Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[cmb211087]

12 hours ago, Ulrich said:

Don't you need a school for cat 1?  I thought teaching etc had to take place, accommodation etc or do we do these elsewhere?

Is that not what the partnership with Moorlands is? I could be mistaken.

https://moorlandschool.co.uk/football/

[Dreams of 1995]

15 hours ago, JoeH said:

I won't be tricked into talking about something I've already gone over 10's of pages ago. It's my belief that having read the responses on here, nobody actually wants to be convinced of any positives at all, so what's the point? Last time I tried to talk about it, it just ended stupidly, and I won't be going back into that situation ago willingly.

It is funny that, almost as if you have convinced yourself that people are ignoring the positives. So far the only positive that has been given is that it will all be under one roof. That can be seen as a bit of a false dawn though when you consider the vast reduction in facilities that come with it.

Before making remarks like that you should put on some big boy pants and consider whether the positives you believe ought to be considered are actually positives in the cold harshness of reality. Working in the construction industry you very quickly learn to toss aside the words within these planning applications and look at the tangible components a development promises. The club have been kind enough to produce a rather detailed plan of the facilities and housing development (for the benefit of RVBC, not us) and therefore it shouldn't be difficult for one to see the positives, or convince others of them, if they so exist.

As it stands the reality does not match the rhetoric based on the current information we have got. Bleating that people are not open to accept alternative views is a quite an egotistical approach, as if you can see through the trees when they can't.

Despite you proclaiming you have gone over these 10s of pages ago, as a follower of this thread, I am yet to see you make a convincing argument aside from "all under one roof" and the FFP benefits - which do not actually come into play if they plan on reinvesting every £ into the training facilities as promised.

Perhaps before concluding that people are not listening to you, you should consider if your perceived "positives" are positive at all.

[tomphil]

The positives - 

Well it'll be easier to clean and maintain all under one roof and might save a few quid annually. 

The manager and whoever is in charge can see everything that's going on under hi nose.

Less pitches to mow and maintain and maybe some kind of tax saving due to smaller plot.

And...... er........  oh yeah somewhere down the line it might work like the Brentford model.

The Negatives - 

It's a proven working model as it is so any change will alter that, it isn't broke it doesn't need fixing.  Just maybe upgrading and that'll cost a few quid.

This project nobody knows how much it'll cost so it will likely end up costing more than it'll bring in.

Nobody connected with it has done anything like this before so it's a shot in the dark.

These pushing it have an average track record at best, very poor at worst. These owners track record is even worse. The academy is just about the only thing they've got right in ten years.

The mess the changes and work and timeline it'll take will probably cause chaos and effect the teams and residents negatively. Results and poor league position will be blamed on all this.

People in the middle of it all will be filling their pockets it's extremely naive to think otherwise.

It won't end up working like the Brentford model as it's a downscale, they've started from scratch and built up. A totally different dynamic under different ownership and agendas.

The people driving this and who'll be running it aren't capable. They can't even make the best use of what they have now. It won't deliver the top 6 or promotion on its own.

In terms of turning out players to select for the first team squad it is already out doing the Brentford model. They'd probably have aspired to us if they had the facilities and space already. Try buying a sight like that around London !

And last but by no means least it really is not a priority it's just being pushed by people trying to keep themselves relevant and make a bonus. The pitch, the stadium and the first team are the absolute asafp priorities right now.

Oh and the closing thought, it would probably mean another 5 years on the Coventry 3 !!!!

 

 

[Dreams of 1995]

I checked on some of the facilities of Category 1 academies to see if our proposals stack up. It was difficult in the limited time I set myself to get a clear like-for-like comparison. I'm sure it could be done if I spent more time reviewing old planning applications. However, in doing so I decided to totally disregard the likes of Utd, Liverpool etc as they are clubs 'out of our reach' in terms of finances, so I decided to look at Reading first.

On their website it has the following:

Quote

"The site at Bearwood Estate was identified and contracts were initially exchanged with the Royal Merchant Navy School Foundation for the purchase of nearly 120 acres of land on Friday 11th October 2013.

Plans were drawn up and openly exhibited to supporters and local residents in the Mosaic Room at Bearwood College in December 2013, at which point the public were able to view the plans for the first time, discuss aspects of the scheme with members of the Club's appointed development team and provide valuable feedback.

