North Stand Construction Discussion

Johnny Mars Bar said:
Can’t be arsed reading through a million pages but is the new north stand going to be safe standing or kept as a family section?

I’m in 115 and would relocate there if it’s going to be a singers / oiks end.

I don’t want to be being shushed and told to sit down with all the packed lunch and crossword brigade.
Click to expand...
Fucking hell at first I read that as "I am 115" and thought fuck me, someone older than me. ;)
 
Coatigan said:
Is the last sentence a statement you are making, or the assumption of the excuse the club might use?

Either way, it is wrong. Relax, for whatever one of a multitude of possible reasons for that being included in the application, it can change at any point between now and 3 years from now, or even after it is built.
Click to expand...

It's not wrong. I work in development. You don't draw up proposals and submit an application if you don't intend to build it. The club could have put "potential hospitality" if they didn't intend to use it that way. I'm not being dramatic, I'm just saying it how it is. I said before this went in that the consultation exercise would be a tick the box and nothing more. Show some images, ask some leading questions and present positive headlines within the application submission. Been there, done it.

Coatigan said:
This part is categorically untrue. I'd be repeating other longer posts, but there is so much scope for this to change beyond the planning approval. It is also not a simple change, and one not worth making (in the planning submission) even if the club had already decided on changing it. This is certainly not a now or never, and so much can happen in the next 3 years.
Click to expand...

You can always change a planning application. But look at how much detail has gone into this application. It's not an outline application for a stadium expansion and other uses. It's a full application. The detail is all there. It's a robust, fully costed scheme. Anything that impacts on those costs/revenues impacts the whole viability of the scheme. We might think this is pocket money to the club, but they'll want a return on their investment as soon as they can get one and to maximise revenue. I can just see them hiding behind the planning application and saying "we can't change it because we've got planning for hospitality now". I work in development, I've been there!

It may well be that the club listen and explain and this is all for nothing. All I'm saying is it's worth finding out whether they're going to be GA with a nice bar, or more expensive than that and making them aware as fans we're not particularly supportive of the latter proposal.

They will have had a number of pre-application discussions on this, and clearly the Council support the general principle and design as they've now submitted the application. Materials and those finer details will come out in the wash and I'm sure it will look okay in the end. There's a lot of detail to pick up in the proposals so not the easiest job for the CGI company.

Ultimately, we're on the same page and want the same thing. I think I'm just more sceptical of the club on these things than others are. But I'll be over the blue moon to be proven wrong.
 
supercity88 said:
It's not wrong. I work in development. You don't draw up proposals and submit an application if you don't intend to build it. The club could have put "potential hospitality" if they didn't intend to use it that way. I'm not being dramatic, I'm just saying it how it is. I said before this went in that the consultation exercise would be a tick the box and nothing more. Show some images, ask some leading questions and present positive headlines within the application submission. Been there, done it.



You can always change a planning application. But look at how much detail has gone into this application. It's not an outline application for a stadium expansion and other uses. It's a full application. The detail is all there. It's a robust, fully costed scheme. Anything that impacts on those costs/revenues impacts the whole viability of the scheme. We might think this is pocket money to the club, but they'll want a return on their investment as soon as they can get one and to maximise revenue. I can just see them hiding behind the planning application and saying "we can't change it because we've got planning for hospitality now". I work in development, I've been there!

It may well be that the club listen and explain and this is all for nothing. All I'm saying is it's worth finding out whether they're going to be GA with a nice bar, or more expensive than that and making them aware as fans we're not particularly supportive of the latter proposal.

They will have had a number of pre-application discussions on this, and clearly the Council support the general principle and design as they've now submitted the application. Materials and those finer details will come out in the wash and I'm sure it will look okay in the end. There's a lot of detail to pick up in the proposals so not the easiest job for the CGI company.

Ultimately, we're on the same page and want the same thing. I think I'm just more sceptical of the club on these things than others are. But I'll be over the blue moon to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that isn't the reality of it. People get approvals for things they may not go on to build (whether they know the intention or not) all the time. All, the time. For a whole range of reasons.

You are totally right about the aplication being extensive and detailed, and I've made the point of why this is exactly why it makes zero sense to change this for the application, even if the club had already decided to abandon it, or just haven't decided anyting yet.

The process is and has always been way more fluid than A approved A built.

Edit. I'm not arguing the consultation may have just been a tickbox as you say, that is common. Nor that the club have no intention of building it as shown. Just that they may or may not know the intentions despite the application, and there is plenty of scope to change accordingly if needed. Without changing the application, depending on the extent of the change. The arguement that 'it is in the application so that is what we are getting' is not at all right.
 
Today’s season ticket price increase.

Will be interesting to see what season ticket prices will be in NSL2 in ‘3 years time’. Possibly another 3 season ticket prices rises before then. Or maybe not. As a rule L2 season tickets are always more expensive than L1 season tickets.
 
jrb said:
Today’s season ticket price increase.

Will be interesting to see what season ticket prices will be in NSL2 in ‘3 years time’. Possibly another 3 season ticket prices rises before then. Or maybe not. As a rule L2 season tickets are always more expensive than L1 season tickets.
Click to expand...
I’m confused my season ticket and my daughters are the same as this season!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.