Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[LDRover]

Guerilla warfare!!! 

Kudos to @m1st

[darrenrover]

34 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Based on Friday’s video, the thing that Waggott fears most is objections from the residents. That is the most powerful tactic that can be deployed to prevent planning being approved. 

The thing that Waggott SHOULD be most fearful of is a revolt from supporters of BRFC, never mind residents of Brockhall Village. He must have missed a trick by forgetting that quite a number of said residents are also eminent supporters of Blackburn Rovers!

He has clearly had this in mind for some time, has deliberately tried to reduce the numbers of supporters over time by ludicrous tactics, in fact in the light of what we now know, fucking abhorrent tactics!

There is no way on earth that these proposals will get sanctioned, Waggott, Venus and Mowbray should do the honourable thing in order to save face and walk NOW! Forget waiting for the owners to bin you Mowbray, so that you can claim the compensation. Perhaps you should all perhaps be scouring your contracts of employment to see if you could well conceivably have been in breech?

Just fuck off please!

[tomphil]

So the suit is pushing for selling half the training ground and the manager is now pushing to sell players.

Makes me wonder many things.

[darrenrover]

50 minutes ago, tomphil said:

So the suit is pushing for selling half the training ground and the manager is now pushing to sell players.

Makes me wonder many things.

Eddie Murphy and the movie Trading Places: " Whether it's buy or sell, profit or loss: we still gain our commissions".

Who's going to pen an email to The EFL and who to the national media? (anonymously of course!) 

[tomphil]

He knows we aren't getting the 20 million for Armstrong to make it worthwhile. He knows there won't be much left selling for a more realistic price after everything is taken out. He knows he isn't likely to get much if any of it so why is he playing this card now ?

The owners for their part have stood firm so far and kept these players. Presumably so he can mount some kind of attempt at a play off spot. To me this is classic Mowbray putting the player first as usual.

He needs to be gone and we need a real points driven manager not a players fairy godmother. 

[darrenrover]

5 minutes ago, tomphil said:

He knows we aren't getting the 20 million for Armstrong to make it worthwhile. He knows there won't be much left selling for a more realistic price after everything is taken out. He knows he isn't likely to get much if any of it so why is he playing this card now ?

The owners for their part have stood firm so far and kept these players. Presumably so he can mount some kind of attempt at a play off spot. To me this is classic Mowbray putting the player first as usual.

He needs to be gone and we need a real points driven manager not a players fairy godmother. 

Sparky would do for me..at least what you see is what you get!!!

[tomphil]

12 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

Sparky would do for me..at least what you see is what you get!!!

I know it was a good few years earlier and the pull of the Prem but he got McCarthy, Santa Cruz, Bellamy, Savage and Samba in for about the price of Brereton & Gallagher.

Football is crazy but it does show he was a good judge of player in his time here. Throw in Nelson and Bentley etc, hell what a manager !

[jim mk2]

21 hours ago, Crimpshrine said:

Who said anything about staying at home?  Boycott / protest outside the stadium. 

We need virtually everybody to do it -  that's true but isn't virtually everybody against the Brockhall plans?

You asked the question "what are the fans going to do about it?" - Let's do something!

Being defeatist by saying 'it won't work' will get us nowhere. 

Protest outside boardroom / main stand before the game; protest inside the ground during the game; protest outside again after the game. Make feelings known, loud, clear and often, a bit of passion. I really don't see the point of boycotts.  

[Gone to seed]

8 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Protest outside boardroom / main stand before the game; protest inside the ground during the game; protest outside again after the game. Make feelings known, loud, clear and often, a bit of passion. I really don't see the point of boycotts.  

Erm.. are you going to put your hand in your pocket to pay the fines that would no doubt be levied on any group gathering aimed at registering our displeasure? There's a bit of a lockdown going on, and the prospect of any groups being able to mount a meaningful display of dissent is likely to be outside the current season.

Now, if one of us owned a muck-spreader, or knows someone who does, there might be a spectacular little incident possible, if it was to 'break down' whilst running outside the Directors entrance at Ewood..