Permission to develop was then formally requested and in April 2015, the club confirmed that Wokingham Borough Council had resolved to grant planning permission for the development of the new facility.

The new site hosts three full size first team pitches which will be designed to mirror the exact dimensions of Madejski Stadium, a floodlit all-weather surface and a goalkeeping practice area.

It is also home to a purpose-built first team building and a separate Academy facility as well as a number of various other ancillary buildings. Ongoing development of the site will also involve extensive landscaping of the park and the refurbishment of a number of existing buildings."

Almost immediately it jumps out the time gap between consulting supporters (even its own appointed development team!) to formal application. Whilst at BRFC we haven't seen formal application to develop yet, we have seen a screening opinion, and indeed is the first any fan anywhere had ever seen or heard of it. This is in direct contrast to a club like Reading.

Secondly, the fact that they have a "purpose built first team building and a separate academy facility" is quite striking. Why would they need that when the future is "all under one roof"? Clearly, the development team, in conjuction with the fans and club, believe it is required. Note the all-weather surface.

Anyway, my next check was Swansea. I remembered they had not long back developed a new training ground to achieve this status. They have since lost Cat 1 academy status however I do think that this is interesting:

https://www.swanseacity.com/news/swans-open-new-academy-training-complex-facilities

A "purpose built" academy facility.

https://trainingground.guru/articles/swansea-city-drop-out-of-category-one

Quote

“So, it’s little wonder that there are only seven other Championship clubs operating a Category One Academy. However, I am pleased to announce that with the full support of the owners we have made the decision to continue to operate the two training sites to maintain our Academy Category One status for season 2020-21.

So it seems clear to me that Swansea, with their recent upgrade to achieve Cat 1 status, also saw the need for two training sites to maintain their Category One status.

Anyway, it is only 2 out of the possible 23(?), but the picture is clear. Sunderland recently built a new facility which is all under one roof but it dwarfs our development. It has 13 football pitches, pools, hydrotherapy suits, classrooms and is built into the ground. It has the room for another full size indoor football pitch. It just isn't on the same scale as the Academy training centre at Brockhall. I would have to check Boro, Baggies, Stoke and Norwich etc but I am going to put my cock on the block and say they will have a similar tale to the above 3 examples one way or the other.

 

[Dreams of 1995]

1 minute ago, Meesh said:

I've heard the phrase "streamline the business" on countless occasions over the last decade. This is basically what Waggott is pioneering. It's just a cost-cutting exercise. It usually means downsizing workspaces, facilities, and staff to the bare bones, and billing it as something positive and "saving the business". All it really does is keep the profits at a stable level. Nothing extra is produced at all, but the cloth is just cut.

Is FFP an upcoming issue again, perhaps?

I stand to be corrected but FFP is irrelevant in respect of the Academy. Also, the club have promised to put every bit of money raised from the development into the construction of the new training facilities, including a comment about asking Venkys for additional funding of required. 

[RevidgeBlue]

54 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I checked on some of the facilities of Category 1 academies to see if our proposals stack up. It was difficult in the limited time I set myself to get a clear like-for-like comparison. I'm sure it could be done if I spent more time reviewing old planning applications. However, in doing so I decided to totally disregard the likes of Utd, Liverpool etc as they are clubs 'out of our reach' in terms of finances, so I decided to look at Reading first.

On their website it has the following:

Almost immediately it jumps out the time gap between consulting supporters (even its own appointed development team!) to formal application. Whilst at BRFC we haven't seen formal application to develop yet, we have seen a screening opinion, and indeed is the first any fan anywhere had ever seen or heard of it. This is in direct contrast to a club like Reading.

Secondly, the fact that they have a "purpose built first team building and a separate academy facility" is quite striking. Why would they need that when the future is "all under one roof"? Clearly, the development team, in conjuction with the fans and club, believe it is required. Note the all-weather surface.

Anyway, my next check was Swansea. I remembered they had not long back developed a new training ground to achieve this status. They have since lost Cat 1 academy status however I do think that this is interesting:

https://www.swanseacity.com/news/swans-open-new-academy-training-complex-facilities

A "purpose built" academy facility.

https://trainingground.guru/articles/swansea-city-drop-out-of-category-one

So it seems clear to me that Swansea, with their recent upgrade to achieve Cat 1 status, also saw the need for two training sites to maintain their Category One status.

