|
Post by manorlounger on Aug 21, 2016 21:42:15 GMT
Buggered if I know! But, you can bet that they include a shed load of cash and the prospect of making more. Why should he sell? Exactly. He doesn't need to. I've been saying for years he holds ALL of the aces. Regardless of what happens it's a win win for him. But OUFC need to do what is best for them, not him, if possible. If he wont sell then it's £500k+ per year for the rest of the lease or go find some land, build on it and move away from the Kassam and to be honest it's been that scenario for years now so why has there been no significant movement to get this resolved one way or another? Yup, that's it in a nutshell. Without the City council actually showing some balls and taking him on for his activities, or in the case of the priory, lack of, then nothing will change.
|
|
|
Post by Barts on Aug 21, 2016 22:07:00 GMT
And this is why FK knows he has all the aces. The City council is weak and has no stomach for a real fight. There is an underlying need and obligation on the part of the council for more housing. Sodc has stated its case that the green belt is a non starter. WE has all sorts of issues. If the club want the stadium then it is on FKs terms. And what are his terms? Either... - No one knows because no one has had the foresight to ask him, so nobody will know whether a deal is actually realistic or what playing field Oxford are actually on Or... - Someone has asked him but not saying, which i think is stupid, unless a deal is being concluded If a deal was possible then surely the deal would have been done or in the process of doing and if it wasn't possible then why not say why it's not possible in the hope someone hears or reads and makes it possible? A) Of course someone would have asked him, obviously neither party can reach an agreement. B) Why would anyone comment on it when no deals been done. Why do you keep asking if anyone asked FK what he wants? Do you expect Mark, Charlie, Jem, Simon or even DE to come on here or the general press and talk about private negotiations?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 22, 2016 5:41:31 GMT
Doubtful, mark and Charlie and Myles can't even come on here and answer a straight forward question, in a simple one word answer 😉
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 6:16:20 GMT
Doubtful, mark and Charlie and Myles can't even come on here and answer a straight forward question, in a simple one word answer 😉 TBH I've not read through this whole quibble of a thread but surely Mark, Myles and Charlie have all intimated that the details regarding WE etc were held by Oxvox so is freely available for new board to peruse. That sounds like a YES to me. Please just move on so that some useful information can come to the fore.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 22, 2016 7:42:16 GMT
Doubtful, mark and Charlie and Myles can't even come on here and answer a straight forward question, in a simple one word answer 😉 I would say that your 'Forrest Gump persona' ensures that your questions are never straight and not always questions. I think I've had it with this forum now.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 22, 2016 11:22:51 GMT
So, are OxVox going to hold a member's meeting to properly present the findings of the work carried out? You mean like the one that was held a couple of weeks ago? The meeting held mid-week, in peak holiday season and not on a matchday you mean? Where the documentary findings aren't published in advance, restricting the ability of members to ask pertinent questions? Again, for the single most important factor affecting the long term sustainability of the club, are you really happy with that?
|
|
|
Post by minime on Aug 22, 2016 11:34:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Aug 22, 2016 12:30:50 GMT
You mean like the one that was held a couple of weeks ago? The meeting held mid-week, in peak holiday season and not on a matchday you mean? Where the documentary findings aren't published in advance, restricting the ability of members to ask pertinent questions? Again, for the single most important factor affecting the long term sustainability of the club, are you really happy with that? OxVox will be issuing a statement, regarding the numerous comments, untruths, and inaccuracies on this thread. It will go to members in the next day or two. I personally will not be making any further commit on this thread until the statement is issued, as I don't want to get drawn into an online slanging match. I'm not speaking on their behalf, but I suspect you'll find the same from the rest of the committee. In respect of the recent meeting (and this is my personal view) yes, I am happy with the date that it was held. OxVox had some information to impart, and did it as soon as was reasonably practical. So it was the holiday season, what are we supposed to do? Wait until October? That would have been criticised as us not informing members in a timely fashion (which I agree with). Hold it before a match? People complain that there is not enough time before a match (something else I agree with). Also DE and GBT would not have been able to make it before a match. Strikes me that we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Makes me wonder why we bloody well bother! That's all you'll hear from me until the statement comes out, so you and your chums are free to carry on criticising without reply until then.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Aug 22, 2016 13:13:38 GMT
In respect of the recent meeting (and this is my personal view) yes, I am happy with the date that it was held. OxVox had some information to impart, and did it as soon as was reasonably practical. So it was the holiday season, what are we supposed to do? Wait until October? That would have been criticised as us not informing members in a timely fashion (which I agree with). Hold it before a match? People complain that there is not enough time before a match (something else I agree with). Also DE and GBT would not have been able to make it before a match. Strikes me that we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Makes me wonder why we bloody well bother! That's all you'll hear from me until the statement comes out, so you and your chums are free to carry on criticising without reply until then. With regards to the timing of any meeting you are right- you will not be able to win. Being before a match does not work for me, but I appreciate that it will be better for some.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 22, 2016 13:43:37 GMT
With regards to the timing of any meeting you are right- you will not be able to win. Being before a match does not work for me, but I appreciate that it will be better for some. I completely agree - and I acknowledged that when I first made the comment to Jem. No date is going to please everybody. The point I was trying to make here is that we are talking about the single most important issue affecting the club's long-term sustainability. To my mind, this is worthy of a members' meeting in its own right, at a time when the greatest number are able to attend, and following publication of the OxVox report so that members are able to ask pertinent questions in response to that. I really don't think that's a particularly controversial request.
