Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[Gav]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Mowbray was the one who recommended him for the role thereby making himself virtually bombproof.

The owners are the ones who shouldn't have been taken in (yet again) by this clear conflict of interest.

Can you imagine Jack in the same scenario? and the fans blaming the manager for the shit show at board level?

No, neither can I, the buck stops with the owners Rev, its been like this for 10yrs.

[Stuart]

21 hours 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? 

This is one of my worries. They get so far down the line with these changes and then blame some red tape for the loss of Cat 1.

“We’ve done everything we can “.

[RevidgeBlue]

A practical consideration that no-one seems to have mentioned anywhere is that unless we could time the sale and rebuild the new facility within a very short window indeed during the summer we'd be left with nowhere to train wouldn't we?.

Back to the pre Jack days of dodging the dog turds at Pleasington playing fields

[Stuart]

9 hours ago, Miller11 said:

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.

Goodbye Cat 1.

Goodbye Academy.

Goodbye Jack Walker’s absolutely respected legacy.

And, for a club of our non-ambition, goodbye Championship.

If only there were some way to generate the necessary income either through billionaire owners (no FFP worries here) or promotion (no chance the current set up).

But, no, we must sell up.

[Leonard Venkhater]

11 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Goodbye Cat 1.

Goodbye Academy.

Goodbye Jack Walker’s absolutely respected legacy.

And, for a club of our non-ambition, goodbye Championship.

If only there were some way to generate the necessary income either through billionaire owners (no FFP worries here) or promotion (no chance the current set up).

But, no, we must sell up.

Goodbye, my friend, it's hard to die..

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

FFS Paul, take a step back and think!

How do we increase our revenue? Well for a bloody start you stop pissing everybody off and engage and make them feel welcome and a part of the whole. 

Price tickets appropriately and do not forget that 10% of fuck all, is fuck all!

What about commercial revenue eh? How well are we doing on that front with 15% capacity FFS? Why do you think that may be? You're not trying to tell me that with an appropriate sales drive and competitively priced packages, we couldn't get at least 75% capacity?

Oh, guess what, performances on the pitch and a general body language that you do actually give a shit would make a world of difference.

With respect Paul, you need to get your head from up your arse and think positively, rather than sign up to even a fraction of the bollocks spouted by Mowbray, Venus and Waggott.

I apologise if I've over stepped the mark but FFS!!! 

Well said.

[darrenrover]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Well said.

Thanks Rev.

[darrenrover]

19 hours ago, darrenrover said:

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.

Bugger me, as if I knew, cue tomorrow!.....

[LDRover]

1 hour ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Goodbye, my friend, it's hard to die..

With all the coventry fingers in the pie

[rigger]

2 hours ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Goodbye, my friend, it's hard to die..

when all the birds are singing in the sky

[ben_the_beast]

There are too many contradictions in the facts and what Waggot has said making this proposal not add up. Something is fishy and call it gut instinct. He's hiding something and I don't trust a word. 

1) In the interview he talked about covid costs, new pitch, trying to compete. VS In his next sentence that 100% of the STC sale income would go on upgrading the new training centre site. It might even cost more. Ok then Steve which is it. Why are you talking about other costs if 100% revenue is going into the redevelopment

2) We know the reason that the second site was purchased. There was simply not enough space on the original site where the academy now is to house everyone under one roof VS A new integrated state of the art training centre. It wasn't feasible before to have state of the art facilities under on the one site. It's factual, nothing has changed in that regard.

3) We've know we have Category 1 status on both sites so the line about them being built 30 years ago which gives the insinuation they are dilapidated old sheds which need upgrading is false VS Again saying the new centre would be state of the art. It already is state of the art. They have the official status to say so. Proof there is a slimy sales pitch, purposefully devaluing what we already have to get people who know no better on board. 

4) Waggot says that all the money will be invested in the new site VS When quizzed on plans for the new site, openly says there aren't any. Again proof this is a sales pitch. There are no plans, no costings nothing. There are £££ signs in his eyes and the lack of plans show that the sale has been what is considered, not what the club can gain from this in terms of infrastructure. The fact there are no plans show he is bullshitting. Why this wasn't questioned in the Q&A I have no idea. 

