Tory 50 pledges for the Council.....

[Reg Smeeton]

......I've alluded to this before, but no one seemed to want to comment....but this is the council vision to be sorted over the next 5 years.....no mention of CG revelopment or new cricket or athletics facility.....there are 2 pledges on  sport.....

 32) We will revitalise our sports and leisure facilities and bring forward plans to replace or modernise the Oasis and Link centre.

33) We will introduce a Sports Council in 2006 to establish Swindon as a
centre of sports excellence.....

 Can anyone interpret those as acommitment to STFC?

[Simon Pieman]

Proof again that the council has no real plan or vision, just a load of propaganda to keep the public happy. The council aren't going to do any of those things either. It is of my opinion that the council has been so poorly run in the past, that it is costing the public in the future.

[BrightonRed]

Please excuse my ignorance but why would the Tory 50 pledges be relevant to a Labour council?

(I really have no clue as to the running of local Government )

[Reg Smeeton]

Please excuse my ignorance but why would the Tory 50 pledges be relevant to a Labour council?

(I really have no clue as to the running of local Government )

 The Borough Council is presently being run by the Tories as the party with most Councillors.....so its up to them to provide leadership.

[BrightonRed]

I don't think it's possible to intepret them as a commitment to STFC.
Assuming the sports council are a body set up independent of the council and are designed to assess the sporting needs of the town and advise the council on the collective opinion of local interests for future planning of sports facilities then I can only see it as a positive step by th council.

I fear they would be pre-occupied with building new swimming pools rather than the regeneration of an ailing football club. However if proposals similar to the sports villige (associated with the shaw tip plan) could be incorporated into the County Ground re-generation then i'm sure they would support the planning applications and possibly make positive recommendations to the council.

[Simon Pieman]

I don't think the coucil (whoever has run it) has ever held any interest of STFC as a community benefit. Sporting wise Swindon is atrocious. The football club is the one of the few full-time professional sports club in the town. Furthermore, the town has no concert facilities, no indoor arena (another reason why we don't have a top Ice Hockey club), a shit central library etc. etc..

It's farcical to think that the council would go out of their way to get rid of the football club, but that's what they are doing.

[Reg Smeeton]

It's farcical to think that the council would go out of their way to get rid of the football club, but that's what they are doing

  I think you're right....its not a deliberate conspiracy, but rather a failure of leadership and collective lack of vision......you'd have thought Justin Tomlinson would have wanted at least a nod in teh direction of club.....even if left very open ended.

[JTomlinson]

The 50 promises are all things that the Council can action.

In the case of the County Ground redevelopment, we cannot action an application, only the club can.

Therefore we cannot promise they will make an application by 2010, hence why it is not in our 50 promises.

HOWEVER, I very much hope they put something in, we (the Council) have been doing all we can to help them in the process.  This has been repeatadly acknowledge by the club in the programmes, on the radio and in the local media.

[Asher]

Oi tommo, all I can say is STFC - RIP, Cheers for 'saving us'

[Reg Smeeton]

Re JT's post

 classic......

[RobertT]

At the end of the day, the two bodies have always existed in a state of apathy towards each other.

The club has moaned for years about having to pay rent on the land (and despite what you may believe, the amount the club pays is perfectly reasonable considering the size of the land we lease).

Likewise, the Council have never show much interest in getting involved with the club apart from promotion campaigns and when a sniff of some cash coming in is on the cards (ground developments).

Why should things be any different all of a sudden?

The club should do much more to place themselves as a valuable asset to the community, not just the fans.

The Council should be pressured, via local people & business, to do more to promote the existence of a football club in this town.  I'm not suggesting they splash cash on us, but this development could have been an ideal opportunity to work in partnership to get a decent ground with local service provision as well.

[Reg Smeeton]

Your posts are normally reasonable.....the rent the club pay is extortionate the what is provided by the Council in return.....and nothing really to do with the size of the land.....does the cricket club, pay more its got a bigger piece.

 The club does in fact participate in a number of schemes through Football in the Community, also soccer centres and in conjuncction with the Study Centre, which are used by hundreds of local school age kids. There are a lot of links with the council at this level.

 I'm sure when Major Goddard put the land over to the Council to administer for the benefit of sport in the Town....he did  so expecting the Council to be  a benevolent landlord.

[RobertT]

Your posts are normally reasonable.....the rent the club pay is extortionate the what is provided by the Council in return.....and nothing really to do with the size of the land.....does the cricket club, pay more its got a bigger piece.

 The club does in fact participate in a number of schemes through Football in the Community, also soccer centres and in conjuncction with the Study Centre, which are used by hundreds of local school age kids. There are a lot of links with the council at this level.

 I'm sure when Major Goddard put the land over to the Council to administer for the benefit of sport in the Town....he did  so expecting the Council to be  a benevolent landlord.

Hence why we have never considered developing on it before, because it was always an unlikely prospect (but I suppose the Front Garden being up for development has made all sites now possible).

The rent is based on SQ footage (which is normally based on the buildings as opposed to the plot, although that is also possible).

250k as I understand for annual leasehold.  Given that the old Charlie Brown building next to Tesco is available for £168,750 PA, that would seem reasonable to me.  please correct me if I am wrong

[Simon Pieman]

Aye but CB has a building that can be used, with parking facilities. A lot of businesses could operate out of that building. There's not many businesses in Swindon that could use the County Ground is there?

[Reg Smeeton]

But a commercial building charges that kind of rent because a developer or company has invested into the land, and buildings.....and so seeks a profitable return. It may even provide some services as part of its rent

   SBC was given the land, with a covenent on use....and hasn't invested in the buildings (outside of the Arkell's stand ) as a gesture after the LC win....and provides no services.....as an organisation charged with serving the people of the Borough...is it so doing by forcing the FC to the edge of bankruptcy