|
|
|
Post by old on Aug 22, 2016 14:04:48 GMT
The meeting held mid-week, in peak holiday season and not on a matchday you mean? Where the documentary findings aren't published in advance, restricting the ability of members to ask pertinent questions? Again, for the single most important factor affecting the long term sustainability of the club, are you really happy with that? OxVox will be issuing a statement, regarding the numerous comments, untruths, and inaccuracies on this thread. It will go to members in the next day or two. I personally will not be making any further commit on this thread until the statement is issued, as I don't want to get drawn into an online slanging match. I'm not speaking on their behalf, but I suspect you'll find the same from the rest of the committee. In respect of the recent meeting (and this is my personal view) yes, I am happy with the date that it was held. OxVox had some information to impart, and did it as soon as was reasonably practical. So it was the holiday season, what are we supposed to do? Wait until October? That would have been criticised as us not informing members in a timely fashion (which I agree with). Hold it before a match? People complain that there is not enough time before a match (something else I agree with). Also DE and GBT would not have been able to make it before a match. Strikes me that we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Makes me wonder why we bloody well bother! That's all you'll hear from me until the statement comes out, so you and your chums are free to carry on criticising without reply until then. Maybe it's time to remind some of you the results of the election held earlier this year. Those who were successful need to be given the credit for turning Oxvox into a credible supporters trust. Name Total Votes Elected Kate Longworth 110 Yes Simon Bradbury 109 Yes Michael North 105 Yes Mathew Cavill 97 Yes Trevor Lambert 95 Yes Colin Barson 85 Yes Chloe Smart 75 Not this time Mark Sennett 44 Not this time Myles Francis 43 Not this time The above tells its own story. I for one would trust the current committee rather than all the speculation on here. I and others await the statement with interest Colin.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Aug 22, 2016 14:45:00 GMT
I know how you feel all too well Colin volunteering in the Trust can be a thankless task!
What I would say is I'm not sure you've been hauled into a slagging match and it's a real shame you don't want to comment further at this point. There's been plenty of occasions when I was on the committee that we did things that either raised questions from members or some didn't agree with...heck some still don't agree with the RTB!
From my own personal point of view i was on holiday when the meeting happened otherwise I would have attended and happily raised questions there. As there isn't a further meeting planned as of yet and the thread had been started on here about the notes by The committee I assumed this would be the best avenue to give my two cents as a member, especially as others were asking about work done while I was on the committee.
In fact I can't see any negative comments or personal comments made towards or by you in this thread and am grateful that you've taken time to post. I can't speak for others but certainly like you I see it as vital for the stadium situation to change.
I'm keen as a member to put my views across on this vital topic so I can ask questions as I couldn't be at the meeting. It maybe that you'd prefer to publish the report in full and then have a further meeting to discuss with members or perhaps use this thread to conduct debate?