I could go on forever. But in summary there are no redevelopment plans yet he says 100% will be reinvested in the redevelopment, whilst also talking about other costs. Contradiction!! The academy isn't big enough for an integrated site, we are already state of the art, yet we are being told this would be an upgrade. Doesn't add up. He can't escape the fact they all have a very dark history from Coventry in this regard. It doesn't add up, it doesn't make sense and he is lying. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be able to see the bloke isn't telling the whole truth. Somewhere there are some fat grubby fingers waiting to smash their way into some pies if this is given the go ahead and as far as I am concerned he can piss right off. 

The bloke has done absolutely naff all to justify his wage or improve us as a club apart from acting as a shield for Mowbray. Which whilst I'm at it. When have you ever seen a board member dissecting past games to back up excuses the manager is giving (obviously aimed at the owners). Absolute joke of a set up here. Always has been under Venkys. They never learn. Their negligence is about to cost us and them all over again!! Rant over. 

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by ben_the_beast

[Stuart]

I’ve been trying to find a clear list of requirements for Cat 1.

The best I’ve found is at... https://www.efl.com/siteassets/efl-documents/201819/efl-youth-development-charter-players-and-parents-guide-2018-19--e-book4.pdf

P.66

...from which I’ve pasted the text below.

Section 295.2 states that the Academy must have facilities available for the exclusive use of its Academy “at all times” “when it requires to access them” (weasel words?)

Sections 297b and 302 state that the floodlight requirement will be waived if planning permission cannot be obtained.

So it sounds like there could be ways around the issues people have put forward but it smacks of doing this on the cheap which will not be good long term.

My biggest problem with all of the is that I don’t trust the motives of any of the people involved. Fans have been treated with nothing but contempt under the current board, with lowering of standards/costs and increasing of prices, allowing the stadium and pitch to rot while blaming everyone and everything else for their failures. This will be another failure - at least as far as the club and fans are concerned. But there will be a lot of money made by a small number of people.

....

295 Each Club which operates an Academy shall ensure that:

295.1 it provides as a minimum the facilities and accommodation set out in Rules 297 to 308; and

295.2 if it operates a Category 1 Academy, such facilities and accommodation are available for the exclusive use of its Academy at all times when it requires access to them in order to comply with these Rules.

296 Save where otherwise indicated, or with the permission of the Board, the facilities and accommodation set out in Rules 297 to 308 shall be provided at the Club’s principal venue for the coaching and education of Academy Players.

297 Grass pitches

Category 1

 a) A sufficient number of grass pitches of the appropriate sizes (as required by the Rules relating to Games Programmes and with goals sized as required by the Rules relating to Games Programmes) to enable the Club to play all its matches in the Games Programmes and fulfil its commitments under these Rules as regards coaching.

b) One floodlit grass pitch enclosed with perimeter fencing and with designated areas for spectator attendance (save that if a Club is unable to obtain planning permission for floodlighting then the requirement for floodlighting shall be waived);

c) A designated area (on grass) for the coaching of goalkeepers.

 

Categories 2 and 3

a) A sufficient number of grass pitches of the appropriate sizes (as required by the Rules relating to Games Programmes and with goals sized as required by the Rules relating to Games Programmes) to enable the Club to play all its matches in the Games Programmes and fulfil its commitments under these Rules as regards coaching.

b) A designated area for the coaching of goalkeepers.

 

Category 4

a) A sufficient number of grass pitches of the appropriate sizes (as required by the Rules relating to Games Programmes and with goals sized as required by the Rules relating to Games Programmes) to enable the Club to play all its matches in the Games Programmes and fulfil its commitments under these Rules as regards coaching.

b) A designated area (on grass) for the coaching of goalkeepers.

   

298 Each Club shall take all reasonable steps to maintain each grass pitch used by its Academy at all times when such pitches are required by the Academy for matches or coaching.

 

299 The League shall inspect the Academy grass pitches of each Club which operates a Category 1 or Category 2 Academy at least twice a year, and of each Club which operates a Category 3 Academy from time to time.

 

300 Each Club shall take such steps as the Board may require if the Board is not satisfied that a pitch is being maintained to an adequate standard.

 

301 Without prejudice to the generality of Rule 298, each Club shall ensure that the quality of its pitches used for matches in the Games Programmes is not adversely affected by coaching taking place on them.

