|
Post by oufcyellows on Dec 6, 2017 18:48:12 GMT
[ unnecessary and very ill-informed. Jem With the greatest of respect Jem, it's very easy to label others as "ill-informed" when OxVox steadfastly refuse to answer simple questions from members. Members are still waiting for the full report of OxVox's investigation of the stadium situation - not minutes of a meeting, but the full, transparent report. Members are still waiting for answers to the direct questions about OxVox's possible meeting with Tiger. Members are still waiting for minutes of the (now not-so-)recent meeting with Darryl Eales, or at least a reason as to why they aren't being published. Whither transparency? Wow, u ask for transparency and it appears. With meeting notes as well. You Must be happy with that. And meeting that will present all stadium findings. Now who was it on here that said they didn’t think WE would ever happen. Could of been Charles, can’t remember .
|
|
|
Post by 1OUFC on Dec 6, 2017 18:51:59 GMT
We have a chairman who has taken back a lot of what he has put in, puts out sound bytes that are pie in the sky., plays games with potential investors. All the fans want is some pro activity from slippery. Marketing is non existent. Thanks here are many chairman investing in their clubs, that fit your white knight description You must be quite close to the club to make such bold statements without any of that info in the public domain Not at all, he is some kind of finance investor by trade, its what he does.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Dec 6, 2017 19:37:43 GMT
If the Tiger deal has fallen through, I will be a little relieved having spoken to some Reading supporters and read Myles's opening post. Maybe there would have been positives from the deal and maybe we will hear some of the detail in time. Assuming that this has been going on, I guess that the meeting with DE will be interesting. That will have been two potential takeover moves which must have taken DEs focus away from running the club/ planning for the future etc. As has been said, this is a critical time so far as the huge issue of the ground is concerned. DE/ the owner need to really have a strategy on this as it is the one critical thing (off the pitch) that has to be resolved. Why is the ground a huge issue? Stewart set out the reality of try to obtain the ground and the financial impact it would have or not on the club, we have to find the land, finance to get it built and then someone to gift it to the club so the club can benifit financially. Owning the ground in the current football climate is not vital, getting promotion is, I’m informed that for the big teams ground ownership only brings in 10% of their income, he’s an accountant so might know more than me. Seriously? Why is the ground such a huge issue? DE after originally suggesting that the ground was not an issue, changed his mind and suggested that the current situation is unsustainable. I would be surprised if many people think that the ground is not an issue (particularly with the nice Mr Kassam pulling the strings) I totally understand what Stewart has said regarding trying to fund the Stadium based on the deal for FK making it pointless for him to sell at a price sensible to fund it at the amount he wants for it. I am not sure whether you are suggesting that we simply keep paying FK such a large amount in a three sided and rapidly dilapidated stadium? We are already losing huge amounts of money (without cup runs and selling players for a lot of cash). I am not suggesting any of this is easy, but to me it is absolutely critical fort he long term success of the club.
