|
Post by oxvox on Aug 12, 2016 19:29:05 GMT
Hi all
The notes from last weeks members meeting have now been emailed to members.
Not in your inbox? Let us know!
Cheers
Jem
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Aug 12, 2016 20:19:07 GMT
Thanks Jem.
I was gobsmacked by the update on who owns the land on the other side of the Grenoble road! This is a real game changer. Like wise the study on the upgrade possibilities for the ground. Great stuff.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 12, 2016 20:21:33 GMT
Can't be true, Charlie told us the training ground will never go ahead on land opposite as his "mate" in sodc had told him it's a non starter 😉
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 12, 2016 20:33:44 GMT
In fact I think I might have found it 😃 Kassam stadium v's watereaton Erm, in a recent interview Darryl said that Water Eaton would be 2 to 3 years away. His words, not mine. Still wi why let facts get in the way of delusion? As for the academy being opposite, I went off to look at that. Total non-starter. SODC have made an irrevocable commitment to their local (Tory) voters not to allow any development of any kind in between Grenoble Road and the Baldons. The City Council tries to fly a kite on that one from time to time, as they own the land, but if anything is a 10 year project then it's persuading SODC that losing a council ward is worth it for OUFC's sake. Honestly, I don't know where you're getting your stuff from, but on almost every area you're so far wide of the mark that it's slightly scary. r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=http%3A%2F%2Fyellowsforum%2Eco%2Euk%2Fpost%2F555371%2Fthread%2F22612&share_tid=22612&share_fid=98885&share_type=t&share_pid=555371
|
|
|
Post by old on Aug 12, 2016 20:33:58 GMT
Can't be true, Charlie told us the training ground will never go ahead on land opposite as his "mate" in sodc had told him it's a non starter 😉 "In terms of Oxford, the work to identify a potential new home for OUFC, has focussed on the much talked about Water Eaton site set between North Oxford and Kidlington and next to the new Oxford Parkway Station. Several meetings with the Chief Planning Officer and his team from Cherwell District Council, revealed that (a) the site has never been considered for a stadium, (b) that the site has always been designated for housing and (c) OxVox have been the only people to actually meet with them to discuss the site. " The above also made interesting reading. Walter Mitty is alive and well.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 12, 2016 20:38:23 GMT
I also like this one about the train station 😃 but what do I know Well done Oxford Council Training complex will not happen. Had that confirmed to me again today by a councillor. When I looked at it, I spoke to several councillors who all just blanked it straightaway. So don't get your hopes up on that. And on the branch line, from the articles you have provided we're looking at 'maybe' and in quite a few years from now. So ironic, given that this proposition generally comes from people who say that Water Eaton is unpredictable. Compared to making the Kassam fit for purpose, Water Eaton is easy! At least there is proper council support, an existing railway station and existing bus routes to a giant car park that already services thousands of commuters during the week. r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=http%3A%2F%2Fyellowsforum%2Eco%2Euk%2Fpost%2F558708%2Fthread%2F22683&share_tid=22683&share_fid=98885&share_type=t&share_pid=558708
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Aug 12, 2016 21:03:52 GMT
Extract from the minutes..
In terms of Oxford, the work to identify a potential new home for OUFC, has focussed on the much talked about Water Eaton site set between North Oxford and Kidlington and next to the new Oxford Parkway Station. Several meetings with the Chief Planning Officer and his team from Cherwell District Council, revealed that (a) the site has never been considered for a stadium, (b) that the site has always been designated for housing and (c) OxVox have been the only people to actually meet with them to discuss the site. Given the information gleaned (which has been confirmed in writing), OxVox believe that Water Eaton is not an option for a potential new home for Oxford United.
Is someone telling porkies?
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 12, 2016 21:34:10 GMT
Very strange that what SODC have apparently told OxVox re: development south of Grenoble Road is completely at odds with the SODC local plan which is currently out for consultation.
|
|
|
Post by old on Aug 13, 2016 7:27:47 GMT
I would just like to say how impressive these notes are and congratulations should go to the whole of the Oxvox committee for all the hard work they have put in to bring clarification to the situation. For too long the membership we're treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed b*llshit. Now we have a committee that works for the members and the future of the club. The work that has been undertaken to improve community relations has been carried out with no other aim than to help the overall perception of Oxvox and not individual gratification or promotion.