But from experience a statement won't change the fact that members will have questions and simply want to ask In detail why the committee feels the Kassam stadium is a viable purchase option for the club or trust. So I hope you and the committee do feel minded to carry on discussing any questions raised on this be it on here and/or a further meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Aug 22, 2016 14:56:35 GMT
OxVox will be issuing a statement, regarding the numerous comments, untruths, and inaccuracies on this thread. It will go to members in the next day or two. I personally will not be making any further commit on this thread until the statement is issued, as I don't want to get drawn into an online slanging match. I'm not speaking on their behalf, but I suspect you'll find the same from the rest of the committee. In respect of the recent meeting (and this is my personal view) yes, I am happy with the date that it was held. OxVox had some information to impart, and did it as soon as was reasonably practical. So it was the holiday season, what are we supposed to do? Wait until October? That would have been criticised as us not informing members in a timely fashion (which I agree with). Hold it before a match? People complain that there is not enough time before a match (something else I agree with). Also DE and GBT would not have been able to make it before a match. Strikes me that we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Makes me wonder why we bloody well bother! That's all you'll hear from me until the statement comes out, so you and your chums are free to carry on criticising without reply until then. Maybe it's time to remind some of you the results of the election held earlier this year. Those who were successful need to be given the credit for turning Oxvox into a credible supporters trust. Name Total Votes Elected Kate Longworth 110 Yes Simon Bradbury 109 Yes Michael North 105 Yes Mathew Cavill 97 Yes Trevor Lambert 95 Yes Colin Barson 85 Yes Chloe Smart 75 Not this time Mark Sennett 44 Not this time Myles Francis 43 Not this time The above tells its own story. I for one would trust the current committee rather than all the speculation on here. I and others await the statement with interest Colin. I'd say you owe an apology to anyone who's ever volunteered their time as a committee member or to help the trust as its always been a credible supporters trust. People on the list who got re-elected, precious committee members like Chris Davies, John Gould, Neil Carter, Bob Scholes, Tim Rosser, Terry Taylor, volunteer like Sally Lambert, Ian Faulkner, Andrew Winchester (and many more ex committee members and volunteers) all worked tirelessly and gave their own time to volunteer. To say it's never been credible is insulting to them. I couldn't care less what you think of me but saying the supporters trust wasn't credible until now is disrespectful including to 80% of the current committee and chair who all sat on previous committees. Serious credit certainly has to go to current committee for increasing membership numbers and their tireless efforts and I for one wish all of them well. This thread is discussing stadia issues and OxVox's views on how to move it forwards. The election results and your amusing obsession with attacking past committees members is an unhelpful distraction. I won't address you further as it is moving away from the key issue at hand but there's no way it's acceptable for you to insult Jem or any precious committee members for the hard work they put in over the years.
|
|
|
Post by old on Aug 22, 2016 15:13:53 GMT
A group or committee is only as credible as it's leader allows it to be. I believe that the trust lost a credible leader when Mr Lambert walked. It's great to see he is back working with another credible leader. I rest my case. In Jem and his team I trust.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 22, 2016 16:34:25 GMT
A group or committee is only as credible as it's leader allows it to be. I believe that the trust lost a credible leader when Mr Lambert walked. It's great to see he is back working with another credible leader. I rest my case. In Jem and his team I trust. fortunately, your credibility is so shot that nothing you say can ever be taken seriously by anyone on here. You don't even come to games any more. You are a sad old feller trying to pay off old scores by proxy. At least you've got the time to do so, I guess, as life probably isn't all that hectic! On the post by Colin B, crikey I sympathise. The amount of times when stuff I've been involved with on a voluntary basis has been criticised and I've felt like throwing my toys out of the pram and flocking the fingers all round are countless. It is infuriating when one feels one has done one's best, in the interests of everyone, and then someone comes up with bloody questions!!! How dare they? Honestly, I really, really do sympathise. But if I were a PR adviser - which, by happy coincidence I am - I would advise against the toy throwing and North Korean style statements, utilising one's control over information channels to browbeat any dissenting voices. All that actions like that do is escalate a small thing into a big thing, entrench positions and divide people. When the real task of leadership is to soothe, reassure, unite and - just sometimes - listen. Here's my suggested model reply to you. "Thanks a lot for everyone's responses on this issue. Obviously it's a very emotive subject and, it is safe to say, there will always be disagreement. Of course it is an ongoing discussions, and it will doubtless be discussed at another OxVox meeting in the near future. In the meantime, most of you know who we are, and please feel free to bend my ear in the Headington Bar/ Quadrangle before/ after the next game. I have to warn you, I may not agree with what you say, but I will - as the saying almost goes - defend to the hilt your right to have and voice your opinion, as long as it does not involve personalised abuse." You see, that way you seem like a reasonable, responsible leader of an elective organisation dealing with his unruly electorate. As opposed to an over-sensitive ego who goes purple in the face at the very thought of anyone daring to question him. Which, knowing you for the smart, good-humoured man you are, is, of course, not the case.