|
|
|
Post by oufcbenjyp on Dec 6, 2017 20:00:45 GMT
Not so. Also further resi planning and, critically, the requied transport links for hat further resi planning. Councils can make that easy or difficult at their discretion through the application of something called a levy. Thankfully, Robert Prce will be out of the way soon, hopefully to be replaced by someone prepared to fight a little for the local football club. Charlie I think its a great shame that you continue, with such regularity, to be so disrespectful (rude) to the Leader of Oxford City Council, but it seems in these days of social media, anyone can say anything about anyone, without any fear of recourse? Someone like Bob Price is always open to criticism, I suppose it goes with the territory, but in my book its very poor form on your part. In trying to create a better stadium solution for OUFC, Oxford City Council have been good to work with, as have other Councils, and to say what you do about them from behind a keyboard really is both unnecessary and very ill-informed. Jem That sounds like a politician’s answer and I don’t buy it. You are implying that one shouldn’t be rude because of Bob Price’s position as head of OCC? If that’s not what you were implying it certainly sounds that way. I’m sorry but no-one is beyond criticism and none more so than the leaders of our so-called Local Authorities in this country. When has OCC tried to create a better stadium solution for OUFC? Not in my lifetime. OCC’s primary aim is to line OCC’s pockets because, unfortunately for them, their budgets have been smashed to pieces in recent years and they need more cash to deliver even the most meagre of services so that they can get re-elected next time around. Self serving bureaucrats, plain and simple. I’m sorry but I just don’t see where OUFC fits into that plan. We are a pawn in a chess game between Firoz and OCC and neither minds sacrificing us for their bigger picture.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Dec 6, 2017 21:20:27 GMT
Charlie I think its a great shame that you continue, with such regularity, to be so disrespectful (rude) to the Leader of Oxford City Council, but it seems in these days of social media, anyone can say anything about anyone, without any fear of recourse? Someone like Bob Price is always open to criticism, I suppose it goes with the territory, but in my book its very poor form on your part. In trying to create a better stadium solution for OUFC, Oxford City Council have been good to work with, as have other Councils, and to say what you do about them from behind a keyboard really is both unnecessary and very ill-informed. Jem That sounds like a politician’s answer and I don’t buy it. You are implying that one shouldn’t be rude because of Bob Price’s position as head of OCC? If that’s not what you were implying it certainly sounds that way. I’m sorry but no-one is beyond criticism and none more so than the leaders of our so-called Local Authorities in this country. When has OCC tried to create a better stadium solution for OUFC? Not in my lifetime. OCC’s primary aim is to line OCC’s pockets because, unfortunately for them, their budgets have been smashed to pieces in recent years and they need more cash to deliver even the most meagre of services so that they can get re-elected next time around. Self serving bureaucrats, plain and simple. I’m sorry but I just don’t see where OUFC fits into that plan. We are a pawn in a chess game between Firoz and OCC and neither minds sacrificing us for their bigger picture. The proof as they say will be in the pudding. Let's hope that the Council(s) seriously want good football/ sports/ leisure facilities. The Ice Skating Rink will in time close I believe (is it Swiss yellow who supports the Ice Skating team and believes that?) I am an old git and so I am pretty cynical about the Council in relation to OUFC, but I genuinely hope that they do pull their fingers out and seriously help the club. Incidentally IF this were ever to happen (I have my doubts like many others but hopefully I am very wrong), then Stewart's comments are very pertinent. No owner can be allowed to come in and do a Kassam. It has to be for the benefit of the local community and the football club.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Dec 6, 2017 21:30:26 GMT
With the greatest of respect Jem, it's very easy to label others as "ill-informed" when OxVox steadfastly refuse to answer simple questions from members. Members are still waiting for the full report of OxVox's investigation of the stadium situation - not minutes of a meeting, but the full, transparent report. Members are still waiting for answers to the direct questions about OxVox's possible meeting with Tiger. Members are still waiting for minutes of the (now not-so-)recent meeting with Darryl Eales, or at least a reason as to why they aren't being published. Whither transparency? Wow, u ask for transparency and it appears. With meeting notes as well. You Must be happy with that. And meeting that will present all stadium findings. Now who was it on here that said they didn’t think WE would ever happen. Could of been Charles, can’t remember . what on earth are you on about?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Dec 6, 2017 21:35:04 GMT
