Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[Richard Oakley]

1 minute ago, JoeH said:

Pro's:
- Financially beneficial to the club
- Brand new building which *could* be state-of-the-art facility
- May allow club to adopt different ideas on youth development, housing juniors teams within same location as senior teams as seen at other top European clubs
- Moving 1 minute from current location, not a drastic change unlike some clubs

Cons/Questions:
- No room for further development in the future due to a decisive and final move which would be irreversible
- Less building space per player (unless the most junior of our teams are relocated)
- Selling the land technically is financially beneficial but does it not technically devalue the club? Might need some more well knowledged opinion on that.

Thanks for the answers.

How does it benefit the club for our first team to train in facilities that aren't to the current STC standard forythe years it will take to build the new facilties?

How does it help our club, if we lose Cat A status for the academy? We'll be without the facilities that currently secure that status and will be without until the new facilities are built and there's no guarantee the new facilities will qualify. I'm pretty sure there will be another review before the new facilities will be finished.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

It’s a possibility but it’s rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic unless there is hidden oil reserves at the JTC. 

That's tomorrow's Nixon exclusive sorted. 

[perthblue02]

13 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

I may have dreamt it but is there not a picture  somewhere of Kenny on someone shoulders putting the nets up at Pleasington pre-Brockhall?

According to the CCC (Blackburn offices) that picture is photoshopped as are all  photos from Pleasington/ Brockhall circa 1991/1992/1993 🙂

Please go to sleep repeating Brockhall training facilities are 30 years old.

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

2 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Pro's:
- Financially beneficial to the club
- Brand new building which *could* be state-of-the-art facility
- May allow club to adopt different ideas on youth development, housing juniors teams within same location as senior teams as seen at other top European clubs
- Moving 1 minute from current location, not a drastic change unlike some clubs

Cons/Questions:
- No room for further development in the future due to a decisive and final move which would be irreversible
- Less building space per player (unless the most junior of our teams are relocated)
- Selling the land technically is financially beneficial but does it not technically devalue the club? Might need some more well knowledged opinion on that.

I’m on the fence. Need to learn more about the proposed new STC. I have no doubt that our facilities are getting outdated but it doesn’t sound like the replacement will be significantly better, at least on paper. If the club benefits financially and we end up with a better facility then it’s obviously a no brainier but we need to see the finer details. 

In terms of Jack’s legacy, I think we need to be philosophical. Preserving Jack’s legacy shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to improve the facilities, similar to any suggestion to replace the riverside stand. They key is to fully understand how the club will benefit and right now, it’s not particularly clear. 

Obviously with this being Venkys, I don’t blame any supporters from fearing the worst. Right now, we need to establish the facts.

[Dreams of 1995]

9 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Pro's:
- Financially beneficial to the club
- Brand new building which *could* be state-of-the-art facility
- May allow club to adopt different ideas on youth development, housing juniors teams within same location as senior teams as seen at other top European clubs
- Moving 1 minute from current location, not a drastic change unlike some clubs

Cons/Questions:
- No room for further development in the future due to a decisive and final move which would be irreversible
- Less building space per player (unless the most junior of our teams are relocated)
- Selling the land technically is financially beneficial but does it not technically devalue the club? Might need some more well knowledged opinion on that.

You can’t use “could” as a pro. Sorry. Nothing they have done has ever been as good as something Jack has done *30 YEARS AGO*

It isn’t financially beneficial to the club either. 
 

Again, I’m struggling to see any pro to this. Look at the facilities we have, look at the facilities they now propose and tell me again what are we gaining from this? We being Blackburn Rovers btw. 

[Mattyblue]

1 minute ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

I’m on the fence. Need to learn more about the proposed new STC. I have no doubt that our facilities are getting outdated but it doesn’t sound like the replacement will be significantly better, at least on paper. If the club benefits financially and we end up with a better facility then it’s obviously a no brainier but we need to see the finer details. 

In terms of Jack’s legacy, I think we need to be philosophical. Preserving Jack’s legacy shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to improve the facilities, similar to any suggestion to replace the riverside stand. They key is to fully understand how the club will benefit and right now, it’s not particularly clear. 

Obviously with this being Venkys, I don’t blame any supporters from fearing the worst. Right now, we need to establish the facts.