 

[Herbie6590]

It’s been said repeatedly on this thread but it bears repeating...do the thing that your “opponent” least wants you to do...

Waggott needs planning consent. Without it, everything else is moot.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Don't attack me now, but would it not be beneficial to have a state of the art , combined underage and senior training center? Like if it was being built from scratch now, that's what everyone would want. 

Obviously I'm not from the town, so from a planning point of view, if something was to be built near me, it would impact me on a day to day basis more and I would have a different set of priorities. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Bigdoggsteel

[Mattyblue]

8 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Don't attack me now, but would it not be beneficial to have a state of the art , combined underage and senior training center? Like if it was being built from scratch now, that's what everyone would want. 

Obviously I'm not from the town, so from a planning point of view, if something was to be built near me, it would impact me on a day to day basis more and I would have a different set of priorities. 

1) I have no faith in this lot delivering ‘state of the art’. I just don’t trust the motives of anyone involved.

2) The footprint on the JTC will be much smaller and pitches will be lost. Combining is fine in practice, but not when it means a reduction in facilities.

3) The potential combined site has already had floodlights turned down - ergo loss of Cat 1 academy status 

4) There are no classrooms on the plan - so again loss of Cat 1 status as it’s a prerequisite.

 

 

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

2 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

Protest outside boardroom / main stand before the game; protest inside the ground during the game; protest outside again after the game. Make feelings known, loud, clear and often, a bit of passion. I really don't see the point of boycotts.  

We're right behind you, Jim 

[Ewood Ace]

13 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Don't attack me now, but would it not be beneficial to have a state of the art , combined underage and senior training center? Like if it was being built from scratch now, that's what everyone would want. 

In an ideal world yes although they aren't exactly far apart at the moment. But had they come out and said we want it all under one roof and are going to be moving to a new site in order to have the space to fit it all in and to have state of the art facilities then fair enough. There would probably still have been some scepticism but the fact that they were moving to a new bigger site would have at least shown that they were perhaps serious about it being state of the art. What they are proposing though looks like a downgrade on all levels and just a way to recoup some loses.

[jim mk2]

28 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

We're right behind you, Jim 

Done my bit 50 years ago! Time for you lot to have a a go

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Don't attack me now, but would it not be beneficial to have a state of the art , combined underage and senior training center? Like if it was being built from scratch now, that's what everyone would want. 

Obviously I'm not from the town, so from a planning point of view, if something was to be built near me, it would impact me on a day to day basis more and I would have a different set of priorities. 

Don't be taken in by the spin, according to the plans it seems all they would be doing, if it went ahead at all, would be to duplicate the existing senior training centre with an identical facility on the junior site and we would lose most of our outdoor pitches and our only outside floodlit artificial pitch. 6 out of 10 full size pitches lost in total by the looks of it.

Nothing would be significantly improved from what it is now and all the teams would have to compete for the facilities on the smaller site making me think the next step in the plan would be to scrap or downgrade the Academy.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

It’s been said repeatedly on this thread but it bears repeating...do the thing that your “opponent” least wants you to do...

Waggott needs planning consent. Without it, everything else is moot.

I tend to agree with this. A few hundred fans lying in front of the bulldozers when they arrive would be visually effective but it's too late by then.

I was thinking that what would be beneficial would be a hearts and minds campaign of the local community, leafletting the houses and having a sympathetic discussion with the local residents on the door step.

Do they want the existing character of the area spoilt?

Do they want another 170 houses on the doorstep in addition to the already sprawling development? 

It's the complete opposite of what Jack Walker would have wanted and in breach of the covenant he or the owner before him imposed on the use of the site.(supposedly)

How do you object? Will it be written objections only or will there be an actual meeting where it can be discussed?

Even if it's only written objections, 5,000 written objections from local residents  and Rovers fans should slow the Council up a bit.

 

[den]

If you wanted to cash in as much as possible on the Brockhall land, while keeping the minimum Academy requirements on the site, this is how you’d do it - isn’t it?

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Don't attack me now, but would it not be beneficial to have a state of the art , combined underage and senior training center? Like if it was being built from scratch now, that's what everyone would want. 

