the judges decision......

 

[dukie]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

It's the club you still support despite your posturing that has done most to harm the English game

Very strange comment.