Anyway, it is only 2 out of the possible 23(?), but the picture is clear. Sunderland recently built a new facility which is all under one roof but it dwarfs our development. It has 13 football pitches, pools, hydrotherapy suits, classrooms and is built into the ground. It has the room for another full size indoor football pitch. It just isn't on the same scale as the Academy training centre at Brockhall. I would have to check Boro, Baggies, Stoke and Norwich etc but I am going to put my cock on the block and say they will have a similar tale to the above 3 examples one way or the other.

 

What a great post.

Mr. Waggott owned.

[Dreams of 1995]

24 minutes ago, Meesh said:

I would have thought that any money made from selling land owned by the club would be classed as a sale for the club, i.e. a profit.

I’m unsure how it will work in this regard though Meesh.

 

In our accounts we will likely show profit in the year we sell the land. However, I’m fairly certain that expenditure on facilities are not considered for FFP. I’m probably asking a very simple question for our accounting posters but can we use the money raised from selling land to show a profit for FFP even if we spent that money on new facilities? 
 

ie, can we say we spent £25 million on the academy and have that wrote off for FFP, but also show a say £20m profit due to land sales despite the fact all £20m contributed to the £25m facility expenditure. 

[PeteJD13]

30 minutes ago, Meesh said:

I would have thought that any money made from selling land owned by the club would be classed as a sale for the club, i.e. a profit.

No its not capital spend and money raises doesn't count in FFP they closed the loophole, when clubs started flogging grounds to themselves

[darrenrover]

Just a simple suggestion:

Why doesn't somebody post a link that details the Premier League requirements for Category 1 Status Academies?

Why doesn't someone post a link that details the current requirements to be compliant regarding FFP Regulations in The Championship?

Then everybody can form their own opinions based upon fact....

[Sparks Rover]

14 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

Just a simple suggestion:

Why doesn't somebody post a link that details the Premier League requirements for Category 1 Status Academies?

Why doesn't someone post a link that details the current requirements to be compliant regarding FFP Regulations in The Championship?

Then everybody can form their own opinions based upon fact....

I think the timing might be crucial. They only check and recategorise academies every 4 years I think, so conceivably they could time it so that the Cat 1 status is preserved for at least 3 years....

[Ulrich]

3 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I’m unsure how it will work in this regard though Meesh.

 

In our accounts we will likely show profit in the year we sell the land. However, I’m fairly certain that expenditure on facilities are not considered for FFP. I’m probably asking a very simple question for our accounting posters but can we use the money raised from selling land to show a profit for FFP even if we spent that money on new facilities? 
 

ie, can we say we spent £25 million on the academy and have that wrote off for FFP, but also show a say £20m profit due to land sales despite the fact all £20m contributed to the £25m facility expenditure. 

Has Waggers not already tried this at his previous clubs ie cov, (not 100%) Gillingham & Southend? They may have sold the land, but I am pretty sure they do not have new training grounds. 4th time lucky? This will be the most lucrative of the lot of them and people actually have faith he might get it right, for once.

I expect the land to be sold. The academy to stay exactly the same and the money to be hoovered up in running costs / other.

[tomphil]

That's exactly what'll happen this is no different to them selling a player and assuming the fee will be used for re-investing.  It never ever happens here as once the money comes in it's swallowed up.

That would then mean the owners having to tip up for the whole lot or player sales to cover it.

Whether it's by hook or crook this will end up a fook up it's almost guaranteed.

[chaddyrovers]

 

[RevidgeBlue]

29 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

What do you have to do to fail the initial environmental assessment?

Propose to dump ten tons of highly radioactive sewage into the local water supply every day?

At least 450 local residents appear to be on a war footing.

Go on lads and lasses!

"Uncle Jack's corduroy army!"

[chaddyrovers]

5 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

What do you have to do to fail the initial environmental assessment?

Propose to dump ten tons of highly radioactive sewage into the local water supply every day?

 

Myself? 

I was just posting the news article to the site. 

I am pleased that the Brockhall residents arent happy and rightly voicing their unhappiness 

[RevidgeBlue]

39 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Myself? 

I was just posting the news article to the site. 

I am pleased that the Brockhall residents arent happy and rightly voicing their unhappiness 

Rhetorical question Chaddy. Not aimed at yourself.

What does "one" have to do not to pass this initial vetting stage.

I.e. the Club. 

[Sparks Rover]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Rhetorical question Chaddy. Not aimed at yourself.

What does "one" have to do not to pass this initial vetting stage.