Obviously I'm not from the town, so from a planning point of view, if something was to be built near me, it would impact me on a day to day basis more and I would have a different set of priorities. 

If it was actually state of the art, and on a bigger plot of land, yes. We all doubt the first, and the second we already know about.

[RevidgeBlue]

9 minutes ago, den said:

If you wanted to cash in as much as possible on the Brockhall land, while keeping the minimum Academy requirements on the site, this is how you’d do it - isn’t it?

I'm not sure how having the Juniors queueing up to use the facilities behind the Seniors would meet Academy requirements anyhow tbh den.

The Cat 1 requirements posted on here by Stuart the other day appear to show the need for the youngsters to have their own facilities available for their own exclusive use whenever they want them

Of course we've heard nothing whatsoever  from the Club about how this could possibly work and meet existing requirements. The approach adopted by Waggott has been to see if they can get planning permission for 170 houses and if they can happy days, they'll then turn their thoughts to a training centre.

At that point it will no doubt not be possible to meet the requirements on the one site and we will doubtless be treated to a hard luck story of 'we did all we could but were beaten by the regulations'.

[Mashed Potatoes]

11 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I'm not sure how having the Juniors queueing up to use the facilities behind the Seniors would meet Academy requirements anyhow tbh den.

The Cat 1 requirements posted on here by Stuart the other day appear to show the need for the youngsters to have their own facilities available for their own exclusive use whenever they want them

Of course we've heard nothing whatsoever  from the Club about how this could possibly work and meet existing requirements. The approach adopted by Waggott has been to see if they can get planning permission for 170 houses and if they can happy days, they'll then turn their thoughts to a training centre.

At that point it will no doubt not be possible to meet the requirements on the one site and we will doubtless be treated to a hard luck story of 'we did all we could but were beaten by the regulations'.

I am not very good at posting links but there is now an article on the LET in which Steve Waggott discusses the proposal. Regarding your point about facilities he seems to suggest this would be settled by having a 2 storey building. 

He states that he regards retention of Cat1 status as "vital".

[Mattyblue]

Just like the floodlights for the JTC already being rejected locally, every chance a two storey building does too...

[AllRoverAsia]

19 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

I am not very good at posting links but there is now an article on the LET in which Steve Waggott discusses the proposal. Regarding your point about facilities he seems to suggest this would be settled by having a 2 storey building. 

He states that he regards retention of Cat1 status as "vital".

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19128451.rovers-ceo-academy-status-brexit-key-training-ground-plans/

You're welcome 😉

Edited March 2, 2021 by AllRoverAsia

[RevidgeBlue]

29 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

I am not very good at posting links but there is now an article on the LET in which Steve Waggott discusses the proposal. Regarding your point about facilities he seems to suggest this would be settled by having a 2 storey building. 

He states that he regards retention of Cat1 status as "vital".

OK thanks.

That doesn't seem to be the case in the plans submitted which seem to contain a specification for the new combined  training centre identical to the existing STC. 

It also runs against the tone of the spiel of the proposal which is along the lines of the new facility being built out of natural materials and less of an eyesore for local residents etc.

And you can't get round the fact we'd  lose a lot of full size outdoor pitches,  As far as I can see 5 out of nine outdoor grass pitches and our only outdoor artificial floodlit pitch.

If I've misinterpreted the plans I'm happy to be corrected.

[Leonard Venkhater]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

OK thanks.

That doesn't seem to be the case in the plans submitted which seem to contain a specification for the new combined  training centre identical to the existing STC. 

It also runs against the tone of the spiel of the proposal which is along the lines of the new facility being built out of natural materials and less of an eyesore for local residents etc.

And you can't get round the fact we'd  lose a lot of full size outdoor pitches,  As far as I can see 5 out of nine outdoor grass pitches and our only outdoor artificial floodlit pitch.

If I've misinterpreted the plans I'm happy to be corrected.

In my case, I am starting from such a position of non-trust, I don't believe anything...Everytime I read a Waggott quotation, I just think Mandy Rice-Davies....