 

302 Artificial Surface pitch

Categories 1 and 2

One floodlit outdoor Artificial Surface pitch (save that if a Club is unable to obtain planning permission for floodlighting then the requirement for floodlighting shall be waived). It is recommended (and mandatory with effect from 1 July 2016) that this pitch measures 105 metres in length and 68 metres in breadth, unless otherwise permitted by the League.

 

Categories 3 and 4

Access to one floodlight outdoor Artificial Surface pitch (which need not be at the principal venue).

303 Indoor area for training and the playing of matches

Note: ideally a Club’s indoor facility should be located at its principal venue for the coaching of Academy Players and any new facility must be located at the principal venue. It is accepted, however, that a number of Clubs have existing indoor facilities which are located elsewhere, or that it may be impossible for a Club’s indoor facility to be located at its principal venue for planning reasons. In such cases, where the Board is satisfied that the Club’s indoor facility may be located other than at its principal venue, there shall also be a requirement that the Rules relating to the maximum travel time from an Academy Player’s residence to the coaching venue are complied with.

 

Categories 1 and 2

One indoor Artificial Surface pitch measuring a minimum of 60 yards by 40 yards which shall be owned by the Club (or alternatively the Club must have a legally enforceable agreement with the owner of the facility for its use by the Club, expiring not earlier than the end of the current Season) and which shall be for the exclusive use of the Academy at all times. (Note: an indoor pitch which complies with the size requirements set out in Regulation 13 is recommended).

 

Categories 3 and 4

Access to one indoor pitch measuring 60 yards by 40 yards during the months of November to April. Alternatively, the pitch may measure 30 yards by 20 yards but if so the Club shall only be permitted to coach the following maximum numbers of Academy Players at any one time:

- Age groups Under 9 to Under 14 inclusive: 15 in each age group 

- Age groups Under 15 and Under 16 inclusive: 18 in each age group 

- Age groups Under 17 to Under 21 inclusive: 12 in each age group

[RevidgeBlue]

The bit in bold about having to have a facility that is for the use of the Academy only and to be available at all times would appear to kibosh these new plans as far as Cat 1 status goes then, as didn't Swag insinuate the new facility would be one which would be of benefit to the local Community?

[RevidgeBlue]

Forgive me as I'm not on Twitter so I haven't seen a copy of the planning application the Club has submitted?

Do these relate solely to the housing development or is there a specific plan of the exact training centre that is to be built as well?

It seems that a great deal of thought and planning has gone into ascertaining they could squeeze 170 houses onto the STC site but from what Swag was saying this weekend it almost sounded like a case of we'll see if we're allowed to build any houses then depending on how many of them we're allowed to build we'll think about a new training centre. 

He also didn't appear to have the first clue as to what the net cost of a new training centre would be.

Apologies if I'm wrong on that and the specifications for the new training centre are precise and set in stone.

 

[Proudtobeblue&white]

11 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Forgive me as I'm not on Twitter so I haven't seen a copy of the planning application the Club has submitted?

Do these relate solely to the housing development or is there a specific plan of the exact training centre that is to be built as well?

It seems that a great deal of thought and planning has gone into ascertaining they could squeeze 170 houses onto the STC site but from what Swag was saying this weekend it almost sounded like a case of we'll see if we're allowed to build any houses then depending on how many of them we're allowed to build we'll think about a new training centre. 

He also didn't appear to have the first clue as to what the net cost of a new training centre would be.

Apologies if I'm wrong on that and the specifications for the new training centre are precise and set in stone.

 

Seems to me they have got to sell the sale of the STC before they can even think about what to do with the Academy. It all seems a bit on the hoof, hallmark Loons.

[Crimpshrine]

That;s the way it came across to me too.

He is trying to imply that the aim of the scheme is to create this fantastic new training centre for the benefit of the club but in order to do that we have to sell the land to raise money.

So how come there are no detailed plans for the new training centre but obviously many weeks of work has been spent drawing up the plans for the housing development?

Must think we are all mugs.

[only2garners]

40 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Forgive me as I'm not on Twitter so I haven't seen a copy of the planning application the Club has submitted.

Rev - the two planning applications are publicly available on the RVBC website.

[Miller11]

47 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Forgive me as I'm not on Twitter so I haven't seen a copy of the planning application the Club has submitted?

