Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[RevidgeBlue]

15 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Lots of diversion happening here.

There is, isn't there.

[RevidgeBlue]

15 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

There's been a bit of a hiccup on the progress front.

Coming from you that's quite a concession!

Fair do's!

[Mattyblue]

Why the difference?

I’m speaking generally here and there are exceptions, obviously, but my view is that a lot of folk on Facebook/Twitter (especially younger ones) I would call Rovers ‘followers’. I.e they just want to watch the team, and don’t really give the club that much thought throughout the rest of the week, they aren’t particularly interested in the shenanigans that go on in football clubs and generally trust those in charge. So if the Chief Exec calls Brockhall ‘30 years old’, talks about ‘how a combined state of the art facility makes sense’, then why not trust him?

This place you have to set up accounts to join just to talk about Blackburn Rovers and the regular contributors spend hours every day going into the minutiae of the football club, so there is that deeper connection and more ‘big picture’ viewpoint. I’d say most club forums are like this.

[RevidgeBlue]

22 minutes ago, JoeH said:

I think you're right there. I think the reaction to the STC/JTC plans on here are fairly different to those online. It would be interested for sure to understand why that is. Obviously everyone thinks they're right in the opinion they hold or else they wouldn't hold it, but it's definitely intriguing to see how one site responds vs another. Is it an age bracket thing I wonder?

There you go again inferring that anyone opposing the plans must be a silly old sod clinging desperately to some outdated sepia tinted notion of "The Jack Walker Legacy".

As regards the first part of the above paragraph, we're "online"  as well aren't we?

And out of curiosity, where are these other bastions of support for the plans? The only comments I've seen are in the LT along the lines of "There we are, Steve said it so it must be right, can we put that one to bed?"

At least people on here are attempting to be constructive by comparing the available facts with the spin and highlighting the vast discrepancies.

Not just taking everything at face value.

[darrenrover]

1 hour ago, JoeH said:

There certainly is, but in my opinion, if you go back through all 72 pages on this thread, ANYONE who's had contrary views to the majority on here has been argued with based not on their opinion, but their person, character or motives. I agree that there's a difference between having a minority view and being contrarian for the sake of it, but are we to truly believe that every single person who's held a minority view is doing it for some ulterior motive?

Many pages ago I was accused of having a hidden motive. I was accused of being a puppet of the football club. I was subtly accused of accepting financial bribes from people associated with the football club. All because I gave some opinions that didn't quite match what a lot of other people thought.

Minority views may be minority and they may obviously be contested, but I feel that as a thread on the forum, this one's been pretty poor in allowing open discussion. Way too many contrary views have been dismissed as illegitimate, bribed, motived, fake or untrustworthy. 

There's nothing wrong with people challenging people on their views, but too often on this thread in my opinion it's not the views being challenged - it's the character, the motives & the legitimacy of the poster being challenged.

Agreed that this can be frustrating, but I'd ask, what would somebody gain from holding the view that the STC/JTC plans are a good idea, just for the sake of it? Surely it would be fairly improbable that all the people who fit into the minority view on this issue are just being contrarian just for kicks. Because I don't think I can find somebody on this thread who holds said minority view has been responded to solely on the views they put forward alone.

What would somebody gain from this? Unless the accusation (as has already been put forward on this thread) is that people are being bribed to do so. If that is the allegation, I would suggest people tread carefully, as people don't take particularly kindly to being accused of such acts, and I know that there are probably others who would react in a more serious way.

I think you're right there. I think the reaction to the STC/JTC plans on here are fairly different to those online. It would be interested for sure to understand why that is. Obviously everyone thinks they're right in the opinion they hold or else they wouldn't hold it, but it's definitely intriguing to see how one site responds vs another. Is it an age bracket thing I wonder?

Let's cut the crap and cut to the chase Joe:

What exactly is your view on the proposals from Waggott?

Do you feel that as things stand, it seriously jeopardises any Academy status, never mind Cat 1?

Let's see the 'colour of your money', never mind the distraction tactics (IMO) of personal attacks: I agree with you on that by the way, it's abhorrent and totally unprofessional.

So go on then, what's your view, opinion and synopsis of the potential outcome?....

