|
Post by moobs on May 25, 2011 10:02:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scoob on May 25, 2011 10:36:27 GMT
Great! That will increase Kassam's wealth a little more whilst meaning that fans coming to the stadium have even more inconvenience.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2011 10:46:13 GMT
If Kassam sold off part of the site to the council, I guess it would make the stadium site smaller and therefore cheaper for OUFC to buy?
|
|
|
Post by robie on May 25, 2011 10:52:56 GMT
I would have thought it would be an opportunity for the club and the council to work together and buy all the land and stadium from Kassam to develop a training ground and other sports facilities for the local area.
Low cost housing in the corners of the stadium a la Leyton Orient anyone?
|
|
|
Post by jimmycarterxi on May 25, 2011 11:41:54 GMT
I would have thought it would be an opportunity for the club and the council to work together and buy all the land and stadium from Kassam to develop a training ground and other sports facilities for the local area. Low cost housing in the corners of the stadium a la Leyton Orient anyone? No thanks
|
|
|
Post by collyox (banned) on May 25, 2011 18:51:35 GMT
wouldnt have to even think about building on the car park and lining kassams pockets if they passed plans to build the proposed 4000 houses on the opposite side of Grenoble road...........bit to simple for the council halfwits tho.........
|
|
|
Post by robie on May 25, 2011 22:20:15 GMT
I genuinely think it would be beneficial for the club to work with the council and get the land bought off Kassam. It would build up the area around the stadium creating more watering holes, takeaways and bus routes for match days.
|
|
|
Post by robie on May 25, 2011 22:20:38 GMT
I genuinely think it would be beneficial for the club to work with the council and get the land bought off Kassam. It would build up the area around the stadium creating more watering holes, takeaways and bus routes for match days.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on May 25, 2011 22:32:19 GMT
It would have been beneficial for the club if the council had waited until the "club" owned the land before making these sorts of statements. The fact that the council are suggesting that they would like the land built upon will increase its value. However, I don't think the overflow carpark is included in the option to but the stadium. Anyone know for sure?
I hope that the council will be paying for the cost of developing a transport strategy for the Stadium if they allow this to go through. If the overflow car park is lost then it will not help our aspiration to move forward if people have hassle getting to the ground. This all seems like very un-joined thinking but knowing the council they probably think the "overflow" car park is rarely used. The whole reason for moving to an out of town site was to allow space for parking and to move away from a ground hemmed in by houses. Fukwits.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2011 6:27:53 GMT
Try reading the article again in full.
The planning document said: “There is certainly potential for this site to be used more efficiently and the uses proposed by Oxford United would be suitable and could help improve the quality and safety of the area that adjoins Blackbird Leys.
“A transport assessment and travel plan would be required to ensure that an appropriate level of car parking is reprovided.
“Some small shops to serve the local neighbourhood would also be suitable to compliment the residential and stadium uses.”
Uses proposed by Oxford United sounds more interesting. Not all planning applications automatically mean houses. Could include sports/training facilities that would be available for public use some of the time and by club at other times. Need to get council onside rather than antagonising them.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 26, 2011 6:36:23 GMT
Is this just a rehash of this thread from last year? Or has the story moved on?
|
|
|
Post by alessandro on May 26, 2011 9:09:47 GMT
Quite frankly id be very surprised if this isnt just lazy council work, and Oxford United had suggested nothing, and Firoka suggested everything. Either way, as Scoob says, its a real kick in the teeth potentially as it could push up the price of the land exorbitantly. Either that or Kassam pulls in a little golden egg, and we end up with even more chaos as fans on matchdays.
I would suggest that this is the time for the new Oxvox lots to raise up their flag and prove their worth,
They need to speak to the club, and make it patently clear that the cluibs supporters will target every single councillor who does not fall in with Oxford United and it's fans, rather than with kassam. Political careers should be made and destroyed on such issues with such a huge level of OUFC support in the city and area.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2011 9:36:45 GMT
This could be a real opportunity. Lets face it, the Kassam is a soulless stadium and the surrounding area is a dump. If the council works with the club, maybe the whole site can be redeveloped in everyones interest if it can be bought from him.
|
|
|
Post by secondsout on May 26, 2011 9:47:40 GMT
I may be making this up but I am pretty sure that the amended proposal for the ground, when Kassam had bought the land, was to have the car park on the land opposite the South Stand.
Something happened and the deal to purchase the land fell through.
Thats why the overflow is where it is.
As for putting housing on the site of the overflow, I actually think its a brilliant idea. Its bringing people to the area that may end up supporting the club. That can only be a good thing.
That said it is only a good idea if the overflow is moved and improved.
