Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[Paul Mellelieu]

I've seen worse from Waggott.  I think his core argument makes sense  - to build a new facility, you can use an asset you have.  

[alcd]

8 hours ago, Miller11 said:

2027 when Rovers are training at the new Waggott and Mowbray inspired training ground...

”Steve, you said we’d be maintaining our Category 1 status? What happened? We are now Category 3?”

 

”We’ve done all that we can.”

That's the size of it. If the STC gets planning permission the proceeds of sale will be banked and everything shoehorned into the JTC with a minimal spend and inevitable loss of Cat 1 status. 

[Gav]

Just now, Paul Mellelieu said:

I've seen worse from Waggott.  I think his core argument makes sense  - to build a new facility, you can use an asset you have.  

I usually agree with your posts Paul, I'm not carried away with the mass hysteria that surrounds every player selection, formation and result, but this is different.

The mans telling porkies, I've been in enough board rooms/meetings with chancers like this guy, he's hiding something, its very clear.

All that said, its the owners who are ultimately responsible, until they sod off the football club is in limbo and remains a target for pillage and plunder.

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

I've seen worse from Waggott.  I think his core argument makes sense  - to build a new facility, you can use an asset you have.  

He hasn't been able to cite one genuine advantage the new facility would have over the ones we already have.

And it's been admitted we'd lose a number of pitches.

It's not improving the facilities it's downsizing them and making them worse.

[Mattyblue]

16 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

I've seen worse from Waggott.  I think his core argument makes sense  - to build a new facility, you can use an asset you have.  

So just so the manager can ‘wander across to a youth team pitch’, we need to; reduce our footprint significantly, knock down the STC, remove pitches, have to build 170 houses, remove the Cat 1 required classrooms and apply once again for already rejected floodlights on the JTC - again risking Cat 1 academy status.

Explain to me again how it’s tangibly improving what we already have? 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Mattyblue

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, Ulrich said:

I'd never actually seen Waggott before that enthralling video.

I made my decisions regarding Waggers before I'd hit play. 11 seconds wasn't needed to guage his abilities. However throughout the video I couldn't help but think he looked familiar and the movie the hobbit sprung to mind. Does he look like one of the characters? But I have to ask as I am hopeful it's a YouTube fraud, Is he really the man running our club?

Venkys go get JW back, what a come down.

It was so rare we heard from him I didn't know what he looked like for a long while.

When I eventually saw a picture of him my gut reaction was "I wouldn't buy a car off that bloke".

Totally unfair of course. But nothing he's done or said since has altered by opinion.

Arthur Daley without any of the charm.

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

So just so the manager can ‘wander across to a youth team pitch’, we need to; reduce our footprint significantly, knock down the STC, remove pitches, have to build 170 houses, remove the Cat 1 required classrooms and apply once again for already rejected floodlights on the JTC - again risking Cat 1 academy status.

Explain to me again how it’s tangibly improving what we already have? 

Don't spoil the fantasy with facts.

Those are the sort of points the local journos should be making instead of lapping it all up at face value.

[47er]

10 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

Hang on a second...this isn’t a club or society...but if you all are willing to pay an annual membership fee then we can change the construction of the organisation along those lines ?
All members would of course have to take on board joint & several liability in the event of any legal action though.

This is cock-up not conspiracy....trust me...

Hang on a bit! I'm not calling for elections--you misunderstand me! I merely said that a "rep" is usually elected not selected, is responsible to those who elected them and is duty-bound to make regular reports to his/her members about developments as they occur. We have none of this, ergo he's not a rep. Now do you see my point?

So, what is extraordinary is that a) we didn't know we had a "rep" on the forum, we have never heard any feedback on what's being discussed c) we don't know how that person was selected and d) at the time I was writing we don't even know who he is, though obviously some know who he is but apparently don't feel able to tell us.

What a bloody farce, quite insulting really.

We don't have a rep, someone from BRFCS has been invited  to attend the Forum (itself a completely unelected group answerable to no-one) and we are in the dark about it.

 Never claimed any conspiracy,  but its still very poor and I'm very disappointed.