|
|
|
Post by old on Aug 22, 2016 16:55:34 GMT
So wrong on so many issues"
|
|
|
Post by Jem on Aug 23, 2016 14:16:33 GMT
Hi all
Wow, what a lot of posts and some great content!
Just for a bit of clarification. The recent members meeting took the opportunity to update those present (and subsequently the full membership by email)_on a number of things that the Trust are currently working on and one of those is the long running 'stadium saga'!. Unsurprisingly I guess, its the subject that, as it always does, has generated the most interest.
The situation is that we continue to talk with stakeholders to see if there might be a route through the 'treacle' that can benefit, fans, OUFC and the wider community. There are of course a mass of 'ifs, buts & maybe's' and we'll try, once we can establish a firm path and a robust plan, to keep members and the wider fan base appraised of where the committees thinking is and what our proposals are, so that they can be properly considered by the membership. Inevitably, both now and as we move forward there are/will be sensitive areas and confidentiality issues, but we're sure everyone will understand that.
For now, having OxVox significantly extend the posts on this thread will not be overly helpful, but, as has been quite rightly suggested, a meeting of members at some point, specifically on the stadium subject, will makes sense. Unfortunately it cant be just yet. Sorry!
I genuinely appreciate Charlie's PR advice. I guess we all need communication guidance sometimes and perhaps we should have popped something on here sooner!
One area that we can expand upon though, is the points we made about Grenoble Road and the possibility of housing on the South side. Again, lots of if's, buts and maybe's' but our comments at the meeting and in the notes were based on the following:
We learnt that there could be the potential, subject to planning, for an increase in population in the immediate location (therefore potential fans) if housing were to be developed on the other side of Grenoble Road: • SODC are preparing their Local Plan. It will be examined in public by an Inspector next summer, or early autumn. • At this stage, SODC are advancing their preferred options for housing sites. As we know, they are opposed to the development of the land south of Grenoble Rd because it is in the Green Belt. • The other Districts have undertaken a review of the Green Belt in the county and it appears actually feel that this land might be a good site for housing. • Green Belt land can be developed in exceptional circumstances, and the scale of housing required for Oxford may well justify this. • So, we think there will be objections to SODC’s Preferred Options. SODC then have to produce a Draft Plan, and this, with the comments on it from all interested parties, will go to a Public Enquiry.
So, does the above mean that houses will definitely be built on the other side of Grenoble Road? No, it doesn’t. But it does mean that the potential for housing is still a possibility and talk of 'never' is therefore perhaps a little premature.
I guess some might disagree with the above, but that's how we have viewed and interpreted the planning process as it stands and therefore felt, as it was not actually dead, that it warranted inclusion in our thinking.
Hope the above helps guys!
Cheers
Jem
COYY's!