Wow, u ask for transparency and it appears. With meeting notes as well. You Must be happy with that. And meeting that will present all stadium findings. Now who was it on here that said they didn’t think WE would ever happen. Could of been Charles, can’t remember . what on earth are you on about? Good one 😉. I bet this evenings Oxvox email has been a hot topic of conversation on the bat line . Still looks like u got ur wish and all details of the report will be provided , on the 10th. Unless ur busy again of course and evil Oxvox have arranged a date without first consulting u
|
|
|
Post by Maurice Earp on Dec 6, 2017 21:38:23 GMT
Wow, u ask for transparency and it appears. With meeting notes as well. You Must be happy with that. And meeting that will present all stadium findings. Now who was it on here that said they didn’t think WE would ever happen. Could of been Charles, can’t remember . what on earth are you on about? I expect you didn't get the latest Oxvox e-mail?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Dec 6, 2017 21:43:18 GMT
* WE is the only option * anyone who doesn’t think so is an idiot * Oxvox have not done their job properly. * I don’t need to attend a meeting , I have emails . Oxvox email sent youtu.be/_lPJ9J-6vDw
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Dec 6, 2017 21:58:05 GMT
FK cannot redevelop the whole site with the club still using the ground (as per license) can he, nor would the local political optics be good if it happened? I surmise the whole site be his preferred option in mind of the current planning and legislative environment where housing is desperately needed and he has a lovely brownfield site to build on. I'd think the council would be pleased to have such a site available to them as well. With a train line nearby that could be viable with investment and access to the national road work being relatively straightforward, it has a lot going for it. But where to move the club??? Didcot has lots of space doesn't it? Ah. no. That would be the natural logical point of view, but on fact you are mistaken. Bob Price does not want to see houses built on the Kassam Stadium. He wants to use shortage of available resi sites inside the City boundary as a way of pressurising SODC into relaxing the green belt just south of Grenoble Road, where Oxford City Council actually owns land which could then become a very valuable new housing site. Houses being built all over the Kassam site would make that eventuality less likely. Ergo he is against it. He then deploys specious arguments about keeping OUFC "within the City". Judging by my local council, what an individual councillor wants vs what is in the planning rules are mutually exclusive items. If a developer wants to do it and it fits in with the local plan, or even if it doesn't, the Govt have opened planning so much that its really hard to refuse if it provides housing. They will lawyer up and appeal if they lose. The Govts further recent pressure on housing quotas will make any local councillors life a lot harder to refuse a well thought out planning scheme. Which lets face it, Firoz Kassam will do just that. He's done OCC up like a kipper on more than one occasion, I can see them falling for it again
|
|
|
Post by myles on Dec 6, 2017 22:06:23 GMT
what on earth are you on about? I expect you didn't get the latest Oxvox e-mail? That would be correct.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Dec 6, 2017 22:10:30 GMT
I expect you didn't get the latest Oxvox e-mail? That would be correct. Hahaha.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordyankee on Dec 6, 2017 22:14:46 GMT
I’ve heard of sellers playing hard-to-get, but those pesky blighters at Cherwell DC are just doing a very convincing job of saying, no, nay, never.
There’s probably a subtext that’s being missed, though. One where their constant refusals, rebuttals and general negativity are in fact the biggest come-on line ever.
Probably.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Dec 6, 2017 22:28:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Dec 6, 2017 23:55:37 GMT