[AllRoverAsia]

19 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

So just so the manager can ‘wander across to a youth team pitch’, we need to; reduce our footprint significantly, knock down the STC, remove pitches, have to build 170 houses, remove the Cat 1 required classrooms and apply once again for already rejected floodlights on the JTC - again risking Cat 1 academy status.

Explain to me again how it’s tangibly improving what we already have? 

Well a quick glance on Google maps will show a number of properties overlooking the JTC with legitimate rights and to my mind a very strong case to oppose floodlights at the JTC.

Will tenants want a busy road running the full length  down the middle of the village.

Anyway the JTC site is not big enough unless some teams are binned.

They may do it but it will not be Cat 1.

It's a cash raising exercise that will need careful monitoring on expenditure.

It would be awful if our beloved owners lost out in anyway now wouldn't it, especially as they don't seem to be involved in its planning........

Edited February 26, 2021 by AllRoverAsia

[darrenrover]

3 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It was so rare we heard from him I didn't know what he looked like for a long while.

When I eventually saw a picture of him my gut reaction was "I wouldn't buy a car off that bloke".

Totally unfair of course. But nothing he's done or said since has altered by opinion.

Arthur Daley without any of the charm.

Catweazle always springs to mind for me!

[darrenrover]

I thought that I'd just share my understanding of the situation at The Academy site:

1. If Academy and Seniors were on one site, if the need arose that seniors needed to train on say Sunday, when all the youngsters were involved in matches and parents stood on the touchlines, how could the seniors train appropriately and privately?🤔

2. To my knowledge, Dunny owns a small parcel of land behind the row of leylandi, for those that are familiar, but it's not big enough to accommodate a single full sized pitch. He also used to own Millwood Manor but he sold that a few years back for big bucks. There's a lot of land attached to that, whether he retained any or not, I don't know. The rest of the surrounding land is a working farm.

There's not a cat in hells chance of retaining any Academy status IMO, unless there are potentially alternative plans to share another site elsewhere.

There is only one reason regarding the plans for the Senior Training Centre and one alone, IMO.

[Ulrich]

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It was so rare we heard from him I didn't know what he looked like for a long while.

When I eventually saw a picture of him my gut reaction was "I wouldn't buy a car off that bloke".

Totally unfair of course. But nothing he's done or said since has altered by opinion.

Arthur Daley without any of the charm.

He doesn't help himself at all. Appearance wise he looks, tired, scruffy, unhealthy, no pride. Next he opens his mouth and starts talking. 5 mins telling fans of Blackburn Rovers, the history of Rovers? Really? I was completely unaware of the history of the club I have supported since childhood. He starts with that as he wants to evoke positive memories before his 'announcement', amateur hour good before bad, playing on emotion whilst suggesting he is a fan too. Brockhall dated? Wasn't 10 years ago? Still isn't today, how many clubs have their own facilities, indoor pitches, astro etc? Not even 50%,it would be far cheaper to update. But the opportunity to make himself some dollar is there so he is pouncing.

Like most 'glitter' drives them and he is no exception, rovers at heart my backside, get rid.

I'd take Arthur right now, at least his presses would have wit. Haha, going back some that 🔙👍

 

[Ulrich]

Oh yes and using Jack's innovation and restructuring as a comparator to suggest they are doing the same as him, is pish poor. 

[darrenrover]

7 minutes ago, Ulrich said:

Oh yes and using Jack's innovation and restructuring as a comparator to suggest they are doing the same as him, is pish poor. 

Absolute low lifes and rank amateurs:

WE ARE BLACKBURN ROVERS, not bloody Southend, Gillingham or Coventry City!

[Ulrich]

6 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

Absolute low lifes and rank amateurs:

WE ARE BLACKBURN ROVERS, not bloody Southend, Gillingham or Coventry City!

Yep for 10 years. Like attracts like, I don't for one second think anyone owning or running BRFC truly has rovers at heart.

It's a sorry state of affairs.

[darrenrover]

38 minutes ago, Ulrich said:

Yep for 10 years. Like attracts like, I don't for one second think anyone owning or running BRFC truly has rovers at heart.