The Riverside is a dilapidated shed that was built on the cheap, replacing it would not be an issue for anybody.

Brockhall still stands up to or is far superior to most football clubs, especially at this level.

There is no sporting reason for this development.
 

 

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

You can’t use “could” as a pro. Sorry. Nothing they have done has ever been as good as something Jack has done *30 YEARS AGO*

It isn’t financially beneficial to the club either. 
 

Again, I’m struggling to see any pro to this. Look at the facilities we have, look at the facilities they now propose and tell me again what are we gaining from this? We being Blackburn Rovers btw. 

Would a pro be all the coaching staff from first team to under 18's working more closely together on the same training complex 

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, JoeH said:

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.

On what basis though are you giving them the benefit of the doubt? In light of what happened at Coventry with 3 of the same key personnel.

Asking, not having a go.

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

1 minute ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

You can’t use “could” as a pro. Sorry. Nothing they have done has ever been as good as something Jack has done *30 YEARS AGO*

It isn’t financially beneficial to the club either. 
 

Again, I’m struggling to see any pro to this. Look at the facilities we have, look at the facilities they now propose and tell me again what are we gaining from this? We being Blackburn Rovers btw. 

You can use ‘could’ because we’re all speculating over the benefits and drawbacks. You don’t know that it won’t be financially profitable for example. Your final question is what we all need the club to clearly answer and until then, it’s hard to make a definitive judgement.

[Herbie6590]

3 minutes ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

I’m on the fence. Need to learn more about the proposed new STC. I have no doubt that our facilities are getting outdated but it doesn’t sound like the replacement will be significantly better, at least on paper. If the club benefits financially and we end up with a better facility then it’s obviously a no brainier but we need to see the finer details. 

In terms of Jack’s legacy, I think we need to be philosophical. Preserving Jack’s legacy shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to improve the facilities, similar to any suggestion to replace the riverside stand. They key is to fully understand how the club will benefit and right now, it’s not particularly clear. 

Obviously with this being Venkys, I don’t blame any supporters from fearing the worst. Right now, we need to establish the facts.

This whole “outdated facilities” thing...three quarters of Ewood Park is the same age as Brockhall...should we knock that down ? 

I was fortunate enough to be given a tour of the STC a couple of years ago, unless they’ve gone downhill bloody quickly, they were pretty impressive to the untrained eye I can assure you. 

[broadsword]

Financially beneficial to the club, in the short term yes. But you're burning the house to keep warm. Once it's ashes, that's it. 

 

I tell you what would be beneficial for this club, is Madame Venky and her half wit brothers to sell up, get the heck out of the club, and take Tony "endless flannel" Mowbray, venus, waggott with them and never ever come back

[Herbie6590]

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Would a pro be all the coaching staff from first team to under 18's working more closely together on the same training complex 

As has been pointed out...only 1 minute commute between the two...let’s buy some golf buggies instead 😉

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, JoeH said:

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.

May I ask why you feel that Venkys warrant the benefit of the doubt?

[Herbie6590]

2 minutes ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

You can use ‘could’ because we’re all speculating over the benefits and drawbacks. You don’t know that it won’t be financially profitable for example. Your final question is what we all need the club to clearly answer and until then, it’s hard to make a definitive judgement.

If it’s NOT financially profitable why on earth would we be entertaining the proposal ? 

[Mattyblue]

4 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

This whole “outdated facilities” thing...three quarters of Ewood Park is the same age as Brockhall...should we knock that down ? 

 

Don’t give them ideas or we’ll have a Lidl in the Riverside’s place, Burnden Park style...

Edited February 21, 2021 by Mattyblue

[perthblue02]

10 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Would a pro be all the coaching staff from first team to under 18's working more closely together on the same training complex 

You have watched the first team recently haven't you? Don't inflict this on the younger ones.

[Ewood Ace]

2 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

This whole “outdated facilities” thing...three quarters of Ewood Park is the same age as Brockhall...should we knock that down ? 

I was fortunate enough to be given a tour of the STC a couple of years ago, unless they’ve gone downhill bloody quickly, they were pretty impressive to the untrained eye I can assure you. 

One of the things that most players mention when they sign is the facilities. Also if our facilities were really outdated then I doubt Man City and Liverpool would be allowing their youngsters to come on loan here. 