We'll done to Jemma and his team.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 13, 2016 7:40:11 GMT
Very strange that what SODC have apparently told OxVox re: development south of Grenoble Road is completely at odds with the SODC local plan which is currently out for consultation. Also very strange all the work that you and Charlie put into water eaton, but yet you never thought of asking the local council about the viability ? 😉 Do you have a detailed map for that local plan Myles, as the one that I can see that ain't very detailed and seems so show the area much further up Grenoble road, maybe the boundary is between? And the land opposite the stadium could then be in the city boundary? which would support this comment in the oxmail
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Aug 13, 2016 10:27:57 GMT
I would just like to say how impressive these notes are and congratulations should go to the whole of the Oxvox committee for all the hard work they have put in to bring clarification to the situation. For too long the membership we're treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed b*llshit. Now we have a committee that works for the members and the future of the club. The work that has been undertaken to improve community relations has been carried out with no other aim than to help the overall perception of Oxvox and not individual gratification or promotion. We'll done to Jemma and his team. I'd concur (gender-bending chair confusion aside).
|
|
|
Post by oxrox on Aug 13, 2016 11:18:28 GMT
The stadium could be enlarged to 25,000 capacity if needed. 40,000 people living within walking distance in a few years.
Exciting times.
|
|
|
Post by m on Aug 13, 2016 11:38:01 GMT
I would just like to say how impressive these notes are and congratulations should go to the whole of the Oxvox committee for all the hard work they have put in to bring clarification to the situation. For too long the membership we're treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed b*llshit. Now we have a committee that works for the members and the future of the club. The work that has been undertaken to improve community relations has been carried out with no other aim than to help the overall perception of Oxvox and not individual gratification or promotion. We'll done to Jemma and his team. Why don't you just tell us what the nasty men did to you? At least then we'll know whether to treat your inane witterings with pity or scorn.
|
|
|
Post by old on Aug 13, 2016 11:44:39 GMT
I would just like to say how impressive these notes are and congratulations should go to the whole of the Oxvox committee for all the hard work they have put in to bring clarification to the situation. For too long the membership we're treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed b*llshit. Now we have a committee that works for the members and the future of the club. The work that has been undertaken to improve community relations has been carried out with no other aim than to help the overall perception of Oxvox and not individual gratification or promotion. We'll done to Jemma and his team. Why don't you just tell us what the nasty men did to you? At least then we'll know whether to treat your inane witterings with pity or scorn. They did nothing to to me other than peddled untruths for their own agenda. They used the trust to assist them in their quest and kept members in the dark. They also bullied respected people into leaving roles that they were very good at. Still I don't suppose you and the other followers of the gruesome two could see through the smoky glass to understand the damage they were doing.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Aug 13, 2016 11:51:22 GMT
Why don't you just tell us what the nasty men did to you? At least then we'll know whether to treat your inane witterings with pity or scorn. They did nothing to to me other than peddled untruths for their own agenda. They used the trust to assist them in their quest and kept members in the dark. They also bullied respected people into leaving roles that they were very good at. Still I don't suppose you and the other followers of the gruesome two could see through the smoky glass to understand the damage they were doing. I doubt poster m was a follower of the 'gruesome two', whoever they were. What is obvious is that you only appear when OxVox publish something. You - quite rightly in my opinion - sing the praises of Jem and company, but also always have a dig at previous incumbents. Tiresome is what it is, but perhaps we'd understand if you explained exactly who did what to sully the name of the club.
