New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[Audrey]

Lets face it, why does the museum need to be bigger anyway? With what this club has achieved you could fit all the memorabilia in my airing cupboard!

A Christian Roberts empty vodka bottle.
A Nile Ranger gangster instruction video
Lou Macari’s betting slip
Glen Hoddle’s signed copy of How to be a Healer by Eileen Drewery

[Peter Venkman]

The more i think about it...If the Trust were to invest in this development, presumably they wouldn't do so without taking a cut of income.

Imagine the oversight needed for that? probably not something Clem wants to encourage.

[tans]

A Christian Roberts empty vodka bottle.
A Nile Ranger gangster instruction video
Lou Macari’s betting slip
Glen Hoddle’s signed copy of How to be a Healer by Eileen Drewery

If Harry Agombar’s match worn shirt isnt framed on the wall they can poke it.

[Bob's Orange]

If Harry Agombar’s match worn shirt isnt framed on the wall they can poke it.

Can't wait to see Milan Misun's waxwork or the bust of our ex managerial icon John McGreal.

[theakston2k]

His museum stuff has always been something to be proud of but this letter is pretty ill advised.

He’s basically in favour of it because he gets extra museum space, great. But not exactly game changing grounds to back this redevelopment…. Not sure what the point in that letter was and for a historian the number of inaccuracies is really bizarre.

Guessing everyone the club has influence over is being ‘encouraged’ to publicly back it. Just another example of how this ownership manipulates and uses people. Expecting similar from Don Rogers, Trollope, Holloway, Coe and every other man and his dog over the coming weeks prior to the vote.

[STFC_Manc]

The sort of thing that could have been included in the proposal, like my ask about the existing facilities in the Arkells and what happens to them both structurally and operationally upon the development being completed.  Some sort of vision of how this changes the club would be useful, if you really want fans to vote in favour, no?

100% agree they have missed a trick on it.

[tans]

https://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/news/2025/may/28/postponement-of-the-planned-fan-displacement-consultations-from-tuesday-3-june-/

Good to see they thought this through

[Bennett]

https://truststfc.com/2025/05/28/redevelopment-vote-notice/

[Batch]

The sort of thing that could have been included in the proposal, like my ask about the existing facilities in the Arkells and what happens to them both structurally and operationally upon the development being completed.  Some sort of vision of how this changes the club would be useful, if you really want fans to vote in favour, no?

I asked that at the open consultation thing, but only got the ear of the architect and he didn't know.

Interesting he did say they could put the boxes at the back of the stand, but it was completely impractical for service access and a lot more expensive - as you'd imagine.

[joeydubya]

https://truststfc.com/2025/05/28/redevelopment-vote-notice/

But they did. Trust bad, club good.

Club tried to do good thing but Trust made it difficult.

All part of the masterplan...

[Lemis]

Just got round to that letter today, found it really weird that it's addressed to the ownership as if they need persuading as to whether to go ahead with the plans they've drawn up rather than to us fellow fans that he'd presumably want to change the mind of. Felt a bit brown nosey.

[RobertT]

I asked that at the open consultation thing, but only got the ear of the architect and he didn't know.

Interesting he did say they could put the boxes at the back of the stand, but it was completely impractical for service access and a lot more expensive - as you'd imagine.

If you are going for boxes in the DR stand, then the proposal makes the most sense in keeping project costs as low as possible.  The addition at the back make sense as well - you have floor space to use, use it.  The proposal seems to be lacking any real insight into the plans for the existing concourse and expansion of facilities for supporters in general seating though, and completely overlooks the impact to the Arkells Stand.  The financing model is opaque (already had three or four descriptions of how it will work) and the returns rely on a lot of operational infrastructure that we have seemed able to implement in the prior four years.  An event facility is not going to run itself and people do not tend to just rock up on the day to make use of the facilities.  It requires a team of people rustling up new opportunities, planning events, ensuring catering is organized, day to day support operations, IT support etc.  It is not Field of Dreams, it works because someone runs it properly.

In theory, the dream is OK.  In practice, the lack of details is concerning against a backdrop of known operational and project failures:

Large screen - how long?
Legends Lounge - bungled
Statue Sandpit - what the fuck (beyond the statue)
The Club Shop - the sign, the day to day
Managing turnstiles - what is the point of any matchday facilities if you can't even get into them
The Clock!

And so on.

I'd be wary about going on the second floor of any new addition if these lot were in charge of the project.

[Nemo]

I think that's a fair summary Rob. The plans are pretty good, the people who'd be in charge of building and managing them are... pretty bad.

I'm going to struggle with a Yes/No vote but I think it's probably a no.

[RobertT]

On a personal level, it may boil down to two things for me"

1) If approved and built, would it fundamentally hinder any future ownership in further enhancing the ground or making a viable business?

2) If approved, regardless if ever built, do I think it aids an exit of Clem and gang?

For 1), I am thinking that even a fucked up effort would probably leave the bones of something the next owners could enhance, improve and optimize.

For 2), I suspect, only suspect, granting approvals and getting planning , may well be one of the things that does ease an exit path for Clem.  From what limited inside info I have, others are more than happy to be rid already.

So I am erring on the side of voting yes, simply because I believe it does limited to no harm and maybe paves a way to something beyond what we have today.  Not because I think it makes us better within the next year or two, not because I think it is the best project to do.

Saying all that, I am then wondering if a no vote begins to strangle the life out of Clem, with others already pushing for exit.

[Wobbly Bob]

Tricky isn't it.
Reasons for voting yes or no are equally valid.

Undecided as it stands.

The lies, the damned lies, a clusterfuck waiting to happen. Competency. Funding. Forward planning. Doubts, plenty.

The concept is good. A refurb of the DRS is a logical place to start despite the upheaval for some. The space is there already.