Im wondering why the owner's of the club for almost a decade and a half have not had a serious go at changing the situation or are they not financially astute? I guess that when it is your own time, money and risk that is on the line it helps put a different perspective on the situation. Maybe the risk has been considered too high for their overall level of wealth? If so, then maybe the fans, via Oxvox, need to encourage new ownership with that level of wealth to become involved and put pressure on the existing owner if that is necessary. Otherwise we will have at least another decade of the same then a potential crisis when the licence is up for renewal. Are "Tiger" and his associates financially capable of pulling something off? Should Sartori have been given even more backing by the fans when he wanted to buy the club? The problem most fans have is the lack of knowledge but, as you say, hopefully the current Oxvox Board have that knowledge and are using it at the moment in any discussions that are ongoing. They need our support and patience if this is the situation. If the current owner is purely holding out for the best price for himself then that does not sound like a benefit to the club as a whole then the fans they represent need to be made aware before the situation is too late. We need a new owner for the long haul if we are going to forge onwards and not end up shifting into another period of decline. We have seen two reasonable wealthy owners who have been worn down by the unique difficulties of running OUFC so now, when Eales seems to determined to move on, will be another key moment in the history of OUFC. I think that it is more that it is a complex, multi-faceted situation, and the first 'stakeholder' a new owner or CEO or Trust chairman comes across is someone who purports to be helpful to the club but never is, and tells them a bunch of untruths and semi-truths because he just wants to maintain the status quo for his own reasons (or, being more generous, the vested interest of the body he has been heading). By the time that Kelvin and then Ian had fought their way through the process, and come to the conclusion that a purchase of Grenoble Road was unlikely, IL had run out of cash and was on his way out. DE came in, and - remember - first proclaimed that the stadium issue was unimportant. So he only started really thinking about it after Ashton left, which is two years ago. So actually he got to the truth of the matter more quickly than most (ie a year ago), but not long after he too seems to have decided that he wasn't here for the long run. So given how long the process of sorting all this out is going to be, it is going to require someone who is looking at least at a 5 year window and who has over £20 million to spend. Those were precisely the questions that, before introducing Sartori to DE, Stewart asked of JS, who - had his bid been successful - would have been the first chairman post-Kassam to come into the club with his eyes wide open about the whole stadium issue. So going back to your point about what is required, THAT is what is required. The problem is that the situation with Sartori was idiosyncratic, as Stewart (and I) gave him chapter and verse on the challenges. With a normal potential purchaser, he will rely for such guidance on the selling party. And it's not necessarily in the selling party's interest to really go heavily into just how tricky the stadium issue is. IL totally glossed over it in selling to Ensco. I find it amazing that buyers of anything only take the view of the seller into account. Even when spending a couple of hundred quid of my hard earned cash I do a bit of research. Are football club owners really that naive? On second thoughts I supppse the stadium deal with Kassam backs that up and I believe that both KT and IL had a hand in that disasterous decision. I know that there were time pressures when they did it but their rush to push through the deal took the club from the frying pan into the fire. It seems that the meeting with Cherwell finally puts WE to bed?
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Dec 7, 2017 3:37:05 GMT
Not so. Also further resi planning and, critically, the requied transport links for hat further resi planning. Councils can make that easy or difficult at their discretion through the application of something called a levy. Thankfully, Robert Prce will be out of the way soon, hopefully to be replaced by someone prepared to fight a little for the local football club. Charlie I think its a great shame that you continue, with such regularity, to be so disrespectful (rude) to the Leader of Oxford City Council, but it seems in these days of social media, anyone can say anything about anyone, without any fear of recourse? Someone like Bob Price is always open to criticism, I suppose it goes with the territory, but in my book its very poor form on your part. In trying to create a better stadium solution for OUFC, Oxford City Council have been good to work with, as have other Councils, and to say what you do about them from behind a keyboard really is both unnecessary and very ill-informed. Jem Seriously, Jem? Really? Can you tell me anything, literally anything, that ANY council has done to help OUFC in recent times. A lot of warm words, and some fairly big promises, but the concrete evidence of actual physical support? I've been following the situation for quite some time and haven't seen it. You speak privately to Bob regularly, so perhaps he can tell you if he is still prepared for the council to pay for half the purchase price of the current stadium. Or why Firoz is allowed to continue to let the Priory dilapidate (against a specific ruling) while they discuss the development of