|
|
|
Post by chuckbert on Aug 13, 2016 12:12:22 GMT
Also, on a point of order, if you're going to use pantomime language for your complaints then it is "gruesome twosome", not "gruesome two". We're supposed to be an educated fanbase FFS.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Aug 13, 2016 12:55:10 GMT
They did nothing to to me other than peddled untruths for their own agenda. They used the trust to assist them in their quest and kept members in the dark. They also bullied respected people into leaving roles that they were very good at. Still I don't suppose you and the other followers of the gruesome two could see through the smoky glass to understand the damage they were doing. I doubt poster m was a follower of the 'gruesome two', whoever they were. What is obvious is that you only appear when OxVox publish something. You - quite rightly in my opinion - sing the praises of Jem and company, but also always have a dig at previous incumbents. Tiresome is what it is, but perhaps we'd understand if you explained exactly who did what to sully the name of the club. They seem to enjoy snide mud flinging instead. If its all true, there is no issue with putting that sort of information out there. I suspect someone's feelings got hurt and they unable to get let it go even a year or two later.
|
|
|
Post by m on Aug 13, 2016 14:39:53 GMT
They did nothing to to me other than peddled untruths for their own agenda. They used the trust to assist them in their quest and kept members in the dark. They also bullied respected people into leaving roles that they were very good at. Still I don't suppose you and the other followers of the gruesome two could see through the smoky glass to understand the damage they were doing. I doubt poster m was a follower of the 'gruesome two', whoever they were. Your doubts are well founded.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 14, 2016 9:33:30 GMT
I have to say, m, that you're missing something here.
As Chuckbert alludes, the Gruesome Twosome (not anything to do with bi-tailed Mark Sennett) drove the Creepy Coupe in that seminal series about motor sport, Wacky Races, garnering 3 race wins and finishing 8th on the points table after the 34 episodes.
1968 was truly the summer of love, what young lad was not transfixed, jaw agape, watching the Wacky Races and hoping to see Penelope Pitstop taking her Compact Pussycat to the very limit?
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 16, 2016 17:42:47 GMT
Only just come upon these musings, and want to offer my thoughts in a constructive way. That won't stop various lobotomised thugs from then commenting UNconstructively, but I hope that some others with minds available for thought might find what I have to say interesting.
First, and most importantly, on the subject of Grenoble Road.
I'm sorry, but when I was first examining this issue (and naturally first went for the Kassam Stadium site) we were told, directly by SODC, that planning would not be allowed south of Grenoble Road. That seems, strangely, to be a conversation that has not been had here. Surely if it is worth asking CDC about Water Eaton (for which it has competency for planning) then worth reciprocating for Grenoble Road, no?
Anyhow, when I asked the question, the answer (No) came with a Timeform squiggle at the time. Which is that I never trust the opinion of any individual councillor (let alone salaried planning officer) until something concrete has been published. Because there are all sorts of agenda, discretion, anxieties about jumping the gun etc. So I told Ian Lenagan that I thought it UNLIKELY that planning would be granted south of Grenoble Road anytime soon.
What has happened since - just recently in fact - is that SODC have publicly, very controversially, RULED out planning south of Grenoble Road. I know this not least because last night I was at the meeting of the Haseley Brook Action Group, which has been formed to fight the now declared plans for new developments at Chalgrove and/ or a site near the M4O between Lewknor and Haseley.
The action group has been meeting, both privately and publicly, with SODC, and now need to make initial submissions against these schemes in the next few weeks (deadline extended). There is then a period of 18 months to 2 years of 'consultation' on these plans, followed by a decision made, effectively, by central government. At THAT point, if Chalgrove gets chucked out, SODC can then apply for another scheme. If they do, it will then be another 18 months etc before anything happens.
So, we are talking conservatively about three and a half years, and several major decisions, before anyone can legally decide that planning is going to be granted south of Grenoble Road, on the land owned by the City Council. This all, don't forget, then assumes that Firoz Kassam wants to sell to us at a price that works. I call that four major 'Ifs' that need to go right.
I shall answer the questions quite reasonably asked as to where we got to with Water Eaton when I have more time on this thread. But let me put it this way - if they want to put housing at Water Eaton, they are going to have to forcibly evict the landowner. Anyone bother to ask him yet? He might just have a say in how he wants to develop his land.... But, as I say, that is a tale for another day. For the moment, let's all be quite clear that there is no imminent prospect of planning at Grenoble Road.... anyone who doesn't believe me doesn't even have to take my word for it - it's all over the Oxford Times....