It's a sorry state of affairs.

It needs to change!!!.....

To be fair, I do believe that in their own way, the owners do care but unfortunately and for whatever reason, continue to place 'trust' in people that are not worthy of the word.

Edited February 27, 2021 by darrenrover

[matt83]

3 hours ago, Ulrich said:

5 mins telling fans of Blackburn Rovers, the history of Rovers? Really? I was completely unaware of the history of the club I have supported since childhood.

Yeah that was all very forced. Reminded me of interviews when ask the question “so what do you know about the company?” Then get a pre rehearsed list of random facts found on google a few minutes earlier. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by matt83

[Paul Mellelieu]

I can't pretend to understand the detail of a scheme like this and I'm surprised others can make definitive statements about the design and so on, but if the motivation is to improve facilities by selling some of the land then I kinda get that.   

[Moptop1]

So, they have plans for knocking down the training ground and putting houses on it. Where are the plans they put forward for ‘upgrading’? The remaining Trainibg Ground. Anyone seen them? Interesting that.🤔

Edited February 27, 2021 by Moptop1

[Mattyblue]

5 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

I can't pretend to understand the detail of a scheme like this and I'm surprised others can make definitive statements about the design and so on, but if the motivation is to improve facilities by selling some of the land then I kinda get that.   

Because the plans have been published that shows reduced pitches, no floodlights, classrooms etc - putting at risk Cat 1.

If you haven’t bothered to look, fair enough, but blind optimism on the word of Steve fecking Waggott?

 

[Herbie6590]

9 hours ago, 47er said:

Hang on a bit! I'm not calling for elections--you misunderstand me! I merely said that a "rep" is usually elected not selected, is responsible to those who elected them and is duty-bound to make regular reports to his/her members about developments as they occur. We have none of this, ergo he's not a rep. Now do you see my point?

So, what is extraordinary is that a) we didn't know we had a "rep" on the forum, we have never heard any feedback on what's being discussed c) we don't know how that person was selected and d) at the time I was writing we don't even know who he is, though obviously some know who he is but apparently don't feel able to tell us.

What a bloody farce, quite insulting really.

We don't have a rep, someone from BRFCS has been invited  to attend the Forum (itself a completely unelected group answerable to no-one) and we are in the dark about it.

 Never claimed any conspiracy,  but its still very poor and I'm very disappointed.

OK...with you; the story is that it is a cock up basically - but it is being addressed and I’m sure that @J*B  will formally advise of the consultation process to channel questions & feedback for future meetings.

Once again, we all do this for free, in amongst our personal, busy lives and occasionally, things get overlooked. It has been addressed.
 

[broadsword]

18 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

I can't pretend to understand the detail of a scheme like this and I'm surprised others can make definitive statements about the design and so on, but if the motivation is to improve facilities by selling some of the land then I kinda get that.   

Improving facilities... by getting rid of half of them? You've got to be kidding me. If this goes through, it will be a very sad day for rovers and will diminish the club for a very long time to come,if not permanently. 

 

[Herbie6590]

10 hours ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

I've seen worse from Waggott.  I think his core argument makes sense  - to build a new facility, you can use an asset you have.  

People do this all the the time when they downsize their houses to free up equity. But you can only do it once & it’s called downsizing for a reason. 
Once it is gone it is gone & JW put those covenants in for a reason. Not addressing this point is disingenuous at best.

[47er]

2 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

OK...with you; the story is that it is a cock up basically - but it is being addressed and I’m sure that will formally advise of the consultation process to channel questions & feedback for future meetings.

Once again, we all do this for free, in amongst our personal, busy lives and occasionally, things get overlooked. It has been addressed.
 

Accept all this and all your unpaid work is much appreciated. So @J*B is the rep. Is that right?

And a very good job he'll make of it.

[Miller11]

The below from Rich Sharpe suggests that there is an acceptance of this state of purgatory for a long time to come. Surely the best way to address the day to day costs is to increase revenue into the club. Obviously having a proper crack at promotion would be the best way, but increasing commercial activity would also help... another part of Waggott’s remit he’s completely failed to deliver on.