the car park with him. This from the council who were asleep on the bridge when the stadium was being completed and Firoz granted enabling planning granted (by them) whilst splitting club from ground. On Water Eaton, I understand that you have sent out an email (haventvreceived it yet) ruling it out because someone at CDC wouldn't welcome it. Leaving aside the actual planning quirks of the site that I have in mind, I'm afraid to say that if an initial expression of disapproval was what it took to prevent the building of a football stadium then no such would ever get built. You see, here's the thing. The council's planning officers operate to a strict set of rules. They arent allowed to freelance and sort of hint at massive developments here or there. Why? Because it would be irresponsible to wind local people up with no justification. House prices change on this kind of stuff. Politicians (their bosses) get elected and deposed. So , no, they don't publicly float big ideas around. If you listened to the same people 3 years ago you will have found them adamantly stating that the green belt would not - would never! - be broken at Water Eaton. And now it is going to be smashed into smithereens, a whole ancient golf club evicted and thousands of shiny new homes built. If someone like you (if someone like anyone actually) had had a private meeting with CDC three years ago they would have been given no sniff of that. So what changed? The facts changed, the politicians changed, national government changed, exceptional circumstance was proven. This is how property works. It's a long, hard slog sometimes. It requires application of public pressure sometimes. It sometimes requires a game of give and take. It requires vision and, sometimes, an appeal to national government. Your friend Bob knows this. However often SODC has adamantly said that nothing South of Grenoble Road can get permission, he keeps chipping away, telling people that it'll all change soon. And he might be right! I am leaving aside the planning specificities of the site I have in mind at WE because that is sensitive commercially. All the above would apply to ALL potential new stadium sites (certainly that I can think of). The decision to be made by OUFC is whether it wants to stay put or needs to move. DE has said as much quite openly and he is right. If it decides to move it will have to make that case publicly, using planning experts, and lobbying individual politicians within a framework of the local plans (and their macro ambitions), Oxfordshire's future needs (an additional 100,000 citizens in north Oxon according to national government only last week) and Firoz' own development plans and the transport infrastructure required to make them work. Water Eaton is in my view the best area strategically because of county position and existing transport and parking. But there doubtless will be other potential sites too (as the Oxvox committee member co-opted on this topic has alluded to). None of those sites will come with a golden bow and gift wrapping from a local planning civil servant. Exceptional Circumstance will have to be proven in every case. But (and I shall start to pull together case material from the rest of the UK) that is almost always the way of it. As you know, there are also formidable issues relating to regularising the situation at Grenoble Road including, dare I say it, getting planning over the road for parking and the academy when SODC has specifically ruled that out! Ironically, given the starting point of this post, none of this would all be needed had Oxford City Council not allowed us to be stitched up like a kipper by Firoz all those years ago. But we are where we are and desperately need a properly thought-through long-term vision rather than the Groundhog Day stuff on offer currently. The Oxfordshire planning environment is highly dynamic and unusually malleable right now. OUFC needs to be part of that dynamic landscape, not fiddling around the edges.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Dec 7, 2017 6:43:23 GMT
Wouldn’t it have just been easier to summarise in 5 words- oops sorry I was wrong !
What a coincidence none of u got the email.
See u on the 10th I’m sure. That’s the 10th of jan. Meeting on the stadium. Just incase u missed that as well, oh ur busy, oh well I’m sure u will send some questions in via the forum
|
|
|
Post by mariokempes on Dec 7, 2017 7:13:30 GMT
Front page of today's Oxford Mail
Can't find a link online But says move to WE a no go
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Dec 7, 2017 7:15:08 GMT
Front page of today's Oxford Mail He won’t see that either , they only buy the telegraph
|
|
|
Post by oufcbenjyp on Dec 7, 2017 7:26:55 GMT
Front page of today's Oxford Mail He won’t see that either , they only buy the telegraph I think I now know what your problem is with Charlie. Is it a jealousy thing? Your last comment certainly makes it sound personal. I can hear the gloating in your voice from here which frankly devalues your argument. Grow up.
