[Archived] Brockhall training Complex-ACV Declined

[Mark45]

18 minutes ago, 47er said:

No. Sorry ,don't get this.

What other do they sell after this,we can't sell anymore,get it sold and leave the club,soon the best.

[Paul]

On 13/11/2017 at 12:40, Vinjay17 said:

How did the local residents respond to this and were they even consulted? I said when talk of the ACV attempt began that one of the pivotal requirements would be getting local residents on side. Has anyone objected to this other than Venkys? I'm guessing one of the objectors wasn't "Ribble Valley Inns" who also happen to be the owners of a great big manor up Langho way. Any future development up there may well have some positive impact on their business...hmmmm. Not to mention their precious catering contract that was extended until 2022 just last year by their business partners...VENKYS!

If the council didn't even consult the community then they have acted illegally as far as I'm concerned. Clear grounds for appeal.

Can I ask a question please? Do you have any idea of what is involved in obtaining an ACV? I think it unlikely as the above is total nonsense. FYI it was me who singlehandedly obtained the ACV on Ewood Park so I’ve some experience of the subject.

While I applaud the Trust for trying, heavyweight law firm or not, the case for an ACV on Brockhall was, in my view, at best flimsy. Personally I didn’t think it had a chance. 

[Vinjay]

I don't know every step of the process but asking whether the community was even consulted seems the obvious place to start.

I'm fully aware of your role in obtaining the Ewood ACV. 

[Paul]

5 hours ago, Vinjay17 said:

I don't know every step of the process but asking whether the community was even consulted seems the obvious place to start.

I'm fully aware of your role in obtaining the Ewood ACV. 

There is no need or requiremen to consult the community. An ACV does not have to demonstrate widespread community support, in fact it’s not even one of the questions. 

An ACV has to demonstrate an historical community benefit and that the community will be enriched by retaining its status.

[Stuart]

1 hour ago, Paul said:

There is no need or requiremen to consult the community. An ACV does not have to demonstrate widespread community support, in fact it’s not even one of the questions. 

An ACV has to demonstrate an historical community benefit and that the community will be enriched by retaining its status.

Whilst I don’t disagree with the process, it seems counter intuitive that anyone could demonstrate the community value of an asset without statements from the community.

I seem to recall the Trust asking for inputs from people about their value of Brockhall. Perhaps not enough people came forward making it even more difficult to build a case.

The club could have argued that they could have played football anywhere (Wigan and Bolton did just that) but Ewood Park is a national icon and I suspect that the first AVC caught them on the back foot. I wonder what kind of defends the club will mount when the Ewood AVC is up for renewal...

The disturbing thing with all this is that they club continue to challenge (and substantially fund) against the fans who simply want to protect Rovers legacy. We have every right to distrust them and their motives but they should be building bridges. An AVC should not be necessary if the owners demonstrated their commitment to the club instead of putting of insulting statements and doing the opposite.

[Dreams of 1995]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

Whilst I don’t disagree with the process, it seems counter intuitive that anyone could demonstrate the community value of an asset without statements from the community.

I seem to recall the Trust asking for inputs from people about their value of Brockhall. Perhaps not enough people came forward making it even more difficult to build a case.

The club could have argued that they could have played football anywhere (Wigan and Bolton did just that) but Ewood Park is a national icon and I suspect that the first AVC caught them on the back foot. I wonder what kind of defends the club will mount when the Ewood AVC is up for renewal...

The disturbing thing with all this is that they club continue to challenge (and substantially fund) against the fans who simply want to protect Rovers legacy. We have every right to distrust them and their motives but they should be building bridges. An AVC should not be necessary if the owners demonstrated their commitment to the club instead of putting of insulting statements and doing the opposite.

When is the AVC up for renewal on Ewood Park?

[Vinjay]

3 hours ago, Paul said:

There is no need or requiremen to consult the community. An ACV does not have to demonstrate widespread community support, in fact it’s not even one of the questions. 

An ACV has to demonstrate an historical community benefit and that the community will be enriched by retaining its status.

Well that's absolutely ludicrous.

[tomphil]

Based on the requirements for an ACV as Paul has explained then it sounds like it was always going to be easily defended so why the heavyweight global law firm ? Must've cost a bit so like I said earlier definitely sounds like a posturing muscle flexing exercise.

They've probably been ripped off again there to the tune of tens of thousands but they got the right result for them so they'll think it was worth it. Look back at the two top accounting firms that they hired recently as well which must've cost hundreds of thousands so it seems the new mantra is the more expensive the name the more likely you get to hear what you needed.   When in gods name are they going to realise that applies to the football side of things as well ?   When have they ever gone out and got the best they can afford for that ?

[Stuart]

3 hours ago, MCMC1875 said:

The time has long since passed for bridge building. The club (Venkys, Pasha, Cheston, Silvester) and the supporters are poles apart. There will never be any reconciliation.

There will be 10,000 “reconciliations” if they take us back to the PL.

Although I take your point about any AVC debate.

[Stuart]

4 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

When is the AVC up for renewal on Ewood Park?

Can’t remember, think it might be next year. @Paul will be able to confirm.

[JacknOry]

19 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Can’t remember, think it might be next year. @Paul will be able to confirm.

Perhaps this is why they have been hanging around.

[Stuart]

7 hours ago, JacknOry said:

Perhaps this is why they have been hanging around.

Better bloody hope not.

One of my worry beads for a while has been this: there is an obvious AVC case for a 30,000 seater stadium that holds 25,000 fans each week. The renewal would write itself.