Same applies to any others with a contrary view to the vast majority of folk with BRFC at heart: I open the floor; go on, crack on...state your case!!!..

Edited March 18, 2021 by darrenrover

[tomphil]

2 hours ago, JoeH said:

There certainly is, but in my opinion, if you go back through all 72 pages on this thread, ANYONE who's had contrary views to the majority on here has been argued with based not on their opinion, but their person, character or motives. I agree that there's a difference between having a minority view and being contrarian for the sake of it, but are we to truly believe that every single person who's held a minority view is doing it for some ulterior motive?

Many pages ago I was accused of having a hidden motive. I was accused of being a puppet of the football club. I was subtly accused of accepting financial bribes from people associated with the football club. All because I gave some opinions that didn't quite match what a lot of other people thought.

Minority views may be minority and they may obviously be contested, but I feel that as a thread on the forum, this one's been pretty poor in allowing open discussion. Way too many contrary views have been dismissed as illegitimate, bribed, motived, fake or untrustworthy. 

There's nothing wrong with people challenging people on their views, but too often on this thread in my opinion it's not the views being challenged - it's the character, the motives & the legitimacy of the poster being challenged.

Agreed that this can be frustrating, but I'd ask, what would somebody gain from holding the view that the STC/JTC plans are a good idea, just for the sake of it? Surely it would be fairly improbable that all the people who fit into the minority view on this issue are just being contrarian just for kicks. Because I don't think I can find somebody on this thread who holds said minority view has been responded to solely on the views they put forward alone.

What would somebody gain from this? Unless the accusation (as has already been put forward on this thread) is that people are being bribed to do so. If that is the allegation, I would suggest people tread carefully, as people don't take particularly kindly to being accused of such acts, and I know that there are probably others who would react in a more serious way.

I think you're right there. I think the reaction to the STC/JTC plans on here are fairly different to those online. It would be interested for sure to understand why that is. Obviously everyone thinks they're right in the opinion they hold or else they wouldn't hold it, but it's definitely intriguing to see how one site responds vs another. Is it an age bracket thing I wonder?

I don't really agree with the notion that people are being disagreed with soley on their person, character or motives and not their views. 

It's a very passionate subject and at present the questions far outweigh the answers. The fact it was all being done on the QT and Waggot was clearly rattled about it leaking adds weight to suspicion.

Not sure if you were around in the height of the Kean/Anderson/Kentaro/SEM/Cresendo/Sella/Shagnew and god knows who else involved ?  If not then maybe you don't quite know why the majority on here are like they are.

Basically the Venky era has foisted on us a question first listen second agenda, with good reason. Things had sobered up a bit in recent years thanks to Mowbrays steady hand. Sadly though every time the surface is scratched this is what will come out.

There are plants around particularly on facebook and LT one or two have been flushed out. I guess if you stick around and stick to your guns eventually everyone knows you just have a different viewpoint. 

Those who only come on just to flog the Mowbray line but disappear in every losing run will remain under fire i'm afraid. 

Ironically though this recent row has been kicked off by someone who's one of the V's, clubs and mangers biggest critics. Trying to say that a long standing poster, one who both praises and critics as he sees fit and always has done, is indeed a 'plant'.

It works both ways nobody is immune.

Edited March 18, 2021 by tomphil

[DeeCee]

4 hours ago, tomphil said:

There's a marked difference between having a minority view and just being contrarian for the sake of it though.

One will get tolerated by most but probably heartily and maybe even aggressively disagreed with, the other will get the replies it warrants.

Works for generating content though.

[Exiled in Toronto]

1 hour ago, darrenrover said:

Let's cut the crap and cut to the chase Joe:

What exactly is your view on the proposals from Waggott?

Do you feel that as things stand, it seriously jeopardises any Academy status, never mind Cat 1?

Let's see the 'colour of your money', never mind the distraction tactics (IMO) of personal attacks: I agree with you on that by the way, it's abhorrent and totally unprofessional.

So go on then, what's your view, opinion and synopsis of the potential outcome?....

Same applies to any others with a contrary view to the vast majority of folk with BRFC at heart: I open the floor; go on, crack on...state your case!!!..