|
|
|
Post by uptheus on Dec 7, 2017 7:37:53 GMT
Wouldn’t it have just been easier to summarise in 5 words- oops sorry I was wrong ! What a coincidence none of u got the email. See u on the 10th I’m sure. That’s the 10th of jan. Meeting on the stadium. Just incase u missed that as well, oh ur busy, oh well I’m sure u will send some questions in via the forum OUFC are you referring to the email dated 1st December? If so, it doesn't say that OxVox will provide the WE report does it?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Dec 7, 2017 7:41:59 GMT
He won’t see that either , they only buy the telegraph I think I now know what your problem is with Charlie. Is it a jealousy thing? Your last comment certainly makes it sound personal. I can hear the gloating in your voice from here which frankly devalues your argument. Grow up. Just read some of ur previous posts. Morning Charles. Ur so right I’m totally jealous.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Dec 7, 2017 7:43:43 GMT
Wouldn’t it have just been easier to summarise in 5 words- oops sorry I was wrong ! What a coincidence none of u got the email. See u on the 10th I’m sure. That’s the 10th of jan. Meeting on the stadium. Just incase u missed that as well, oh ur busy, oh well I’m sure u will send some questions in via the forum OUFC are you referring to the email dated 1st December? If so, it doesn't say that OxVox will provide the WE report does it? Oh u didn’t get it either. That really is bad luck. That’s you, Charles and myles. Do u wanna check if mark has had it
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Dec 7, 2017 7:44:24 GMT
Wouldn’t it have just been easier to summarise in 5 words- oops sorry I was wrong ! What a coincidence none of u got the email. See u on the 10th I’m sure. That’s the 10th of jan. Meeting on the stadium. Just incase u missed that as well, oh ur busy, oh well I’m sure u will send some questions in via the forum Just seen the Oxford Mail article. It refers to another "site" - the site I have been looking at is not technically Water Eaton (though is in the vicinity) and is therefore not on the farmer's land referred to in this meeting. The planning official is absolutely right in saying that the farmer's land and Stratfield Brake are not viable; I've known that for years, as they were the obvious two sites being large open patches of land. However, I am willing to accept that it is problematic for what I am proposing that Hudspeth is quoted as saying that there is no site available in West Ox, Cherwell or VOWH. If that is indeed the case then clearly I have been wrong!!
|
|
|
Post by mariokempes on Dec 7, 2017 7:52:26 GMT
Wouldn’t it have just been easier to summarise in 5 words- oops sorry I was wrong ! What a coincidence none of u got the email. See u on the 10th I’m sure. That’s the 10th of jan. Meeting on the stadium. Just incase u missed that as well, oh ur busy, oh well I’m sure u will send some questions in via the forum Just seen the Oxford Mail article. It refers to another "site" - the site I have been looking at is not technically Water Eaton (though is in the vicinity) and is therefore not on the farmer's land referred to in this meeting. The planning official is absolutely right in saying that the farmer's land and Stratfield Brake are not viable; I've known that for years, as they were the obvious two sites being large open patches of land. However, I am willing to accept that it is problematic for what I am proposing that Hudspeth is quoted as saying that there is no site available in West Ox, Cherwell or VOWH. If that is indeed the case then clearly I have been wrong!! Charlie Why if it's technically not Water Earin have you not bothered in your countless other posts said that ?
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Dec 7, 2017 7:55:05 GMT
OUFC are you referring to the email dated 1st December? If so, it doesn't say that OxVox will provide the WE report does it? Oh u didn’t get it either. That really is bad luck. That’s you, Charles and myles. Do u wanna check if mark has had it Feller, you're sounding really bitter, angry and sad. It's not healthy!! I'm in Dubai, and cannot get my private email to work for some reason, which is why I haven't seen any OxVox email. But I've read the Oxford Mail article and have responded to it in what I hope is a reasonable and humble fashion. I think that you have just accused me in a different post of multi-posting. Really? Are you getting so pathological that you simply cannot believe that anyone would agree with me, or disagree with you? Honestly, I don't want to tell you to grow up - I have no idea how old you are! But do chill out. (Administrators can confirm that I have no multi and never have had!!) A year or two ago, I said we could move to the Water Eaton vicinity, and OxVox said that they could buy the Grenoble Road stadium. If neither is possible it's a damn shame, not something to gloat about. Before accepting the former, clearly I would like to check with the planning consultants we spoke to recently, not to mention Hudspeth himself, since he is quoted, but if that is the end of the road there I shall accept it gracefully and apologise for wasting people's attention span. Crikey, it would only join a litany of similar failures and would merit a rueful grimace, rather than a hail of anger. Just the same with the failure to buy the Kassam Stadium.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Dec 7, 2017 7:56:31 GMT
