Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Richard Oakley said:

No, that is not what you were saying. You called me insane. You said the idea was tin foil hat time. I said you sounded like you were quoting something you'd received from the club. It would be crass incompetence, if the club did not send out to its sponsors information that would enable said sponsors to support what the club is trying to do.

I said "Insane". I was referring to your theory, not your person, and I'm happy to clarify that. I'm not giving this the time of day. "Tin foil hat" was a comment meant to imply that you're WELL off with what I believe is a wild theory that isn't based in any kind of fact.

Edited February 21, 2021 by JoeH

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, JoeH said:

It's a question, with a ? at the end.

???????????? For someone who gets upset easily you're very antagonistic. 

[Crimpshrine]

What I find strange is that there has been absolutely no talk of changing the training facilities - quite the contrary, the club often mentions how good they are and new players always say they were part of the attraction when signing for the club.

The first mention is in a brief statement after the very detailed house building plan has been made public.

I really can't see why anybody can be arguing in favour of this, especially with the Coventry connection where they used the exact same excuse when trying to sell the training ground there.

Today's word of the day - Gullible.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Crimpshrine

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

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 ?

4. Will this make it easier or harder to attract talent?

5. Will it threaten or improve our comparative stance when parents bring their kids to the club?

1/2) We're not currently using all of the pitch space available at the STC & JTC to the best of my knowledge (someone feel free to correct me on that but I've been told this by a few). Therefore I can understand an argument for pragmatism on getting the most out of a more appropriate pitch space.

3) 100% a bad thing. The new building is set to be the same size as the last but expected to house more players? Perhaps the plan will be to house more junior sides at other locations? Talk about a 3g pitch in Darwen? The BRFC Trust? But yes, definitely a downside, but my assumption is that this has been thought through.

4/5) Good questions that I don't know the answer to. The club seem to think yes, but much of the new youth development plans being rumoured seem to be more theoretical and educational changes rather than physical changes... so those things could take place without the location change perhaps?

[J*B]

Last warning - it’s Sunday, I’m walking my dog and my phone keeps beeping with reports on this thread. If you carry on attacking posters expect a ban. I don’t want to do it, but I do want to walk my dog. Lovely lattes at Spring Wood, by the way. 

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

They’re actually in this thread 😉

Yeah, I know. 

[EgyptianPete]

3 minutes ago, rovers11 said:

In response to your last sentence: the problem is, do Venkys’s really have the clubs best interest at heart? Of course not. Local owners perhaps would have. That’s the difference 

So would you be happy if Local owners want to do the same, and i suspect if Venkys ever sold there would be much more assets stripped than you could imagine.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

???????????? For someone who gets upset easily you're very antagonistic. 

I feel like I have a right to be upset when my character is so aggressively attacked. But I think we'll leave that there given that the admins have dealt with the issue and made comment.

[den]

There’s an assumption by some fans that selling off parts of the beautiful Brockhall training facility for multi millions of pounds, is necessary in order to upgrade the training facilities. 
 

So, what happens next time the training facilities need upgrading?

Anyone?

Its bollocks isn’t it. Total bollocks.

[Miller11]

5 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Where did this start? Do we know? As by my own admittance I've only used the phrase having heard it elsewhere.

It was in the press release the club put out yesterday morning.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

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 ?

4. Will this make it easier or harder to attract talent?

5. Will it threaten or improve our comparative stance when parents bring their kids to the club?

1/2) We're not currently using all of the pitch space available at the STC & JTC to the best of my knowledge (someone feel free to correct me on that but I've been told this by a few). Therefore I can understand an argument for pragmatism on getting the most out of a more appropriate pitch space.

3) Yes, definitely a downside. My assumption is that the club have taken this into account but there's no possible outcome where the space per player can be improved in any way.