I worry that the council will want the club to help improve public transport and want them to work to reduce cars at the ground.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2011 10:13:16 GMT
Why is that a worry? The amount of cars at the site is ridiculous. Of course public transport should be improved. Additional parking if needed can be by negotiating with the science park or altering parking restrictions on roads on the area on match days. If the council are on-side this kind of thing is made easier.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on May 26, 2011 11:26:53 GMT
A little word of warning.
Current Stadia planning regulations have changed since the kassam stadium was built. The new legislation will only permit a MAXIMUM of one parking space per 15 spectator seats within the stadium. It's all to do with green issues and discouraging people from driving to games. This is why Shrewsbury's stadium is out of town, yet has very little parking. The tree huggers have got their way, and no matter how impractical it is, football clubs planning new stadia have to adhere to this.
Now I do not know if this would apply to us, but I could see a scenario where the parking places were lost and the council refused any applications to replace them. Lets face it, the local authorities in Oxford are full of anti car, tree hugging hippies, just look at how anti car the city itself is.
It is likely that kassam knows these regulations are now in place and this could open the door for him to sell off the overflow car park without having to do a bloody thing in respect of replacing it.
As I say, I don't know if this would apply to us, but I can see how it could be used by kassam's people if they chose to. Having said that, this may only be a case of the council identifying sites, rather than anything actually happening on them, but we need to look into this in more depth.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 26, 2011 11:50:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oufcmannor on May 26, 2011 12:13:01 GMT
Why doest the surrounding business open up there car parks charge £1 and problem solved no congestion inside the Assam and lots of overflow
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2011 13:04:27 GMT
Now I do not know if this would apply to us, but I could see a scenario where the parking places were lost and the council refused any applications to replace them. Lets face it, the local authorities in Oxford are full of anti car, tree hugging hippies, just look at how anti car the city itself is. To be fair, most sensible people realise that we need to stop driving everywhere, not just tree hugging hippies
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 26, 2011 13:09:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by secondsout on May 26, 2011 14:07:09 GMT
Why is that a worry? The amount of cars at the site is ridiculous. Of course public transport should be improved. Additional parking if needed can be by negotiating with the science park or altering parking restrictions on roads on the area on match days. If the council are on-side this kind of thing is made easier. Purely because taking public transport to a game should be an option and not something forced upon individuals. I used to get the bus to the stadium for 7 years so I am not against doing it, still do from time to time, but that doesnt mean that the only option should be to get the bus.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 26, 2011 14:13:11 GMT
Shrewsbury at least have a transport 'plan' to get fans from surrounding towns and villages to the ground, and from the bus station in town too.
Around 8 of us missed the first coach back into town as we weren't sure where it went from having got a taxi to the ground. The stewards arranged for a spare coach to take us back to the station.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on May 26, 2011 14:17:33 GMT
Now I do not know if this would apply to us, but I could see a scenario where the parking places were lost and the council refused any applications to replace them. Lets face it, the local authorities in Oxford are full of anti car, tree hugging hippies, just look at how anti car the city itself is. To be fair, most sensible people realise that we need to stop driving everywhere, not just tree hugging hippies No they don't. Most people are being environmentally bullied into it by the green lobby. Most people want to drive, but are being forced to use other modes of transport by either fiscal penalties or lack of choice. There has to be a balance to this. Certain European countries have spent billions of euros over a long period of time to create viable and efficient public transport systems. That's fair enough, but what have we done in this country? Sod all, other than bully people out of their cars without any proportionate investment in public transport. It's all well and good having the theory but the reality is that we are decades behind the likes of Germany, France and Holland. And what's the best they can come up with? Hair brained schemes like the legislation that forbids any more than one parking place per 15 spectators. You can't just wish the situation away, you have to seriously invest in the infrastructure. Do you know what I had to do when we played Shrewsbury away? Pay a fiver to park my car at a pub about a mile away from the ground and then walk. How the fu ck ing hell did that save the environment? All it did was inconvenience me and cost me a fiver! Do you really think just removing parking spaces is any sort of solution? Because we all know that this country's councillors (made up of a fair smattering of tree hugging, sandal wearing, yoghurt eating nutters) are incapable of providing any sort of viable alternative method of getting from A to B, as they have proved over several years. And you call that "sensible"?
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on May 26, 2011 14:19:44 GMT
Why is that a worry? The amount of cars at the site is ridiculous. Of course public transport should be improved. Additional parking if needed can be by negotiating with the science park or altering parking restrictions on roads on the area on match days. If the council are on-side this kind of thing is made easier. Purely because taking public transport to a game should be an option and not something forced upon individuals. I used to get the bus to the stadium for 7 years so I am not against doing it, still do from time to time, but that doesnt mean that the only option should be to get the bus. Of course public transport should not be the only option. But it is ridiculous that people form the oxford area are driving to the ground. Its out of town for sure but if people from the city itself could be pusuaded to by a much improved bus service there would be less of a problem with congestion. Combine that with coaches for the outlying towns and you would have even fewer people having to drive in. Surely the best option viz. parking would be to ensure that the absolute minimum of home fans who attend have to drive in and you've freed up space for away fans who will have to drive, and for those home fans who live far enough away that public transport is not an option.