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 23, 2016 18:45:33 GMT
For now, having OxVox significantly extend the posts on this thread will not be overly helpful, but, as has been quite rightly suggested, a meeting of members at some point, specifically on the stadium subject, will makes sense. Unfortunately it cant be just yet. Sorry! Hi Jem, Thanks for this sensible, measured response. Despite the efforts of some on this thread to make it "personal", it's clear that what everybody actually wants is the best for OUFC's future viability and sustainability - even if they may currently disagree which of the various options provides that. Which is why this independent review from OxVox is so important. I would take it from the above comment that OxVox's work on this is not yet finished - and I fully understand the difficulties of carrying out such a big piece of work on a voluntary basis in your own time, particularly when the "best" answer may be quite a complex jigsaw with many interdependencies. But the question has to be: when do you anticipate being in a position to have finalised this work and fully report back to members? Clearly, the sooner a robust, definitive position can be reached, the sooner members and the wider fan base can rally around to try and make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Aug 23, 2016 19:21:03 GMT
A group or committee is only as credible as it's leader allows it to be. I believe that the trust lost a credible leader when Mr Lambert walked. It's great to see he is back working with another credible leader. I rest my case. In Jem and his team I trust. fortunately, your credibility is so shot that nothing you say can ever be taken seriously by anyone on here. You don't even come to games any more. You are a sad old feller trying to pay off old scores by proxy. At least you've got the time to do so, I guess, as life probably isn't all that hectic! On the post by Colin B, crikey I sympathise. The amount of times when stuff I've been involved with on a voluntary basis has been criticised and I've felt like throwing my toys out of the pram and flocking the fingers all round are countless. It is infuriating when one feels one has done one's best, in the interests of everyone, and then someone comes up with bloody questions!!! How dare they? Honestly, I really, really do sympathise. But if I were a PR adviser - which, by happy coincidence I am - I would advise against the toy throwing and North Korean style statements, utilising one's control over information channels to browbeat any dissenting voices. All that actions like that do is escalate a small thing into a big thing, entrench positions and divide people. When the real task of leadership is to soothe, reassure, unite and - just sometimes - listen. Here's my suggested model reply to you. "Thanks a lot for everyone's responses on this issue. Obviously it's a very emotive subject and, it is safe to say, there will always be disagreement. Of course it is an ongoing discussions, and it will doubtless be discussed at another OxVox meeting in the near future. In the meantime, most of you know who we are, and please feel free to bend my ear in the Headington Bar/ Quadrangle before/ after the next game. I have to warn you, I may not agree with what you say, but I will - as the saying almost goes - defend to the hilt your right to have and voice your opinion, as long as it does not involve personalised abuse." You see, that way you seem like a reasonable, responsible leader of an elective organisation dealing with his unruly electorate. As opposed to an over-sensitive ego who goes purple in the face at the very thought of anyone daring to question him. Which, knowing you for the smart, good-humoured man you are, is, of course, not the case. Thanks for the advice Charlie. Not sure how I got this far in life without it.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Aug 23, 2016 19:30:09 GMT
For now, having OxVox significantly extend the posts on this thread will not be overly helpful, but, as has been quite rightly suggested, a meeting of members at some point, specifically on the stadium subject, will makes sense. Unfortunately it cant be just yet. Sorry! Hi Jem, Thanks for this sensible, measured response. Despite the efforts of some on this thread to make it "personal", it's clear that what everybody actually wants is the best for OUFC's future viability and sustainability - even if they may currently disagree which of the various options provides that. Which is why this independent review from OxVox is so important. I would take it from the above comment that OxVox's work on this is not yet finished - and I fully understand the difficulties of carrying out such a big piece of work on a voluntary basis in your own time, particularly when the "best" answer may be quite a complex jigsaw with many interdependencies. But the question has to be: when do you anticipate being in a position to have finalised this work and fully report back to members? Clearly, the sooner a robust, definitive position can be reached, the sooner members and the wider fan base can rally around to try and make it happen. Terrible, when things get "personal" isn't it? I know exactly how you feel.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 24, 2016 16:06:33 GMT
