New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[Freddies Ferret 2.0]

Which is about the same number who protested with SO69 so I will draw my own conclusions.

I would be interested to know what conclusions you would have drawn if the report showed overwhelming favour for redevelopment? I suppose you would view it as fair representation?

[Quagmire]

Fuck me, even the Trust can’t spell the name of our best ever player correctly.

It’s ROGERS not RODGERS

FFS

Anton Rodgers? That’s correct isn’t it.

[Riddick]

Sadly some of the reasons given in the trust feedback show a lack of understanding from fans.

I understand the lack of confidence in the owners, the worry about execution and funding.

But this doubt about developing our best stand first, or displaced season ticket holders not returning is, in my opinion nonsense. If its my season ticket I just move, who the hell says i'm only going to games if I can sit in this exact one seat out of 13500 home seats, nobody!

Is this development the best possible thing, no. Is it a sensible way to increase value, and revenue with limited spend and maximum return yes. Some fans, despite knowing the owners dont have huge funds, think building a Stratton bank stand makes sense when there is next to no demand for those seats anyway. Its mind boggling honestly.

[iParadise]

Sadly some of the reasons given in the trust feedback show a lack of understanding from fans.

I understand that they cant even afford to clean the Rolex clock, so how the hell are they going to be able to afford a redevelopment?

A redevelopment from this lot, will send us into relegation and administration.

Holloway has already said the budget for next season is cut because of a new pitch!

[Honkytonk]

Sadly some of the reasons given in the trust feedback show a lack of understanding from fans.

I understand the lack of confidence in the owners, the worry about execution and funding.

But this doubt about developing our best stand first, or displaced season ticket holders not returning is, in my opinion nonsense. If its my season ticket I just move, who the hell says i'm only going to games if I can sit in this exact one seat out of 13500 home seats, nobody!

Is this development the best possible thing, no. Is it a sensible way to increase value, and revenue with limited spend and maximum return yes. Some fans, despite knowing the owners dont have huge funds, think building a Stratton bank stand makes sense when there is next to no demand for those seats anyway. Its mind boggling honestly.

You're right, I don't think anyone has said they won't be coming to games if they can't sit in their exact seat.

Redeveloping Stratton is not about 'just' replacing the seats for others that go unused though, is it? That's very basic 1:1 reasoning, exactly the type of thinking that makes people go "I WONT COME IF I CAN'T SIT IN MY SEAT". It's about building a safe and viable stand to allow displacement of fans for further redevelopment around the rest of the ground. I laid all this out in a post a while back but shuffling people about the stadium playing musical chairs for redevelopment is a pretty sensible way of doing the thing. You e got a modern, good stand, showing means, will, and learning lessons for something that NOBODY at the club has done.

As the current ownership can't even pay their suppliers on time as they have repeatedly proved I have zero confidence in them managing major infrastructure projects. If they're really serious something less important and smaller scale than gutting our best and most well designed stand for the prawn cocktail brigade would be a good way to help get people like me on side.

[reeves4england]

Sadly some of the reasons given in the trust feedback show a lack of understanding from fans.

I understand the lack of confidence in the owners, the worry about execution and funding.

But this doubt about developing our best stand first, or displaced season ticket holders not returning is, in my opinion nonsense. If its my season ticket I just move, who the hell says i'm only going to games if I can sit in this exact one seat out of 13500 home seats, nobody!

Is this development the best possible thing, no. Is it a sensible way to increase value, and revenue with limited spend and maximum return yes. Some fans, despite knowing the owners dont have huge funds, think building a Stratton bank stand makes sense when there is next to no demand for those seats anyway. Its mind boggling honestly.

I felt exactly the same reading those reponses. A portion of the blame needs to be on fans for being so ignorant to the financial needs of the club and the opportunities this scheme presents. However, you have to lay blame with the club as well as that's clearly been an issue throughout and they've not effectively addressed it. Make a video explaining the plans, the reasoning and the potential ROI and you'd have a better chance of getting these people on board. As it stands, the general feeling is that these plans woud be shot down even if they were presented by wealty, reputable owners with a proven track record. There are people out there who seem angry that we're spending £160k on the pitch but want to splash millions on the Stratton Bank to make the place a little more aesthetically pleasing and suitable for Championship level away followings(!)

[Batch]

Which is about the same number who protested with SO69 so I will draw my own conclusions.

Are you David Coe? I've never seen you in the same museum room together. I'll draw my own conclusions.

[Freddies Ferret 2.0]

I felt exactly the same reading those reponses. A portion of the blame needs to be on fans for being so ignorant to the financial needs of the club and the opportunities this scheme presents. However, you have to lay blame with the club as well as that's clearly been an issue throughout and they've not effectively addressed it. Make a video explaining the plans, the reasoning and the potential ROI and you'd have a better chance of getting these people on board. As it stands, the general feeling is that these plans woud be shot down even if they were presented by wealty, reputable owners with a proven track record. There are people out there who seem angry that we're spending £160k on the pitch but want to splash millions on the Stratton Bank to make the place a little more aesthetically pleasing and suitable for Championship level away followings(!)