For what it's worth, I think that SODC is making ann appalling mistake, and I do not welcome their decision at all. But a decision it is, and no amount of tweets by rival politicians from opposing parties, with their own agendas and housing quota failures to blame on others - changes that fact.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 16, 2016 17:52:58 GMT
Is the land directly opposite the kassam inside sodc boundary ? The kassam is in city council boundary isn't it? From the look of the planning mapp sodc's border is further up Grenoble rd, yet the district boundary line seems to follow Grenoble rd.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Aug 16, 2016 19:02:23 GMT
Interesting Charlie.
I must admit that Jem/ Colin impressed at the Oxvox meeting (I would love to see the potential drawings of the ground Colin alluded to) But ......after 15 years I am afraid that I am a little cynical. And there still seem to be huge obstacles, namely FK, financing the Stadium, FK, the council, FK.... oh and FK.
I guess as the club enters the last 10 years of the lease (?) the whole stadium issue becomes more pressing. FK will not be able to kick the club out in 10 years time, but imagine him trying to negotiate a new lease .....................
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Aug 16, 2016 19:59:15 GMT
But developing the stadium at Grenoble Rd is not totally dependent on the plans for housing. It helps greatly, yes. But the development of the stadium could take place while the local authorities sort out the planning issues. We don't have to wait four years before laying a brick.
Water Eaton on the other hand would take years, if it's even possible, and that's a massive if.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 16, 2016 20:05:20 GMT
Is it at all linked Eric? It's obviously the ideal situation, but if the training complex ended up at horsepath funded by the council, BMW, and maybe Oufc as well, will that have any effect on the actual stadium?
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Aug 16, 2016 20:13:09 GMT
It's linked, but they're not mutually exclusive to each other.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 17, 2016 9:41:48 GMT
It's linked, but they're not mutually exclusive to each other. That is true, Colin. At least theoretically. Because anyone is free, as things stand, to simply offer Firoz Kassam for the entire site, including all the car parking, and that would involve/ need no planning. The training ground being opposite is a nice to have, rather than a need to have. But.... but... but. As you clearly know and understand, but others do not, being able to build car parks south of Grenoble Road is critical to making the deal work for OUFC and Firoz. Because that is then what enables him to develop the existing car-parks, and then enables an over-arching deal to be cut with him, by which he sells solely the stadium to OUFC at a reasonable price, and the City Council allows us use of some of their land to replace the lost car parks. Obviously, the whole scheme is very much in the City Council's interests, in Kassam's interests and very possibly in OUFC's interests (depending on the deal which is done). However. Deep breath. Take away the car parks south of Grenoble Road and Firoz cannot develop our current car parks. If he cannot do that then we would have to buy the entire site of him. Which, in turn, would be hugely - hugely - expensive, because it would involve not jiust a multiple of the StadCos EBITDA, but also a 'kicker' for Firoz to give up land which at some point in the future may well be develop-able. That is what makes the gaff worth £15 million and north. And that is not a phantom or unreasonable valuation. We had an independent valuation done which set it at about that level. If OxVox have an idea how sensibly and sustainably OUFC can finance that, then I'm all ears, because I couldn't see it at the time. It was at this point that we started to look elsewhere, because neither we nor Ian Lenagan could see how Grenoble Road could be sensibly purchased. We looked at several sites, spoke to several landowners, and were guided - as is well known - by OUFC YCT trustee Ian Hudspeth, leader of the County Council, who has no planning competence himself but clearly well understands the macro realities of Oxfordshire planning. He advised that exceptional circumstances could - could, not would - apply to a new Oxfordshire County sports complex owned and controlled by a trust, and that it would be most likely at Water Eaton, as the various planning hoopla had already been gone thru by Chiltern Railways for their big new station complex on the same land. Furthermore, it was a former industrial site, with existing parking and roads, so the only barriers would be landowner consent and, of course, planning permission. Our property adviser and Hudspeth both advised that no formal approach could or should be made to CDC, as that would put the council in an impossible position. Instead, we should work with the landowner, Chiltern and Firoz Kassam to formulate a full plan. This, our property adviser did, and he presented that plan to Ian Lenagan. Very shortly afterwards (weeks, at most) IL announced that he was selling the club, and the plans were put on ice shortly before a formal approach was to be made to CDC leader Barry Wood. That is the history - no-one has anything to hide on it or anything to be ashamed of. And the only agenda was to find OUFC its own home, having established that that is highly unlikely to buy 'our' stadium under current circumstances (now even less likely now that SODC have formalised their position). I have heard it trailed, by someone in a position of responsibility who should know better, that I stood to benefit in some way from the Water Eaton development. That was and is untrue and defamatory. As is stated above, the aim