|
STFC_Gazza
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 16:21:46 » |
|
If anyone wants to contact Mike Bowden to discuss directly any of the reports that are circulating with regards to the CG redevelopment they are more than welcome to call him at the club - 01793 333714
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
red macca
|
|
« Reply #46 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 16:22:36 » |
|
In the plans it states you want to build the superstadium which is obviously a great idea.im assuming you have put plans in for the pitch aswell as you know what the council are like they might not let you do it  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Iffy's Onion Bhaji
petulant
 Offline
Posts: 15863
|
|
« Reply #47 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 16:22:56 » |
|
well these plans look good. just one thing though. why would SBC let us have a hotel and flats now when they didn't before?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
red macca
|
|
« Reply #48 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 16:31:17 » |
|
well these plans look good. just one thing though. why would SBC let us have a hotel and flats now when they didn't before? i think its because it will fit in with the 30% low cost plan or something like that |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TalkTalk
|
|
« Reply #49 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 16:34:53 » |
|
well these plans look good. just one thing though. why would SBC let us have a hotel and flats now when they didn't before? The difference is that the last set of plans relied upon the council giving the CG land to developers for nothing to fund the hotel/houses and so on. These proposals are self financing. The council do not have to give up or sell anything. In fact there are potential advantages to them in terms of the leisure centre siting aspects. Oh, plus someone actually bothered to ask the council what they thought this time round.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Iffy's Onion Bhaji
petulant
Offline
Posts: 15863
|
|
« Reply #50 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 16:51:20 » |
|
cool! well thats that one cleared up then. so what about the Cricket/Athletics teams?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scot Munroe
|
|
« Reply #51 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 16:54:00 » |
|
Read it in the adver at work on my lunch break which was at 11.00 and it sounds very interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mattboyslim
|
|
« Reply #52 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 16:58:18 » |
|
Frankly the athletics facilties need drastic improvement whether at the current location or elsewhere, that track was knackered about 13yrs ago when I last used it. I think it only has 6 lanes which is not usuable for any decent competition, so really could do with significant investment either at the CG or another site. From memory the pavillion is listed and there is constant rumour about the boundary sizing of the cricket ground, the last I heard being the boundaries are big enough for the first class game.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #53 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 17:25:27 » |
|
Matt, from what I understand from when we spoke to the Cricket Club, the current boundaries are big enough for county cricket (ie Gloucs could play there). The proposals do not require the cricket club to relocate, it's just we can get more of the community sports stuff in there if they do because the pitch is awkwardly placed. But equally the cricket club made it clear, as we have in the proposals, that any relocation would have to be a better offer than what they have now and be in a suitable location - we're not calling for them to be turfed out against their will. It's no part of our agenda to benefit one sport to the detriment of another, as that doesn't make sense from the benefit to the whole community perspective
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SwindonTartanArmy
Go Team GB!
Offline
Posts: 2917
London Scottish - More History than Franchise!
|
|
« Reply #54 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 17:55:49 » |
|
But I'd have to say then that the council would have an obligation to look at whether the people putting in that concrete proposal would be suitable partners and whether the council believed they were viable in fulfilling their end of the bargain. Possibly a "fatal flaw" for certain parties. Was that aimed at any party in particular?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Vi er best i verden! Vi er best i verden! Vi har slått England 2-1 i fotball!! Det er aldeles utrolig! Vi har slått England! England, kjempers fødeland. Lord Nelson, Lord Beaverbrook, Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Anthony Eden, Clement Attlee, Henry Cooper, Lady Diana--vi har slått dem alle sammen. Vi har slått dem alle sammen. Maggie Thatcher can you hear me?
Your boys took a hell of a beating!"
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #55 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 18:11:19 » |
|
Is there a plan for a legalised brothel in this redevelopment?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Offline
Posts: 12323
|
|
« Reply #56 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 18:14:30 » |
|
I did suggest it on more than one meeting Reg. in fact i suggested a compulsory purchase order for all the house on County Road, allowing us to have a mass development but remain withing the legal rules fro Brothels in terms of size.
My idea wasn't taken up though
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 33908
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #57 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 18:19:59 » |
|
Nice to see these go public.
How long have they been done? months...
Anyway, I like how all the forum members are asking 'have you thought of this/that' and all the answers are 'yes, we have'
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 33908
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #58 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 18:20:42 » |
|
also I suggested a night club so all the players would piss their money straight back into the club....  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
flammableBen
|
|
« Reply #59 on: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 18:24:15 » |
|
Have you thought about calling it the flammableBen stadium? Obviously in honour of me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