4 & 5) In short, I don't personally know. The club have made comment on changes in youth development and there's been rumblings and rumours about that too, but a lot of what I've seen sounds like theoretical and educational changes, perhaps coming away from the EPPP I don't know. However most of these changes sound as though they could be adopted without the location change. Again I think on that front time will tell.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Miller11 said:

It was in the press release the club put out yesterday morning.

Was neither the current JTC or STC site in use in any capacity 30 years ago? Very odd thing for them to say otherwise.

[Herbie6590]

Just now, JoeH said:

I feel like I have a right to be upset when my character is so aggressively attacked. But I think we'll leave that there given that the admins have dealt with the issue and made comment.

Please...let’s keep the debate on the facts of the proposal not personal slurs...

I keep saying it....this is a cash raising exercise to mitigate Covid income deficit...it’s blindingly obvious. Realising the impact such a proposal will have on the fanbase, a positive spin is being wheeled out by the club.

Many are taking it at face value, others (myself very much included) can see it for what it is.

In my professional capacity I have seen numerous instances of businesses struggling with cash flow having to make difficult decisions regarding asset sales.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, EgyptianPete said:

I really dont understand some of the logic on here, the Venkys have made our academy CAT 1 and put money in to keep it that way, name me local sides in our area in our division that do the same, if alalgamation of both centres in new state of the art buildings providing permission is granted then why is that not a good thing. We all know what jack built and are forever grateful, but time moves on, Would people on here have the same attitude if local owners had the same thought process.

Can anyone please explain what difference it makes that the buildings themselves are 25-30 years old or brand new?

Or that the current sites are not housed within the same building? They're only a stones throw away from one another?

I suspect absolutely none. It's just a desperate attempt to make a terrible idea sound like a good one.

[broadsword]

47 minutes ago, JoeH said:

I think you can respect the past and still move forward, but sure, instead of actually talking about that, lets just attack! 

 

Were not moving forward though, are we? What does that even mean, anyway? 

We're moving downwards, and our infrastructure is being downgraded to ensure we stay rooted where we are. Not only that, but the club has been turned into a loss-making concession, so there's no real prospect of the club recovering the damage that would be done. 

Don't buy into all this legacy stuff, my god. After everything jack walker did for this club, it gets written off so blithely. Ten years of this club being vandalised, and some people are still on board the venky train

[EgyptianPete]

4 minutes ago, JoeH said:

I feel like I have a right to be upset when my character is so aggressively attacked. But I think we'll leave that there given that the admins have dealt with the issue and made comment.

Keep calm Joe, some posters just want to have their opinion like me, take replies with a pinch of salt no matter how infuriation or deemed personel, be a better day tomorrow.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Herbie6590 said:

Please...let’s keep the debate on the facts of the proposal not personal slurs...

I keep saying it....this is a cash raising exercise to mitigate Covid income deficit...it’s blindingly obvious. Realising the impact such a proposal will have on the fanbase, a positive spin is being wheeled out by the club.

Many are taking it at face value, others (myself very much included) can see it for what it is.

In my professional capacity I have seen numerous instances of businesses struggling with cash flow having to make difficult decisions regarding asset sales.

On that last point, I do wonder what the reaction would be if the club looked to other more difficult options financially rather than this one. The mention of potential redundancies earlier sparked an emotional reaction, which is understandable, but as you refer to, clubs and businesses in dire financial situations could quite easily turn to staffing as a first port of call. 

Does anyone have the details on Rovers furlough situation? Are Venky's still covering wages etc for people? (genuine question)

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

1 hour ago, JoeH said:

Having read through the document I have to say that in my personal opinion, I think the proposals seem fine.

 

4 minutes ago, JoeH said:

1/2) We're not currently using all of the pitch space available at the STC & JTC to the best of my knowledge (someone feel free to correct me on that but I've been told this by a few). Therefore I can understand an argument for pragmatism on getting the most out of a more appropriate pitch space.

