Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, JoeH said:

I don't really buy into all this legacy stuff, times change and move on. The building is 30 years old and we're moving a minute up the road, not to another town.

I don't know, good question. I don't even think it'll go ahead, as other posters have alluded to. Would have to wait and see what the building itself looks like. It will be a much newer facility than the one we have, but couldn't possibly say for sure that its progressive or not yet.

I think if it helps us financially, then thats a benefit. We're not going up to the Premier League and I'd rather merge the training centres to raise funds than sell all our best players or drop the Cat One status, for example.

 

Quite unbelievable comments about Jack Walker. 

As others have said, I'm not certain how these plans reveal anything particularly state of the art or anything that couldn't be easily incorporated into the existing sites. We'd simply be getting an infinitely smaller facility. It's virtually impossible to see any benefit to it in footballing terms.

[Leonard Venkhater]

1 minute ago, JoeH said:

 

I respect what I assume is your position on legacy, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I can respect and understand your viewpoint, I just don't hold legacy in such an important light as yourself and others who do.

But for me, legacy is not merely a faded tired old relic like Miss Havisham's dress. It is something to be nurtured and built upon. Certainly, not pissed away/sold off for a quick buck with zero future investment.

[Guest]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Quite unbelievable comments about Jack Walker. 

I just don't personally think legacy and all of its trimmings are as important as some other people do. That's my position. It certainly doesn't change my opinion on Jack Walker, what he did and what we achieve under his leadership. 

[Herbie6590]

4 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

And they’ll flat bat it away, obviously. 

I’d prefer real journalism that publishes the investigated story and then gives those involved the right to reply.
 

But asking them to reveal what they know up front is a sensible tactic as anything uncovered thereafter confirms that they were being dishonest...

[Guest]

Just now, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

I'm just happy not to be a Venky shill, and happy not to wish job losses on people. 

 

Ah and now I'm a Venky shill for daring to post my opinion. Love that.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

6 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Nothing to hide but was still removed. I find that rather odd. I think you know full well that attacking my person and integrity rather than talking about my opinion or yours was a bad call, and you backtracked. Call it what you want.

Club sponsor supports club initiative. 

That's the post I deleted to stop you getting upset. It's hardly earth shattering, it's a statement of fact. It certainly doesn't attack your 'person' or 'integrity'. Get over yourself. The fact you are now trying to take the moral high ground speaks volumes. Desperate. 

I'm just happy not to be a Venky shill, and happy not to wish job losses on people. 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Hoochie Bloochie Mama

[Guest]

Just now, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

I'm just happy not to be a Venky shill, and happy not to wish job losses on people. 

Now I'm a Venky shill for daring to have an opinion. Love that.

[LDRover]

2 minutes ago, JoeH said:

I just don't personally think legacy and all of its trimmings are as important as some other people do. That's my position. It certainly doesn't change my opinion on Jack Walker, what he did and what we achieve under his leadership. 

Jack's motto was 'Think big' and his legacy to us was with that motto underpinning everything he left. Yet, you,  in your comments, are endorsing downscaling and accepting mediocrity. It's the polar opposite of everything Jack stood for.

That is his legacy.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, JoeH said:

Now I'm a Venky shill for daring to have an opinion. Love that.

Sorry, I meant club sponsor, who is happy for Rovers employees to lose their jobs? That better?

Edited February 21, 2021 by Hoochie Bloochie Mama

[RevidgeBlue]

16 minutes ago, den9112 said:

Extracts from Andy Cole’s  autobiography ,I see Swag gets a mention but not in a good light .

Good spot.

Shows Waggott in his true colours.

[Mattyblue]

6 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

But asking them to reveal what they know up front is a sensible tactic as anything uncovered thereafter confirms that they were being dishonest...

Of course, but unfortunately I doubt we’ll hear of Coventry again once it’s denied at the presser. I may be wrong, but I see our local press as football reporters not investigative journalists, and the impoverished outlets they work for will not want to rock the boat with key stakeholders like the local football club - key drivers of sales/site traffic.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Mattyblue

[Richard Oakley]

Well we know where this is going don't we?

From the Coventry play book

1) Sell off the training facilities

2) Promise to build new training facilities, but don't

3) Sell the ground /Move out and ground share

4) (say your going to) Build new ground out of town.

@JoeHThose phrases you came out with sound like they're from a spin sheet the club handed out to all its sponsors.

You've blown their cover on the  'promotion back to the premier league' as a mere smokescreen. Just something to wave under our 'idiot' owners noses and equally 'stupid' fans noses.

[den]

15 minutes ago, JoeH said:

I don't really buy into all this legacy stuff, times change and move on. The building is 30 years old and we're moving a minute up the road, not to another town.

I don't know, good question. I don't even think it'll go ahead, as other posters have alluded to. Would have to wait and see what the building itself looks like. It will be a much newer facility than the one we have, but couldn't possibly say for sure that its progressive or not yet.

I think if it helps us financially, then thats a benefit. We're not going up to the Premier League and I'd rather merge the training centres to raise funds than sell all our best players or drop the Cat One status, for example.