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on May 26, 2011 14:21:42 GMT
I like yoghurt!
|
|
|
Post by Yellowbrains on May 26, 2011 14:31:17 GMT
A few things that interested me about that, apparently at least part of the Kassam site is co-owned by the City Council? Clarification that the suggestion was from OUFC and also a reiteration that the club is 'considering possible uses to complement the stadium', presumably to help fund the purchase. Also mentions that for any development on the overflow car park to take place they would have to 'ensure that an appropriate level of car parking is re-provided'. So I guess they would have to provide more parking?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2011 14:47:30 GMT
To be fair, most sensible people realise that we need to stop driving everywhere, not just tree hugging hippies No they don't. Most people are being environmentally bullied into it by the green lobby. Most people want to drive, but are being forced to use other modes of transport by either fiscal penalties or lack of choice. There has to be a balance to this. Certain European countries have spent billions of euros over a long period of time to create viable and efficient public transport systems. That's fair enough, but what have we done in this country? Sod all, other than bully people out of their cars without any proportionate investment in public transport. It's all well and good having the theory but the reality is that we are decades behind the likes of Germany, France and Holland. And what's the best they can come up with? Hair brained schemes like the legislation that forbids any more than one parking place per 15 spectators. You can't just wish the situation away, you have to seriously invest in the infrastructure. Do you know what I had to do when we played Shrewsbury away? Pay a fiver to park my car at a pub about a mile away from the ground and then walk. How the fu ck ing hell did that save the environment? All it did was inconvenience me and cost me a fiver! Do you really think just removing parking spaces is any sort of solution? Because we all know that this country's councillors (made up of a fair smattering of tree hugging, sandal wearing, yoghurt eating nutters) are incapable of providing any sort of viable alternative method of getting from A to B, as they have proved over several years. And you call that "sensible"? fair points. While generally in favour of discouraging people from driving (because lets face it, a lot of people are simply lazy) I should qualify that by saying I am only in favour if other means of transport are improved and as you say this is what is consistently lacking with this country's green policies. We restrict parking and increase taxes but public transport is left in the hands of private companies and not subsidised and invested in.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on May 26, 2011 15:25:36 GMT
No they don't. Most people are being environmentally bullied into it by the green lobby. Most people want to drive, but are being forced to use other modes of transport by either fiscal penalties or lack of choice. There has to be a balance to this. Certain European countries have spent billions of euros over a long period of time to create viable and efficient public transport systems. That's fair enough, but what have we done in this country? Sod all, other than bully people out of their cars without any proportionate investment in public transport. It's all well and good having the theory but the reality is that we are decades behind the likes of Germany, France and Holland. And what's the best they can come up with? Hair brained schemes like the legislation that forbids any more than one parking place per 15 spectators. You can't just wish the situation away, you have to seriously invest in the infrastructure. Do you know what I had to do when we played Shrewsbury away? Pay a fiver to park my car at a pub about a mile away from the ground and then walk. How the fu ck ing hell did that save the environment? All it did was inconvenience me and cost me a fiver! Do you really think just removing parking spaces is any sort of solution? Because we all know that this country's councillors (made up of a fair smattering of tree hugging, sandal wearing, yoghurt eating nutters) are incapable of providing any sort of viable alternative method of getting from A to B, as they have proved over several years. And you call that "sensible"? fair points. While generally in favour of discouraging people from driving (because lets face it, a lot of people are simply lazy) I should qualify that by saying I am only in favour if other means of transport are improved and as you say this is what is consistently lacking with this country's green policies. We restrict parking and increase taxes but public transport is left in the hands of private companies and not subsidised and invested in. Agree with that amarillo, it's the lack of any cohesive public policy (and implementation of same) that lets the whole thing down. The fact that "public" transport is almost 100% in private hands means that self interest and profit comes before service. Reading back through my post, I think I probably went off the deep end a bit, but no offence was intended, and hopefully none taken. I just seem to get a bit wound up over some of these things!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2011 16:30:30 GMT
none taken at all, seems we pretty much agree anyway
we all get wound up on here!
|
|
|
Post by moobs on May 26, 2011 20:27:06 GMT
Me too but we've only got Ski, the Germans are decades ahead of us, they've got Muller Fruit Corners
|
|