3) 100% a bad thing. The new building is set to be the same size as the last but expected to house more players? Perhaps the plan will be to house more junior sides at other locations? Talk about a 3g pitch in Darwen? The BRFC Trust? But yes, definitely a downside, but my assumption is that this has been thought through.

4/5) Good questions that I don't know the answer to. The club seem to think yes, but much of the new youth development plans being rumoured seem to be more theoretical and educational changes rather than physical changes... so those things could take place without the location change perhaps?

So you either don't know what is going to happen, or you think the changes are '100% a bad thing'. 

Strange, considering your first post on the subject started with the post I quoted above it. Bit of a disconnect there. 

[Oldgregg86]

If all this was above aboard, sensible and state of the art they would have been crowing about it months, maybe years ago. The fact is they are pulling the wool over fans eyes and the rug from under our feet. They will leave rich happy men and we will have even less of what jack left us. 

[Miller11]

16 minutes ago, EgyptianPete said:

You should know, be like Bolton and Wigan, and god forbid Bury.

I am so, so sick of this lazy argument. Stop running down your own club. The only way these clubs are comparable to us is they are based in what was Lancashire.

We are Blackburn Rovers, not Bury! We have a glorious history, we are more successful, we have a bigger fanbase... 

We could be the next Leicester, if we had remotely competent owners. 

[Guest]

Just now, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

 

So you either don't know what is going to happen, or you think the changes are '100% a bad thing'. 

Strange, considering your first post on the subject started with the post I quoted above it. Bit of a disconnect there. 

I think they do *seem* fine, as I said, but I'm not an idiot - I know that there's more to it than what something seems. I have reservations about aspects, I'd want to see more plans and more information, and of course there's also the point that I don't even think its going to happen.

There's bits about it I like, bits I don't like. It's not as black or white for me as TERRIBLE or AMAZING news.

[rovers11]

4 minutes ago, EgyptianPete said:

So would you be happy if Local owners want to do the same, and i suspect if Venkys ever sold there would be much more assets stripped than you could imagine.

No, of course not. However, if local owners were in charge who I thought genuinely cared about the club, then I’d probably give them the benefit of the doubt that this was a necessary move to improve the club. If Venkys, multi-billionaires btw, genuinely cared about our club then why go down this route?

Plus, there were agreements in place when they bought the club that they would not go down this route. That begs another question: how much do they even know about this? I suspect they have told Waggot that we need to cut costs and raise cash, he’s then come up with this as the best way of achieving that objective. 

I actually don’t think this will come off anyway.

[Herbie6590]

Rovers main assets that could easily be liquidated are the players. Next is probably Brockhall though that is, as we are seeing, more complicated and time-consuming.

Redundancies typically aren’t cash flow positive for some months in any event - especially if the staff made redundant have been in post a number of years. 
In the context of Rovers, the wage Bill of the entire admin staff is but a blip when compared to the players...or Waggott’s for that matter.

Businesses rarely shrink to greatness...sometimes they sell off non-core operations to focus on the main one & that turns it around...but once you start selling fixed assets then it’s a hard cycle to break.

[Guest]

Just now, Miller11 said:

We could be the next Leicester, if we had remotely competent owners. 

Who'd have thought that this would be a completely legitimate statement in 2014/15 😞

[EgyptianPete]

1 minute ago, rovers11 said:

No, of course not. However, if local owners were in charge who I thought genuinely cared about the club, then I’d probably give them the benefit of the doubt that this was a necessary move to improve the club. If Venkys, multi-billionaires btw, genuinely cared about our club then why go down this route?

Plus, there were agreements in place when they bought the club that they would not go down this route. That begs another question: how much do they even know about this? I suspect they have told Waggot that we need to cut costs and raise cash, he’s then come up with this as the best way of achieving that objective. 

I actually don’t think this will come off anyway.

Regarding agreements, well they were broke almost immediatley, and i agree with you in that probably the Venkys havent been told of this yet, Waggott out, Mowbray out.