I.e. the Club. 

They will struggle to fail this bit if they employ a good HSQE consultant to put the report together.  Its just to make sure that what they are planning doesn't affect the local environment,  health of locals etc.  This type of thing will fly through that bit.

[JHRover]

Incredible. Reading the comments on the Telegraph story there are seemingly more people upset at locals for raising objections that could stop or slow this ruse than there are people upset or dubious as to Waggott's plot. 

I try not to read these things. What is even worse than what the scoundrels are up to right now is that there are so many idiots who are having the wool pulled over their eyes with such ease or are just happy to swallow whatever is fed to them without so much as a single doubt or question.

What hope do we or this club have if it is so easy and so many people are like this? It makes me want to just walk away from it all. 

I'm sure if we announced a groundshare with the dingles tomorrow they'd be on the Telegraph and Facebook saying it was a sensible move. These people are dangerous. 

[Sparks Rover]

31 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Incredible. Reading the comments on the Telegraph story there are seemingly more people upset at locals for raising objections that could stop or slow this ruse than there are people upset or dubious as to Waggott's plot. 

I try not to read these things. What is even worse than what the scoundrels are up to right now is that there are so many idiots who are having the wool pulled over their eyes with such ease or are just happy to swallow whatever is fed to them without so much as a single doubt or question.

What hope do we or this club have if it is so easy and so many people are like this? It makes me want to just walk away from it all. 

I'm sure if we announced a groundshare with the dingles tomorrow they'd be on the Telegraph and Facebook saying it was a sensible move. These people are dangerous. 

People are morons.  Who'd have thought putting more people into one building especially in these times would be a good idea..?  It should be cancelled on that basis alone.

[AllRoverAsia]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

Incredible. Reading the comments on the Telegraph story there are seemingly more people upset at locals for raising objections that could stop or slow this ruse than there are people upset or dubious as to Waggott's plot. 

I try not to read these things. What is even worse than what the scoundrels are up to right now is that there are so many idiots who are having the wool pulled over their eyes with such ease or are just happy to swallow whatever is fed to them without so much as a single doubt or question.

What hope do we or this club have if it is so easy and so many people are like this? It makes me want to just walk away from it all. 

I'm sure if we announced a groundshare with the dingles tomorrow they'd be on the Telegraph and Facebook saying it was a sensible move. These people are dangerous. 

I doubt its particular to Rovers but a lot of our fans have been , IMHO, misguided - see, I can can be polite - for years.

The idiotic anti-Allardyce mob, the pro Venky, pro Kean and, FFS, the pro Anderson lot. 

They will deserve what they will get, and they will get it.

The problem is so will the rest of us.

I support the Village Action Group from afar, our reasons may be different but looking for the same result.

I read every post on this thread but as it triggers me so much limit posting as I now detest Mowbray and his rat-pack almost beyond reason. May the c-unts burn in hell.

[tomphil]

Don't posts on the LT comments section have to be approved before they appear ?

Probably says a lot if so.

[darrenrover]

7 hours ago, JHRover said:

Incredible. Reading the comments on the Telegraph story there are seemingly more people upset at locals for raising objections that could stop or slow this ruse than there are people upset or dubious as to Waggott's plot. 

I try not to read these things. What is even worse than what the scoundrels are up to right now is that there are so many idiots who are having the wool pulled over their eyes with such ease or are just happy to swallow whatever is fed to them without so much as a single doubt or question.

What hope do we or this club have if it is so easy and so many people are like this? It makes me want to just walk away from it all. 

I'm sure if we announced a groundshare with the dingles tomorrow they'd be on the Telegraph and Facebook saying it was a sensible move. These people are dangerous. 

.....or employed!

[JHRover]

6 hours ago, Sparks Rover said:

People are morons.  Who'd have thought putting more people into one building especially in these times would be a good idea..?  It should be cancelled on that basis alone.

Yeah its so simple. So you'd support the groundshare at the Turf as well because putting everyone into one stadium would make financial sense too?

[Mattyblue]

8 hours ago, JHRover said:

I'm sure if we announced a groundshare with the dingles tomorrow they'd be on the Telegraph and Facebook saying it was a sensible move. 

thenodrog likes this 👍

[darrenrover]

1 hour ago, Mattyblue said:

thenodrog likes this 👍

Ha, a blast from the past.....Lancashire United!?

Like Hell !