Hi all Wow, what a lot of posts and some great content! Just for a bit of clarification. The recent members meeting took the opportunity to update those present (and subsequently the full membership by email)_on a number of things that the Trust are currently working on and one of those is the long running 'stadium saga'!. Unsurprisingly I guess, its the subject that, as it always does, has generated the most interest. The situation is that we continue to talk with stakeholders to see if there might be a route through the 'treacle' that can benefit, fans, OUFC and the wider community. There are of course a mass of 'ifs, buts & maybe's' and we'll try, once we can establish a firm path and a robust plan, to keep members and the wider fan base appraised of where the committees thinking is and what our proposals are, so that they can be properly considered by the membership. Inevitably, both now and as we move forward there are/will be sensitive areas and confidentiality issues, but we're sure everyone will understand that. For now, having OxVox significantly extend the posts on this thread will not be overly helpful, but, as has been quite rightly suggested, a meeting of members at some point, specifically on the stadium subject, will makes sense. Unfortunately it cant be just yet. Sorry! I genuinely appreciate Charlie's PR advice. I guess we all need communication guidance sometimes and perhaps we should have popped something on here sooner! One area that we can expand upon though, is the points we made about Grenoble Road and the possibility of housing on the South side. Again, lots of if's, buts and maybe's' but our comments at the meeting and in the notes were based on the following: We learnt that there could be the potential, subject to planning, for an increase in population in the immediate location (therefore potential fans) if housing were to be developed on the other side of Grenoble Road: • SODC are preparing their Local Plan. It will be examined in public by an Inspector next summer, or early autumn. • At this stage, SODC are advancing their preferred options for housing sites. As we know, they are opposed to the development of the land south of Grenoble Rd because it is in the Green Belt. • The other Districts have undertaken a review of the Green Belt in the county and it appears actually feel that this land might be a good site for housing. • Green Belt land can be developed in exceptional circumstances, and the scale of housing required for Oxford may well justify this. • So, we think there will be objections to SODC’s Preferred Options. SODC then have to produce a Draft Plan, and this, with the comments on it from all interested parties, will go to a Public Enquiry. So, does the above mean that houses will definitely be built on the other side of Grenoble Road? No, it doesn’t. But it does mean that the potential for housing is still a possibility and talk of 'never' is therefore perhaps a little premature. I guess some might disagree with the above, but that's how we have viewed and interpreted the planning process as it stands and therefore felt, as it was not actually dead, that it warranted inclusion in our thinking. Hope the above helps guys! Cheers Jem COYY's! Hey Jem, thanks a lot for that characteristically good-humoured post. This is not an issue of personality; it is a real matter of substance, and I welcome your commitment to discuss it fully once you have your ducks in a row. Since you are still in that discovery process, may I just point out one or two things that I think merit consideration. 1) unless a reasonable deal can be done to buy the Kassam Stadium lock, stock and barrel (ie without tempting Firoz to sell us the stands reasonably by allowing him to develop car parks) then every available plan will involve one or more of the 'local plans' being altered. 2) this, in my view, will be done by grouping with other parties to offer a solution that is better for the people of Oxfordshire AS A WHOLE. 3) so on the basis that all options have significant planning challenges - and in fact very similar planning challenges - surely what we (OxVox, OxVox members, OUFC fans etc) should be doing is working out what option is prima facie optimal. Both for OUFC and for the people of Oxfordshire. 4) this involves housing, sustainable communities, transport links, capacity and further potential, parking... and, finally, finance-ability. 5) and I guess it is this that puzzles me about the 'Grenoble Road at all costs' approach. Because given that we now know planning is an issue - a 3 year issue - what are its advantages? Does it bring the maximum possible extra housing for Oxfordshire? Nope. The best transport links? Nope. The best potential for future growth? Nope - or not obviously, because the stadium has not been built with that in mind. I fully accept that my judgements on these things is subjective - ie it is just my view (albeit one shared by others). But it is at least a thought-through view which compares different options on a like for like basis. Whereas on the OxVox line of thinking, we are asked to discount one option because it is not in a local plan (though that area of green belt is ear-marked for development by its local council) whereas we are told to hope to get another site even though, ERM, it is not in a local plan, even though the required planning is in an area NOT ear-marked for development. Perhaps I am being overly logical about it all.... but it would be great to se the various options considered in an even-handed, un-prejudiced way on a like-for-like basis. So I guess I am urging that you re-consider, given the SODC ruling, take a deep breath and re-address the necessity to bring the optimal Oxfordshire plan for all parties (not just Bob Price).
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 24, 2016 16:20:58 GMT
Isn't that exactly what they are doing though Charlie. Looking into all options, not just the kassam. Which was largely my point about everything you have done on WE. If it really is the dream ticket, only sensible option, best possible future of our club. Then add that info into their research, to help make that decision clearer. Like you said it not about personalities or views, it's about the best for the club, and this is the review (if that's the right term) that is likely to get to some sort of end game.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Aug 24, 2016 17:46:49 GMT
I really think you have vastly under estimated the amount of work that we have done on this Charlie. There are a number of points that you, and others, have posted on here that read like "stating the case for the bleeding obvious" and of course we've considered them.
It has NEVER been a case of "the kassam at all costs". It has always been about finding the best viable option for the club and its followers, and I stress the word viable.