Just seen the Oxford Mail article. It refers to another "site" - the site I have been looking at is not technically Water Eaton (though is in the vicinity) and is therefore not on the farmer's land referred to in this meeting. The planning official is absolutely right in saying that the farmer's land and Stratfield Brake are not viable; I've known that for years, as they were the obvious two sites being large open patches of land. However, I am willing to accept that it is problematic for what I am proposing that Hudspeth is quoted as saying that there is no site available in West Ox, Cherwell or VOWH. If that is indeed the case then clearly I have been wrong!! Charlie Why if it's technically not Water Earin have you not bothered in your countless other posts said that ? Because it's in that area. But as defined in this article it's very narrowly the Water Eaton Estate, which was never an option once the two landowners realised they could get residential there.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Dec 7, 2017 7:57:59 GMT
Wouldn’t it have just been easier to summarise in 5 words- oops sorry I was wrong ! What a coincidence none of u got the email. See u on the 10th I’m sure. That’s the 10th of jan. Meeting on the stadium. Just incase u missed that as well, oh ur busy, oh well I’m sure u will send some questions in via the forum Just seen the Oxford Mail article. It refers to another "site" - the site I have been looking at is not technically Water Eaton (though is in the vicinity) and is therefore not on the farmer's land referred to in this meeting. The planning official is absolutely right in saying that the farmer's land and Stratfield Brake are not viable; I've known that for years, as they were the obvious two sites being large open patches of land. However, I am willing to accept that it is problematic for what I am proposing that Hudspeth is quoted as saying that there is no site available in West Ox, Cherwell or VOWH. If that is indeed the case then clearly I have been wrong!! Thank you. Despite what anyone thinks I have all along just looked for the fact. From day 1 I said I didn’t think it would happen. And u called a lot of people a lot of names for having that opinion. For 3 years telling everyone we were missing the point, looking in the wrong direction, having an agenda or just plain thick. It’s big of u to admit u might have been wrong, I appreciate it. Given this info, do u still agree that it’s a dereliction of duty that Oxvox have come to the conclusion that staying at the Kassam is the best current option, while still looking at possible sites for the future
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Dec 7, 2017 8:04:19 GMT
Wouldn’t it have just been easier to summarise in 5 words- oops sorry I was wrong ! What a coincidence none of u got the email. See u on the 10th I’m sure. That’s the 10th of jan. Meeting on the stadium. Just incase u missed that as well, oh ur busy, oh well I’m sure u will send some questions in via the forum Just seen the Oxford Mail article. It refers to another "site" - the site I have been looking at is not technically Water Eaton (though is in the vicinity) and is therefore not on the farmer's land referred to in this meeting. The planning official is absolutely right in saying that the farmer's land and Stratfield Brake are not viable; I've known that for years, as they were the obvious two sites being large open patches of land. However, I am willing to accept that it is problematic for what I am proposing that Hudspeth is quoted as saying that there is no site available in West Ox, Cherwell or VOWH. If that is indeed the case then clearly I have been wrong!! Ok, I'm confused. How many sites are available at WE? Do they have the same access or would that be entirely independent? And would the development of other sites for housing make it harder to get planning for a stadium?
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Dec 7, 2017 8:14:57 GMT
Just seen the Oxford Mail article. It refers to another "site" - the site I have been looking at is not technically Water Eaton (though is in the vicinity) and is therefore not on the farmer's land referred to in this meeting. The planning official is absolutely right in saying that the farmer's land and Stratfield Brake are not viable; I've known that for years, as they were the obvious two sites being large open patches of land. However, I am willing to accept that it is problematic for what I am proposing that Hudspeth is quoted as saying that there is no site available in West Ox, Cherwell or VOWH. If that is indeed the case then clearly I have been wrong!! Ok, I'm confused. How many sites are available at WE? Do they have the same access or would that be entirely independent? And would the development of other sites for housing make it harder to get planning for a stadium? There are (or were, if this article is fully correct) seven sites in the vicinity of Water Eaton. Effectively, three are mentioned here, another also looks like it'll get resi, which left two college sites and Stratfield Brake. The latter was a non-starter for a stadium (various reasons) but potentially excellent as an academy/ training ground. Which left two college sites. In answer to your other question, difficult to say. Breaking of green belt sets a precedent in the area.... but road usage has to be looked at as well, so that could be a downside. Impossible to tell until and unless you see what the resi developments actually are.
|
|