The same stadium for sub-10,000 fans in L1 or L2? As far fetched as it sounds we might hear the same defence from the club as Brockhall: ‘matches are currently played at Ewood Park and we have no plans to change that but there are other places that we could play home games if necessary’.

Let’s see if there is any objection if/when the fans look to ensure our community asset remains as such.

[Skiptonrover]

5 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Better bloody hope not.

One of my worry beads for a while has been this: there is an obvious AVC case for a 30,000 seater stadium that holds 25,000 fans each week. The renewal would write itself.

The same stadium for sub-10,000 fans in L1 or L2? As far fetched as it sounds we might hear the same defence from the club as Brockhall: ‘matches are currently played at Ewood Park and we have no plans to change that but there are other places that we could play home games if necessary’.

Let’s see if there is any objection if/when the fans look to ensure our community asset remains as such.

At that juncture the finances available will dictate the course of events.

[Leonard Venkhater]

12 hours ago, MCMC1875 said:

The time has long since passed for bridge building. The club (Venkys, Pasha, Cheston, Silvester) and the supporters are poles apart. There will never be any reconciliation.

https://youtu.be/tRHVMi3LxZE

[Baz]

23 hours ago, Stuart said:

Better bloody hope not.

One of my worry beads for a while has been this: there is an obvious AVC case for a 30,000 seater stadium that holds 25,000 fans each week. The renewal would write itself.

The same stadium for sub-10,000 fans in L1 or L2? As far fetched as it sounds we might hear the same defence from the club as Brockhall: ‘matches are currently played at Ewood Park and we have no plans to change that but there are other places that we could play home games if necessary’.

Let’s see if there is any objection if/when the fans look to ensure our community asset remains as such.

There's far better and more valuable building land around the area. There's not much profit in demolishing Ewood and building some houses on the land, it's not even a sought after area of Blackburn. I can see the potential value of the land in Brockhole, but not Ewood.

[Stuart]

16 minutes ago, Baz said:

There's far better and more valuable building land around the area. There's not much profit in demolishing Ewood and building some houses on the land, it's not even a sought after area of Blackburn. I can see the potential value of the land in Brockhole, but not Ewood.

Plenty of examples of supermarkets built on or attached to football grounds. Do you want Ewood Park to have a Lidl at one end and a Travelodge at the other?

[Baz]

28 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Plenty of examples of supermarkets built on or attached to football grounds. Do you want Ewood Park to have a Lidl at one end and a Travelodge at the other?

 

There's plenty of land around Ewood been vacant for decades, if supermarkets wanted in, it would have been done already, similar for the Travelodge. 

The point I was making is that there's far more to worry about with the land value in Brockhole, than at Ewood - and probably why Venkys would have resisted it.

 

[Dunnfc]

34 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Plenty of examples of supermarkets built on or attached to football grounds. Do you want Ewood Park to have a Lidl at one end and a Travelodge at the other?

Yes if the club owns the premises and rents them to the operators or takes a slice of revenue

[Stuart]

25 minutes ago, Baz said:

There's plenty of land around Ewood been vacant for decades, if supermarkets wanted in, it would have been done already, similar for the Travelodge. 

The point I was making is that there's far more to worry about with the land value in Brockhole, than at Ewood - and probably why Venkys would have resisted it.

Let’s see if anyone objects to a renewal of the ACV on Ewood. By your logic, they will have no need to.

[tomphil]

Does the ACV cover all the car parks round Ewood I wonder ?   There's a fair old space behind both ends and the other bit fronting Bolton Road.

[Dunnfc]

5 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Does the ACV cover all the car parks round Ewood I wonder ?   There's a fair old space behind both ends and the other bit fronting Bolton Road.

No just the ground I think. Tbh the ground is to big and the on costs of maintance will soon take its toll, already is in places. Usually owners would look how to revamp include a hotel in a stand/corner but we know the score with these muppets.

[tomphil]

5 minutes ago, Dunnfc said:

No just the ground I think. Tbh the ground is to big and the on costs of maintance will soon take its toll, already is in places. Usually owners would look how to revamp include a hotel in a stand/corner but we know the score with these muppets.

That bit fronting Bolton Road would be perfect for a drive through fried chicken outlet I suppose

[Stuart]

9 minutes ago, Dunnfc said:

No just the ground I think. Tbh the ground is to big and the on costs of maintance will soon take its toll, already is in places. Usually owners would look how to revamp include a hotel in a stand/corner but we know the score with these muppets.

The ground isn’t too big at all! It’s the minds of the folks in charge now (and plenty of fans) that are too small.

Jack will be turning in his grave with talk like that but I imagine it eliciting nods and smiles from a few who aren’t fit to clean his shoes.

[Dunnfc]

1 minute ago, Stuart said:

The ground isn’t too big at all! It’s the minds of the folks in charge now (and plenty of fans) that are too small.

Jack will be turning in his grave with talk like that but I imagine it eliciting nods and smiles from a few who aren’t fit to clean his shoes.

Highest premier league average last time there was 25k? I'd say that's an ideal ceiling. Agree on jacks thoughts Stuart and the never ending thoughts being dummed down. Hope your keeping well!

[Stuart]

Just now, Dunnfc said:

Highest premier league average last time there was 25k? I'd say that's an ideal ceiling. Agree on jacks thoughts Stuart and the never ending thoughts being dummed down. Hope your keeping well!

Good thanks. Likewise. My post wasn’t aimed at you but I do think there are fans who have now ‘moved on’* and think small.

*I wonder if Dunny realises just what he was supporting when he took on the fans against Kean and Venkys.