was to establish a Trust to own and run the stadium complex on a not-for-profit basis for the people of Oxfordshire and Oxford United. The only financial beneficiaries would have been the landowner and Firoz Kassam. I do not propose to comment on the club's own current plans to buy or build a stadium thhat OUFC can call its own. a) I have no inside information so would add no value to that debate and b) as stated a few months ago, I am not going to comment on the club whilst an old friend is Managing Director, unless it is something that concerns me personally. My view remains that the hoary old chestnut that says "surely it's easier to buy an existing stadium than build a new one" is a lazy assumption that does not stand up to a rigorous analysis of the various issues and conditions that would need to come together in the right way at the right time. I would be delighted to be proven wrong - and it may well be that some hugely wealthy new owner of OUFC can simply afford
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 17, 2016 9:43:54 GMT
It's linked, but they're not mutually exclusive to each other. That is true, Colin. At least theoretically. Because anyone is free, as things stand, to simply offer Firoz Kassam for the entire site, including all the car parking, and that would involve/ need no planning. The training ground being opposite is a nice to have, rather than a need to have. But.... but... but. As you clearly know and understand, but others do not, being able to build car parks south of Grenoble Road is critical to making the deal work for OUFC and Firoz. Because that is then what enables him to develop the existing car-parks, and then enables an over-arching deal to be cut with him, by which he sells solely the stadium to OUFC at a reasonable price, and the City Council allows us use of some of their land to replace the lost car parks. Obviously, the whole scheme is very much in the City Council's interests, in Kassam's interests and very possibly in OUFC's interests (depending on the deal which is done). However. Deep breath. Take away the car parks south of Grenoble Road and Firoz cannot develop our current car parks. If he cannot do that then we would have to buy the entire site of him. Which, in turn, would be hugely - hugely - expensive, because it would involve not jiust a multiple of the StadCos EBITDA, but also a 'kicker' for Firoz to give up land which at some point in the future may well be develop-able. That is what makes the gaff worth £15 million and north. And that is not a phantom or unreasonable valuation. We had an independent valuation done which set it at about that level. If OxVox have an idea how sensibly and sustainably OUFC can finance that, then I'm all ears, because I couldn't see it at the time. It was at this point that we started to look elsewhere, because neither we nor Ian Lenagan could see how Grenoble Road could be sensibly purchased. We looked at several sites, spoke to several landowners, and were guided - as is well known - by OUFC YCT trustee Ian Hudspeth, leader of the County Council, who has no planning competence himself but clearly well understands the macro realities of Oxfordshire planning. He advised that exceptional circumstances could - could, not would - apply to a new Oxfordshire County sports complex owned and controlled by a trust, and that it would be most likely at Water Eaton, as the various planning hoopla had already been gone thru by Chiltern Railways for their big new station complex on the same land. Furthermore, it was a former industrial site, with existing parking and roads, so the only barriers would be landowner consent and, of course, planning permission. Our property adviser and Hudspeth both advised that no formal approach could or should be made to CDC, as that would put the council in an impossible position. Instead, we should work with the landowner, Chiltern and Firoz Kassam to formulate a full plan. This, our property adviser did, and he presented that plan to Ian Lenagan. Very shortly afterwards (weeks, at most) IL announced that he was selling the club, and the plans were put on ice shortly before a formal approach was to be made to CDC leader Barry Wood. That is the history - no-one has anything to hide on it or anything to be ashamed of. And the only agenda was to find OUFC its own home, having established that that is highly unlikely to buy 'our' stadium under current circumstances (now even less likely now that SODC have formalised their position). I have heard it trailed, by someone in a position of responsibility who should know better, that I stood to benefit in some way from the Water Eaton development. That was and is untrue and defamatory. As is stated above, the aim was to establish a Trust to own and run the stadium complex on a not-for-profit basis for the people of Oxfordshire and Oxford United. The only financial beneficiaries would have been the landowner and Firoz Kassam. I do not propose to comment on the club's own current plans to buy or build a stadium thhat OUFC can call its own. a) I have no inside information so would add no value to that debate and b) as stated a few months ago, I am not going to comment on the club whilst an old friend is Managing Director, unless it is something that concerns me personally. My view remains that the hoary old chestnut that says "surely it's easier to buy an existing stadium than build a new one" is a lazy assumption that does not stand up to a rigorous analysis of the various issues and conditions that would need to come together in the right way at the right time. I would be delighted to be proven wrong - and it may well be that some hugely wealthy new owner of OUFC can simply afford Apologies: "some hugely wealthy new owner of OUFC can simply afford to pay a purchase price for the stadium that would be about 20 x what we currently pay in rent/ lose in FandB revenue."