Far be it from me to offer advice to a QEGS alumnus, but I think you are conflating the views of a highly engaged minority with the fan base as a whole. By definition, most Rovers fans aren’t engaged enough to post on a message board like this multiple times a day. They will not “wake up” reading guff like the last few pages on here.

I’m not expressing a strident view on the subject because I don’t have one as a fan. But I do as someone whose parents lived in Langho until recently. The residents have real skin in the game, and a much greater potential to affect the outcome than anyone on here. Perhaps marshalling the resources of your school pals to help them might be more productive than haranguing a bloke called Joe on the internet?

And I would guess that to get anywhere with your goal of a dialogue with the owners, you’re going to have to tone down the dogmatism quite a lot, because they probably hold views you will find a lot more incendiary than Joe’s..!

[HowieFive0]

2 hours ago, darrenrover said:

Let's cut the crap and cut to the chase Joe:

What exactly is your view on the proposals from Waggott?

Do you feel that as things stand, it seriously jeopardises any Academy status, never mind Cat 1?

Let's see the 'colour of your money', never mind the distraction tactics (IMO) of personal attacks: I agree with you on that by the way, it's abhorrent and totally unprofessional.

So go on then, what's your view, opinion and synopsis of the potential outcome?....

Same applies to any others with a contrary view to the vast majority of folk with BRFC at heart: I open the floor; go on, crack on...state your case!!!..

Didnt know Abbey was back ..?? Welcome back ..i think ..

[Leonard Venkhater]

57 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Far be it from me to offer advice to a QEGS alumnus, but I think you are conflating the views of a highly engaged minority with the fan base as a whole. By definition, most Rovers fans aren’t engaged enough to post on a message board like this multiple times a day. They will not “wake up” reading guff like the last few pages on here.

I’m not expressing a strident view on the subject because I don’t have one as a fan. But I do as someone whose parents lived in Langho until recently. The residents have real skin in the game, and a much greater potential to affect the outcome than anyone on here. Perhaps marshalling the resources of your school pals to help them might be more productive than haranguing a bloke called Joe on the internet?

And I would guess that to get anywhere with your goal of a dialogue with the owners, you’re going to have to tone down the dogmatism quite a lot, because they probably hold views you will find a lot more incendiary than Joe’s..!

But the actual question to Joe H seemed reasonable enough to me- even from a "QEGS alumnus" lol.

Perhaps, you would rather the same question came from an Old Shadsworthian or St Augustinian?

[darrenrover]

1 hour ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Far be it from me to offer advice to a QEGS alumnus, but I think you are conflating the views of a highly engaged minority with the fan base as a whole. By definition, most Rovers fans aren’t engaged enough to post on a message board like this multiple times a day. They will not “wake up” reading guff like the last few pages on here.

I’m not expressing a strident view on the subject because I don’t have one as a fan. But I do as someone whose parents lived in Langho until recently. The residents have real skin in the game, and a much greater potential to affect the outcome than anyone on here. Perhaps marshalling the resources of your school pals to help them might be more productive than haranguing a bloke called Joe on the internet?

And I would guess that to get anywhere with your goal of a dialogue with the owners, you’re going to have to tone down the dogmatism quite a lot, because they probably hold views you will find a lot more incendiary than Joe’s..!

I’m offended EIT. With respect, you too should ensure you are aware of facts prior to throwing out wild insinuations and accusations from 4,000 miles away.

You haven’t a bloody clue what I’m involved with ‘behind the scenes’ but suffice it to say it includes your ‘recommendation’.

I stand by 100% the offer to Joe and others towing the Coventry 3 Line to state their case....

[J*B]

Will you all please stop arguing between each other and/or calling each other out? 

[J*B]

3 hours ago, darrenrover said:

Let's cut the crap and cut to the chase Joe:

What exactly is your view on the proposals from Waggott?

Do you feel that as things stand, it seriously jeopardises any Academy status, never mind Cat 1?

Let's see the 'colour of your money', never mind the distraction tactics (IMO) of personal attacks: I agree with you on that by the way, it's abhorrent and totally unprofessional.

So go on then, what's your view, opinion and synopsis of the potential outcome?....

Same applies to any others with a contrary view to the vast majority of folk with BRFC at heart: I open the floor; go on, crack on...state your case!!!..