We need to get to the next stage of this before making things public shortly. So a little more patience is required.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Aug 24, 2016 19:28:21 GMT
Hey Jem, thanks a lot for that characteristically good-humoured post. This is not an issue of personality; it is a real matter of substance, and I welcome your commitment to discuss it fully once you have your ducks in a row. Since you are still in that discovery process, may I just point out one or two things that I think merit consideration. 1) unless a reasonable deal can be done to buy the Kassam Stadium lock, stock and barrel (ie without tempting Firoz to sell us the stands reasonably by allowing him to develop car parks) then every available plan will involve one or more of the 'local plans' being altered. 2) this, in my view, will be done by grouping with other parties to offer a solution that is better for the people of Oxfordshire AS A WHOLE. 3) so on the basis that all options have significant planning challenges - and in fact very similar planning challenges - surely what we (OxVox, OxVox members, OUFC fans etc) should be doing is working out what option is prima facie optimal. Both for OUFC and for the people of Oxfordshire. 4) this involves housing, sustainable communities, transport links, capacity and further potential, parking... and, finally, finance-ability. 5) and I guess it is this that puzzles me about the 'Grenoble Road at all costs' approach. Because given that we now know planning is an issue - a 3 year issue - what are its advantages? Does it bring the maximum possible extra housing for Oxfordshire? Nope. The best transport links? Nope. The best potential for future growth? Nope - or not obviously, because the stadium has not been built with that in mind. I fully accept that my judgements on these things is subjective - ie it is just my view (albeit one shared by others). But it is at least a thought-through view which compares different options on a like for like basis. Whereas on the OxVox line of thinking, we are asked to discount one option because it is not in a local plan (though that area of green belt is ear-marked for development by its local council) whereas we are told to hope to get another site even though, ERM, it is not in a local plan, even though the required planning is in an area NOT ear-marked for development. Perhaps I am being overly logical about it all.... but it would be great to se the various options considered in an even-handed, un-prejudiced way on a like-for-like basis. So I guess I am urging that you re-consider, given the SODC ruling, take a deep breath and re-address the necessity to bring the optimal Oxfordshire plan for all parties (not just Bob Price). My understanding Charlie is that Oxvox went into the whole process totally open minded and did a huge amount of work on this BEFORE deciding that Grenoble Road is the only viable option. I am also sure that a lot is going on behind the scenes that we are not yet aware of.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Aug 24, 2016 19:50:48 GMT
Hey Jem, thanks a lot for that characteristically good-humoured post. This is not an issue of personality; it is a real matter of substance, and I welcome your commitment to discuss it fully once you have your ducks in a row. Since you are still in that discovery process, may I just point out one or two things that I think merit consideration. 1) unless a reasonable deal can be done to buy the Kassam Stadium lock, stock and barrel (ie without tempting Firoz to sell us the stands reasonably by allowing him to develop car parks) then every available plan will involve one or more of the 'local plans' being altered. 2) this, in my view, will be done by grouping with other parties to offer a solution that is better for the people of Oxfordshire AS A WHOLE. 3) so on the basis that all options have significant planning challenges - and in fact very similar planning challenges - surely what we (OxVox, OxVox members, OUFC fans etc) should be doing is working out what option is prima facie optimal. Both for OUFC and for the people of Oxfordshire. 4) this involves housing, sustainable communities, transport links, capacity and further potential, parking... and, finally, finance-ability. 5) and I guess it is this that puzzles me about the 'Grenoble Road at all costs' approach. Because given that we now know planning is an issue - a 3 year issue - what are its advantages? Does it bring the maximum possible extra housing for Oxfordshire? Nope. The best transport links? Nope. The best potential for future growth? Nope - or not obviously, because the stadium has not been built with that in mind. I fully accept that my judgements on these things is subjective - ie it is just my view (albeit one shared by others). But it is at least a thought-through view which compares different options on a like for like basis. Whereas on the OxVox line of thinking, we are asked to discount one option because it is not in a local plan (though that area of green belt is ear-marked for development by its local council) whereas we are told to hope to get another site even though, ERM, it is not in a local plan, even though the required planning is in an area NOT ear-marked for development. Perhaps I am being overly logical about it all.... but it would be great to se the various options considered in an even-handed, un-prejudiced way on a like-for-like basis. So I guess I am urging that you re-consider, given the SODC ruling, take a deep breath and re-address the necessity to bring the optimal Oxfordshire plan for all parties (not just Bob Price). My understanding Charlie is that Oxvox went into the whole process totally open minded and did a huge amount of work on this BEFORE deciding that Grenoble Road is the only viable option. I am also sure that a lot is going on behind the scenes that we are not yet aware of. Totally correct on both points, foley.