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 17, 2016 10:05:08 GMT
Do we have to have car parking the other side of Grenoble rd? Is that the only way fk gets permission to build on the overflow? If a deal could be worked out with the science park to use their multi stories (I know it hasn't happened so far, like with the train station that wasn't going to happen, things can change. We already have the biggest free football car park in England. If kassam got the development land on the over flow, Oufc then got the stadium off him at a decent price for both parties, and the council get a shared training complex and housing opposite, then surley everyone is a winner. Apart from the land owner at WE.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 17, 2016 10:58:17 GMT
Do we have to have car parking the other side of Grenoble rd? Is that the only way fk gets permission to build on the overflow? If a deal could be worked out with the science park to use their multi stories (I know it hasn't happened so far, like with the train station that wasn't going to happen, things can change. We already have the biggest free football car park in England. If kassam got the development land on the over flow, Oufc then got the stadium off him at a decent price for both parties, and the council get a shared training complex and housing opposite, then surley everyone is a winner. Apart from the land owner at WE. Have you not read my reports on the formal plans of SODC? You talk about Win-Win-Win.... and, erm, forget to mention that it. cannot. happen. As in, legally it cannot now happen for at least three years. In terms of whether car parking is required, yes it absolutely is. The almost total lack of any public transport links, and tiny amount of street parking, means that - even with the crowds we had last season, we need at least what we currently have. Any increase in capacity and we would be getting into dire straits. Take away the overflow car-park, and I shudder to think of the chaos and, inevitably, smaller crowds as people realise that they simply cannot get to the match. Even Firoz realises this, hence his crackpot scheme for multi-storeys (I believe these have now been dropped, as they would cost almost the same as the value of the entire new development). OUFCYELLLOWS, despite our sparrings I believe you to be a bright guy. Please, please get your head across the planning reality, rather than existing in the cloud cuckoo land that is being peddled. It's all publicly available information regarding decisions rules and regulations and processes. This club urgently needs clear strategic long-term thinking. Two years ago, I remember being told that WE was a bad idea because it could take three years or more. Doesn't seem quite such a stretch two years down the track! If we keep on sipping the Kool-ade that in the next eighteen months we're suddenly going to find ourselves in possession of the Kassam Stadium, then we're just wasting more and more and more time. It may well be that Water Eaton is not the answer (though I find the way it's been repudiated in this research unconvincing; more on this later perhaps). But what is for certain is that a) there is an answer out there and b) in my strong opinion it is not likely that Grenoble Road is magicked into our possession by that great soothsayer Bob Price. Quite happy to take an even money bet with anyone who cares to that we will not own that site in the next two years....
|
|
|
Post by 54-46 on Aug 17, 2016 11:04:38 GMT
I've always dreamed of a city centre ground - down by the railway behind the Ice rink. Parking would then not be needed in the way it is in out of town grounds. The site was sold and probably hugely expensive
|
|