As someone - currently - against the proposals, as I understand it the positive case for it is quite simple, see below:
 

It is proven elsewhere that having the academy and senior team on the same site is of benefit. That is what people building custom built training complexes do. If the proposal improves the quality of the STC and if the academy maintains its cat 1 approval then that’s great. If the professional opinion is we’re not utilising the space and will not ever need two separate sites, then I can get on board with it. 
 

But I don’t trust them. So I oppose it. 

[Boroblue]

If I’ve said this before then I apologise. I was working in Norwich early in Mowbrays reign and went to an under 23 game and ended up sat with the parents. They were to a man adamant that Mowbray wanted to get rid of the academy and felt it was a waste of time and money.

As this proposal is from our Coventry friends they may be happy to loose academy status.

[darrenrover]

36 minutes ago, J*B said:

As someone - currently - against the proposals, as I understand it the positive case for it is quite simple, see below:
 

It is proven elsewhere that having the academy and senior team on the same site is of benefit. That is what people building custom built training complexes do. If the proposal improves the quality of the STC and if the academy maintains its cat 1 approval then that’s great. If the professional opinion is we’re not utilising the space and will not ever need two separate sites, then I can get on board with it. 
 

But I don’t trust them. So I oppose it. 

Good,

Always remember 'a pint into a gill pot does not fit'!

Oh, and 89 proposed parking spaces!

Oh, have we sought PL approval that the plans in principal won't affect our Cat 1 status?.. Have we fuck!...Why not?

Edited March 18, 2021 by darrenrover

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

17 minutes ago, Boroblue said:

They were to a man adamant that Mowbray wanted to get rid of the academy and felt it was a waste of time and money.

He's on record as saying he wanted rid of it. He changed his tune a few months later. Not a trustworthy bloke by any stretch...but if you call yourself honest & honourable etc enough times, and get your mate who is CEO to repeat that narrative, fans start to believe it. 

[tomphil]

So if the current regime aren't keen on academies but the owners are or feel compelled to keep it, because of fans and the JW connection. Then if you wanted to gently get them away from it you'd have to come up with a subtle plan to start with.

Just saying...

[47er]

10 hours ago, JacknOry said:

Woooahhh all kicking off in here. So who is who again? 

Makes me laugh but also brings back memories of when I first came here. Gav said I was some chap called Oxoman or something.

I'll bet he said Saxoman! Not fondly remembered!

[Sparks Rover]

1 hour ago, darrenrover said:

Oh, and 89 proposed parking spaces!

Pay and display should generate a few quid over the season. Tesco at it again.  

[darrenrover]

 

Come on then!....

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by darrenrover

[RevidgeBlue]

11 hours ago, J*B said:

As someone - currently - against the proposals, as I understand it the positive case for it is quite simple, see below:
 

It is proven elsewhere that having the academy and senior team on the same site is of benefit. That is what people building custom built training complexes do. If the proposal improves the quality of the STC and if the academy maintains its cat 1 approval then that’s great. If the professional opinion is we’re not utilising the space and will not ever need two separate sites, then I can get on board with it. 
 

But I don’t trust them. So I oppose it. 

You can't just compare walloping great sites like Everton's which are at least five times the size of the site currently occupied by the STC and think any new facility we built would be comparable on the "all under one roof" basis.

Also where is this "professional" opinion that we don't need both sites coming from?. All we have is Waggott who according to his comments in the LT "thinks" we can configure the one site and schedule the use of any facilities to meet Cat 1 requirements.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but if the new facility fails in terms of either lack of outdoor pitch space, or all the teams having to share facilities, then that's it. No room for manoevure, a white elephant of a facility not fit for purpose and Cat 1 status gone forever.

[RoversClitheroe]

7 hours ago, darrenrover said:

 

Come on then!....

 

Literally Darren.

You're so aggressive.

Just educate and stop belittling literally so frustrating to read through your posts.

You have the knowledge use it and share it rather than argue with everyone and anyone.

[HowieFive0]

7 hours ago, darrenrover said:

 

Come on then!....

 

 

[darrenrover]

1 hour ago, HowieFive0 said:

 

Ha, you reckon?

[darrenrover]

Edited March 19, 2021 by darrenrover