Do these relate solely to the housing development or is there a specific plan of the exact training centre that is to be built as well?

It seems that a great deal of thought and planning has gone into ascertaining they could squeeze 170 houses onto the STC site but from what Swag was saying this weekend it almost sounded like a case of we'll see if we're allowed to build any houses then depending on how many of them we're allowed to build we'll think about a new training centre. 

He also didn't appear to have the first clue as to what the net cost of a new training centre would be.

Apologies if I'm wrong on that and the specifications for the new training centre are precise and set in stone.

 

Link to the plans here

[Moptop1]

45 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

That;s the way it came across to me too.

He is trying to imply that the aim of the scheme is to create this fantastic new training centre for the benefit of the club but in order to do that we have to sell the land to raise money.

So how come there are no detailed plans for the new training centre but obviously many weeks of work has been spent drawing up the plans for the housing development?

Must think we are all mugs.

This is what I implied in a previous message. Sadly, they are the mugs, not us ‘fans’!!!

[Proudtobeblue&white]

If the plans are to scale, just four full size pitches, three five-a-side, and they will transport the indoor facility in a skip, and reassemble it down the hill.

[OldEwoodBlue]

Waggot deflecting attention with his £2 milliin stitch pitch... but admits he has no money to pay for it.

Recurring theme of talking about ideas + no money = no action (aka bullshit).

Jack would have said... Think big lad. Get it built and be sharp. Here's the money. Don't forget to include the fans and the neighbours.

 

If they get planning permission for the houses I can guarantee that will happen... BUT the training ground plan will not happen. The money will vanish.

 

Artificial pitch behind ewood and community centre - not happened.

Rebuild Riverside with hotel - not happened.

Tribute to Tony Parkes - not happened.

Top 6 challenge - not happened.

£2 mill stitch pitch - won't happen.

New state of the art training ground - won't happen.

Lucrative housing development (if they can hoodwink RV council and the fans) - dead cert.

[Stuart]

3 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

The bit in bold about having to have a facility that is for the use of the Academy only and to be available at all times would appear to kibosh these new plans as far as Cat 1 status goes then, as didn't Swag insinuate the new facility would be one which would be of benefit to the local Community?

That’s my take on it too.

If this goes ahead, I’d suggest that (whoever follows Waggott) will be facing life with a Cat 1 academy and PL2 games at Leyland will be replaced with friendlies on site. Depressing stuff - let’s hope I’m wrong!

[tomphil]

Like has been touched on many times and even has its own thread they can't even keep the ground clean. Or maintained to a decent standard !!!!

Been a downgrade on how they maintain the pitch since the Prem days and god knows what else has been neglected.

Again the twitter & facebook sheeple need to look beyond empty promises, need to really base their opinions on fact and what they've seen with their own eyes. Why will this be different and what has prompted it to be so important all of a sudden ?

To me they just wanted to get the planning passed then either flog the land for cold hard money.  Or maybe get it on the balance sheet to borrow against in the short term.  Also need to realize Waggot is a corporate salesman, that's his job that's what he is. He isn't a Rovers fan or a high end football director he strikes me more as a box ticker, trouble shooter yearning to finally do something radical to justify himself to Pune.

I don't think he's corrupt or in cahoots with anything shady he's just doing what comes naturally. Trying to come up with money making schemes etc.

Edited February 28, 2021 by tomphil

[AllRoverAsia]

What is the current status of the land on which the JTC is located?

It falls outside of the original Brockhall footprint and was bought when greenfield, I think, so can't be used for residential.

Can they even plan to erect a huge indoor training centre that has to be as high as a 2 storey house down there, that will impact on the value of any number of residential properties close by.

Do the residents of Brockhall really want to see the narrow roads running from the entrance gate, winding through the Village and down the hill, used as a busy thoroughfare?

I hope that there is opposition from the Village, I don't have much faith in local authorities.

As I have said before the JTC site cannot house all of Rovers (current) training activities. 

That is why there are no detailed plans or costings available for the JTC redevelopment. Why spend money on something that cannot be done. Much easier to say all proceeds will go 100% to the new ''thingy''.

I wonder why Architects from Bedford were selected for the Design and Access Statement, no one local capable?

[OldEwoodBlue]

Steven Waggott... Beer income, Champagne taste.