 

Selling off assets always raises funds JoeH. Selling assets though only takes you in one direction 👇

What will happen to the money raised JoeH? I guess that you have some idea where it will go. IMO, there’s absolutely zero chance that it will be reinvested back into the club in any meaningful long term way.

[Guest]

Just now, den said:

I guess that you have some idea where it will go. IMO, there’s absolutely zero chance that it will be reinvested back into the club in any meaningful long term way.

My guess is as good and as honest as yours.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Richard Oakley said:

@JoeHThose phrases you came out with sound like they're from a spin sheet the club handed out to all its sponsors.

 

Insane. Tin foil hat time.

[MarkBRFC]

2 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Now I'm a Venky shill for daring to have an opinion. Love that.

Maybe not a venkys shill, but you see one of the advantages of the scheme that we'll cut staff costs so effectively a thumbs up on people maybe losing there jobs?

[den]

Just now, JoeH said:

My guess is as good and as honest as yours.

Fair enough, but then I don’t understand why you support the downscaling.

 

[Herbie6590]

2 minutes ago, JoeH said:

I just don't personally think legacy and all of its trimmings are as important as some other people do. That's my position. It certainly doesn't change my opinion on Jack Walker, what he did and what we achieve under his leadership. 

FWIW the legacy aspect is emotional & frankly probably means more to older supporters...park that, let’s just consider the facts for a second...

1. Smaller site - how is that better ? It introduces a constraint that isn’t present today

2. Fewer pitches - how is that better ? See above... (True, we might save on some fertiliser, grass seed and labour costs but that is truly small beer in the overall running costs

3. More players using a new STC that by the club’s admission will be no bigger than the current one - how is that better ?

Will this make it easier or harder to attract talent ? Will it threaten or improve our comparative stance when parents bring their kids to the club ?
This deal is to raise cash....that is self-evident...I just wish they’d be up front about it & not try to spin it as a progressive move. It is just like schools having to sell playing fields to keep solvent. You can do it once...but what do you do next ?

I should try this with Mrs H...”I’ve sold our house love and next week we move to a new state of the art flat...” 

 

[Guest]

Just now, MarkBRFC said:

Maybe not a venkys shill, but you see one of the advantages of the scheme that we'll cut staff costs so effectively a thumbs up on people maybe losing there jobs?

I didn't say that, an issue of these messageboards is one person claims one thing and then two pages later it becomes fact. I was asked what I thought the club saw as benefits.

I wasn't giving a personal opinion on the morality of redundancy. 

[Guest]

Just now, den said:

Fair enough, but then I don’t understand why you support the downscaling.

 

I'm not even aggressively supporting it, just giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're probably looking to benefit in the right ways. I've already said I'm reserving judgement on whether the new facilities will truly be state-of-the-art, amongst other quite neutral and reserved things.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, MarkBRFC said:

Maybe not a venkys shill, but you see one of the advantages of the scheme that we'll cut staff costs so effectively a thumbs up on people maybe losing there jobs?

That's a massive red flag to me. Sickening to read during a pandemic when millions are losing their jobs. 

[Richard Oakley]

3 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Insane. Tin foil hat time.

You calling me insane.? You looking for a lawsuit?

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

I've wondered for a while what Waggott actually does.#

£300,000 a year for him to plot to sell off our prized training ground. Good work if you can get it.

Pack your bags Steve, you and your mates aren't good enough for this club.

 

30 minutes ago, JoeH said:

A newer building? More pragmatic use of the space? Financially beneficial? Cuts down costs and potentially some staffing costs too?

So it's a downgrade then to save money and rinse a few quid ?

Is it desperately needed, will we make the play offs and promotion on the back of it ?

What happens if we REALLY need money in years to come when Vs have turned the taps off or flown the nest ?   What gets sold then ?

[Leonard Venkhater]

1 minute ago, Herbie6590 said:

FWIW the legacy aspect is emotional & frankly probably means more to older supporters...park that, let’s just consider the facts for a second...

1. Smaller site - how is that better ? It introduces a constraint that isn’t present today

2. Fewer pitches - how is that better ? See above... (True, we might save on some fertiliser, grass seed and labour costs but that is truly small beer in the overall running costs

3. More players using a new STC that by the club’s admission will be no bigger than the current one - how is that better ?

Will this make it easier or harder to attract talent ? Will it threaten or improve our comparative stance when parents bring their kids to the club ?
This deal is to raise cash....that is self-evident...I just wish they’d be up front about it & not try to spin it as a progressive move. It is just like schools having to sell playing fields to keep solvent. You can do it once...but what do you do next ?

I should try this with Mrs H...”I’ve sold our house love and next week we move to a new state of the art flat...” 

 

The legacy word is particularly important in a Blackburn Rovers context, though, because it was Mme Desai's original vow to "respect Jack Walker's legacy" ...but....

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

That's a massive red flag to me. Sickening to read during a pandemic when millions are losing their jobs. 

Again, a complete misrepresentation. Your methods of debate are wholly disingenuous.