[Parsonblue]

48 minutes ago, JoeH said:

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

The reason they say these things Joe is because none of them were here 30 years ago to know what went on.  But when Dalglish arrived we certainly weren't training at Brockhall.  Jack persuaded Kenny and Ray that he would build excellent facilities for them.  Which he did.  The present academy was actually the first team training ground and that was built first.  What is now the Senior Training ground was originally the Academy and that was built later as Jack wanted a state of the art Academy set up.  It was Mark Hughes who swapped them around.

Whilst I wouldn't expect you to know this, because I suspect you are rather too young, it's sad that the club can't actually get the facts right.

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, WIR Second Coming said:

“The redevelopment of the Junior Training Centre site is an opportunity to provide new high quality indoor sport facilities that would benefit the Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic and the people of Brockhall Village as a
whole”

Oh yes, I can just see how the people of Brockhall Village would benefit..

erm..

Err...

Doh! No I can't!

 

Probably gonna hire half of the reduced site out as a leisure centre.....

[Mattyblue]

3 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

 

Whilst I wouldn't expect you to know this, because I suspect you are rather too young, it's sad that the club can't actually get the facts right.

I would wager ‘the club’ know all too well when they were actually built...

Edited February 21, 2021 by Mattyblue

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

23 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

This whole “outdated facilities” thing...three quarters of Ewood Park is the same age as Brockhall...should we knock that down ? 

I was fortunate enough to be given a tour of the STC a couple of years ago, unless they’ve gone downhill bloody quickly, they were pretty impressive to the untrained eye I can assure you. 

I’d suggest Ewood is slightly different given the purpose of the buildings, historical significance, fans emotional attachment and lack of viable alternatives but it’s certainly showing it’s age and, as mentioned, the riverside (built circa 1990/91?) certainly should be replaced.

Always wanted to visit the STC so will defer to your knowledge. But in fairness this isn’t about impressing the untrained eye, it’s improving the facilities to modern standards.

To be clear, I remain to be convinced that this is the right approach and the club will need to go to some lengths to convince me that this is in our best interests. But equally, I’m not going to dismiss the idea out of hand.

Edited February 21, 2021 by magicalmortensleftpeg

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

As others have said, once that land is gone, it's gone forever. And once the covenants are removed it makes it easier to eventually sell the rest...especially if the new state-of-the-art TC never comes to fruition. 

I told my 80 year old dad about it yesterday. He's still an ST holder, been going since the 1950's. He's not an emotional man but i could hear the sadness in his voice when he said 'they aren't respecting Jack's wishes'. 

For some people, legacy, history, tradition etc mean an awful lot. It's about respect.  

 

[den9112]

Coventry City fans had a simalar issue with one of their training grounds when Mark Venus was (caretaker) manager and he was involved with Dedham vale homes ltd, that company was disloved a few years ago,maybe all a big coincidence but to have a simalar issue here at Rovers make of that as you will ....

[den]

8 minutes ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

I’d suggest Ewood is slightly different given the purpose of the buildings and lack of viable alternatives but it’s certainly showing it’s age and, as mentioned, the riverside (built circa 1990/91?) certainly should be replaced.

Always wanted to visit the STC so will defer to your knowledge. But in fairness this isn’t about impressing the untrained eye, it’s improving the facilities to modern standards.

To be clear, I remain to be convinced that this is the right approach and the club will need to go to some lengths to convince me that this is in our best interests. But equally, I’m not going to dismiss the idea out of hand.

I already have done. It’s obvious to me why this is happening. It’s also obvious that any dubious benefit to the playing side of the club can only be short term, while the effects on the Brockhall facility is for ever.
 

[Mattyblue]

For such a massive change for the club, an ‘exciting’ one, no less. Why was there not a single person named in that statement? 

Why were the owners not mentioned, considering they are normally thanked for their unstinting commitment and every purchase, from players to grass seed.

Where was the Chief Exec, surely the driver and sponsor of such pivotal infrastructure plans?

Where was the team manager backing this exciting combining of facilities?

Where was the Academy director promoting the links with the first team and how it can only help our Cat 1 status.

Nowhere and that speaks volumes...

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Mattyblue