I don't entirely agree with some of that.
I think the main point of argument is the leadership behind the project in both a financial and operational way. I think if there was good faith behind the leadership group and better understanding of the financials, people would get behind a DRS redevelopment. The main issue is having trust in Clem to do a proficient and effective job

[Riddick]

. If they're really serious something less important and smaller scale than gutting our best and most well designed stand for the prawn cocktail brigade would be a good way to help get people like me on side.

Ah but there is the fallacy. This is a small scale change, in terms of cost, and is the one that has the maximum ROI given expenditure. Its not just about the 'prawn sandwich bregade', its building facilities that can be used on non match days that are modern and multi purpose. Its a new front to the stadium.

But that's the problem, people think of this as match day changes. This is bigger than that. Yet its the smallest in scale.

I'm told that to redevelop the Stratton bank, into something equivalent to the current DR stand would cost over 10m. The entire area needs to be cleared, new foundations set for a stronger structure on top, etc etc. Stratton bank development is a big deal. Yes it should be done at somepoint but the return on that development is not there. Talking about displacing TE fans for if/when that gets developed, well there are what 1600 fans in the TE, we have all that space ans more already in the Arkells and DR.

There needs to be some logic applied.

[Riddick]

I felt exactly the same reading those reponses. A portion of the blame needs to be on fans for being so ignorant to the financial needs of the club and the opportunities this scheme presents. However, you have to lay blame with the club as well as that's clearly been an issue throughout and they've not effectively addressed it. Make a video explaining the plans, the reasoning and the potential ROI and you'd have a better chance of getting these people on board. As it stands, the general feeling is that these plans woud be shot down even if they were presented by wealty, reputable owners with a proven track record. There are people out there who seem angry that we're spending £160k on the pitch but want to splash millions on the Stratton Bank to make the place a little more aesthetically pleasing and suitable for Championship level away followings(!)

The pitch spend thing is being overblown, mainly because Holloway isn't that articulate. But we have conistenly spent 50k+ on the pitch every summer, sometimes as much as 100k when Angus was there. The budget cut is more to do with lower income. And 160k that's one player on little more than 3k a week. I think of it as a new pitch or another Grant Hall who only plays 12 games and gets paid that!

Yes the club should have done a much better job at selling it. There are parts i'm not sure that have been mentioned, like floodlight changes, that just make cost sense. But the club is a fifty fifty partner with the trust on the ground. I think the trust should also have done a better job at selling the merits of the development.

That does not mean the trust has to advocate for them to happen, but at least explain them.

[Riddick]

I don't entirely agree with some of that.
I think the main point of argument is the leadership behind the project in both a financial and operational way. I think if there was good faith behind the leadership group and better understanding of the financials, people would get behind a DRS redevelopment. The main issue is having trust in Clem to do a proficient and effective job

I agree. In which case that questionnaire the trust has published could have been worded much better and constructed to prove that point. If the results demonstrated broad agreement with the development, but reluctance to approve because of ownership then its a strong FU to clem and he knows he cant move forward and hopefully it pressures him to sell. As it is you look at the comments and just think, some people dont understand what's going in here.

[Tails]

I dont have an issue with the club wanting to generate more revenue. My issue is that I don't trust that the current board have the financial means to pay for it, nor do I think it will be executed to a good standard or at all. I wouldn't be surprised if we have a 30% finished box and then nothing gets done.

They don't seem to fully know how they're funding it either (or they do, but they can't say, which is even more concerning).

[Riddick]

I dont have an issue with the club wanting to generate more revenue. My issue is that I don't trust that the current board have the financial means to pay for it, nor do I think it will be executed to a good standard or at all. I wouldn't be surprised if we have a 30% finished box and then nothing gets done.

They don't seem to fully know how they're funding it either (or they do, but they can't say, which is even more concerning).

All fair and understandable. This would be a much stronger position for the Trust to represent in my opinion, as it makes the fans look logical and reasonable, as opposed to worry about moving seats, and people not renewing because they get moved etc etc.

[Bennett]

All fair and understandable. This would be a much stronger position for the Trust to represent in my opinion, as it makes the fans look logical and reasonable, as opposed to worry about moving seats, and people not renewing because they get moved etc etc.

These are the questions the club will address during the JV meeting on Wednesday

https://truststfc.com/2025/04/12/redevelopment-questions/

[theakston2k]

All fair and understandable. This would be a much stronger position for the Trust to represent in my opinion, as it makes the fans look logical and reasonable, as opposed to worry about moving seats, and people not renewing because they get moved etc etc.

Ultimately the vote is a yes/no vote. People will factor together everything in their own head and make a decision based on that, the report is just a summary of themes.

If we had a credible ownership then a lot of the themes in the report would still be an issue but the responses on the overall support graph would look very different. If this had been done under Fitton it would get voted through as people would have trusted them to deliver it and someone like Nick Watkins would explain every fine detail. Whether you like it or not the ownership and their likelihood to make a complete mess of this is always going to be the primary factor in people’s decision making.

They can’t explain where the funding is coming from, they haven’t committed to not making changes after it’s approved by the vote, the haven’t shown a ROI or business case and they have an awful track record when it comes to improvement works. In a binary yes/no vote it’s impossible to vote yes to this.