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Aug 24, 2016 20:24:29 GMT
Hey Jem, thanks a lot for that characteristically good-humoured post. This is not an issue of personality; it is a real matter of substance, and I welcome your commitment to discuss it fully once you have your ducks in a row. Since you are still in that discovery process, may I just point out one or two things that I think merit consideration. 1) unless a reasonable deal can be done to buy the Kassam Stadium lock, stock and barrel (ie without tempting Firoz to sell us the stands reasonably by allowing him to develop car parks) then every available plan will involve one or more of the 'local plans' being altered. 2) this, in my view, will be done by grouping with other parties to offer a solution that is better for the people of Oxfordshire AS A WHOLE. 3) so on the basis that all options have significant planning challenges - and in fact very similar planning challenges - surely what we (OxVox, OxVox members, OUFC fans etc) should be doing is working out what option is prima facie optimal. Both for OUFC and for the people of Oxfordshire. 4) this involves housing, sustainable communities, transport links, capacity and further potential, parking... and, finally, finance-ability. 5) and I guess it is this that puzzles me about the 'Grenoble Road at all costs' approach. Because given that we now know planning is an issue - a 3 year issue - what are its advantages? Does it bring the maximum possible extra housing for Oxfordshire? Nope. The best transport links? Nope. The best potential for future growth? Nope - or not obviously, because the stadium has not been built with that in mind. I fully accept that my judgements on these things is subjective - ie it is just my view (albeit one shared by others). But it is at least a thought-through view which compares different options on a like for like basis. Whereas on the OxVox line of thinking, we are asked to discount one option because it is not in a local plan (though that area of green belt is ear-marked for development by its local council) whereas we are told to hope to get another site even though, ERM, it is not in a local plan, even though the required planning is in an area NOT ear-marked for development. Perhaps I am being overly logical about it all.... but it would be great to se the various options considered in an even-handed, un-prejudiced way on a like-for-like basis. So I guess I am urging that you re-consider, given the SODC ruling, take a deep breath and re-address the necessity to bring the optimal Oxfordshire plan for all parties (not just Bob Price). Must you sound quite so patronising Charlie? You may indeed have spent time investigating how the club could move forward but it comes across as if you are the only person to have an understanding of the problems and no-one else has your insight.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 25, 2016 6:21:25 GMT
I really think you have vastly under estimated the amount of work that we have done on this Charlie. There are a number of points that you, and others, have posted on here that read like "stating the case for the bleeding obvious" and of course we've considered them. It has NEVER been a case of "the kassam at all costs". It has always been about finding the best viable option for the club and its followers, and I stress the word viable. We need to get to the next stage of this before making things public shortly. So a little more patience is required. In which case Colin, there is a communication issue here. Originally, the report was to be sent to members on 24th July. On the announcement of the members meeting, I queried if that was still the case and Jem's response was: And in the published minutes it states: So, the clear inference is that the work is concluded. It seems that now the disparity between what is in the minutes and SODC's stated position has been highlighted, the work isn't actually concluded. So, if OxVox have come to a conclusion is there any reason not to "show your workings"? Or if work is still ongoing, giving an idea of timescales etc?
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Aug 25, 2016 7:13:41 GMT
Stop twisting mine and Jem's words Myles.
Just because a conclusion on where the best viable location is, has been reached, doesn't mean that ALL work is now concluded. I'm pretty sure you know that, but for some reason you seem to delight in trying to make something out of nothing in some sort of attempt to catch people out, or discredit them and their work.
Very odd agenda you've got, and it's getting very tedious.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 25, 2016 7:17:06 GMT
I'm not trying to twist anyone's words Colin. If a conclusion has been reached on the most viable option, why is there an issue in reporting back to members openly how that conclusion has been reached?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 25, 2016 7:24:00 GMT
I'm not trying to twist anyone's words Colin. If a conclusion has been reached on the most viable option, why is there an issue in reporting back to members openly how that conclusion has been reached? Annoying isn't it Myles when someone seems not willing to answer your question! In this case however it's been answered several times, work is still on going. You reached your conclusion with out ever presenting it to the membership so let them finish the bloody work they are doing on it. Then I'm sure they will arrange a members meeting on it, probably not at a time and location that suits you though
|
|