MAL
Disabled account
Stafford Rugby Club has never paid a penny to anybody for any role on committee or directors.
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Rugby Club progress...
- Thread starter Gareth
- Start date
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
lol.... don't worry, I wasn't having a do at you
Our biggest hurdle is agendas outside of our control and an element of institutionalised socialism! Like the ECB give a rat's ass how big our second cricket pitch is (used by kids and granddads)? In much the same way SE, SBC, EH, FA and ECB, RFU care about St Leonards RUFC ie. they don't give a flying fig as they have nothing to give back to those instituations....
Useful reasons though to stop the competition! Anyway...wrong thread for our whingin'
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
As it's a matter of public record that anybody willing to pay a fiver can access from Companies House, then there would be little point lying, I would have thought.
MAL
Disabled account
Oh that millions were the case - in any case this is simply not material in any way to the application and development.
Again - I think I have covered what I feel about transparency, it is all transparent, and we will need to just disagree. I think the head of leisure NOT supporting a bid to bring inward investment to the town would be a weird. Surely the primary remit of the role is to develop and improve facilities. This project aims to do that. The other questions around environment, highways etc are for the statutory bodies to address. It is not the remit of the any one department to address the areas of another. It is also NOT the SBC who are the statutory consultees for sport. I am sure you are more than aware that the SBC strategic need to find a new home for Stafford Rugby Club (and indeed Eccleshall) has been written down a long time ago. Hence the borough attempting to follow up on the agreed policies of the borough sounds to me like somebody doing their job.
As regards planning permission, again you seem to just want to spout opinion and vitriol as fact. The site had planning in 1990 when there was no grant, the leisure department was under different leadership, and I can only guess on whether the current planning team around 25 years ago. I realise some regs have changed but it is just ridiculous to suggest that the grants have any impact on the planning. SBC's job is to look at the plan and consult the statutory bodies, who are professional in this, and consolidate their responses. So if we consider those
- Natural England - No Objection
- Highways - No Objection
- Environment Agency - No Objection
- Environmental Health - No Objection
- Sport England - No Objection
I constantly hear on the news (from all parties) the need for new housing, complaints of low house building rates and the impact on affordable housing. When you build new housing this needs social amenities to support the families. Would you prefer housing or other social amenities took over part of the site?
Surely the truth is that this is a well designed plan that has taken in the policies of the statutory bodies and will be a great asset to the town. The majority of the site will continue to be grassland. It will plant several trees and develop new hedgerows which will grow into high quality hedgerow unlike the very low quality currently on the site, it will create an enhanced wetland scrape area at the north of the site which will be ideal for wading birds. It will also provide a well connected facility for the town with easy access for cycles and public transport which will mean less car journeys than alternate sites. Other than a club building (which is behind trees from the Nature Reserve) blocking a view perhaps to the west coast mainline or the back of houses, and the car park the rest of the site is grass. The site will go from being a private piece of land not (legally) accessible to the public to an amenity enjoyed by hundreds of children and families. If children playing sport is the issue then again I guess we agree to disagree.
MAL
Disabled account
If I can be of any help let me knowlol.... don't worry, I wasn't having a do at you
Our biggest hurdle is agendas outside of our control and an element of institutionalised socialism! Like the ECB give a rat's ass how big our second cricket pitch is (used by kids and granddads)? In much the same way SE, SBC, EH, FA and ECB, RFU care about St Leonards RUFC ie. they don't give a flying fig as they have nothing to give back to those instituations....
Useful reasons though to stop the competition! Anyway...wrong thread for our whingin'
MAL
Disabled account
I would need to check back,though this is in the public record. From memory he came onto directors when he was invited and elected I think 2 seasons ago (please don't crucify me if 3) but as I recall (and I do not have stuff to hand) he was elected twice. As I recall when invited to stand as a director he was not a member of the club. Again I need to check and I do not have the information to hand.
I think also pertinent to emphasise that Directors at the club are not all involved in day to day running. The Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary and treasurer are. The other directors are not necessarily involved operationally, they attend board meetings and act in a kind of non exec role. i.e. review key developments and performance, and bring experience to give guidance to the others. I personally feel distance from day to day running is helpful to keep a perspective of bigger picture. Directors only meet a few times a year and the running etc is in the hands of the general committee. I hope that's clear and of course this is voluntary position.
MAL
Disabled account
I don't understand the question. I am friends with many people. I genuinely have no clue what or who you are referring to. I only know one property developer and he does not live in Staffordshire
Last edited:
Most of it's free now.
Lying isn't pointless if you get away with it. And if you get found out then you offer a sincere apology for your misunderstanding.
Last edited:
Again, most of t his is irrelevant. However, I agree with: "SBC's job is to look at the plan and consult the statutory bodies...' That's what they should do, but didn't, hence the 2014 application being taken to judicial review, at great cost to everyone apart from the legal profession. Then you waste even more public money reapplying.
Funny how you don't mention Staffs Wildlife Trust's opinion.
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
I never answer a direct question , I will keep on ranting the "no objection " jibe . I have friends in high places who can manipulate and move obstacles that are in our way , and if found out we can call it a misunderstanding ! Again and again. Perhaps distance ourselves from the known associates and hopefully be squeaky clean , this don't happen in a small town does it ? Nudge nudge wink wink favour for a favour .
Mikinton
Well-Known Forumite
You carry on, if it makes you feel better.
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
I really must get out more , I will explain more later thanks to google , Facebook and Stafford BC , my thoughts in Winglish sorry English , on Manipulting And Lies sorry I'm meaning ( MAL )
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
I must admit that it is beginning to grate upon me somewhat that you keep bringing this up to legitimise this application. Natural England have no objection to this proposal on what are very narrow parameters. They have quite clearly stated that their lack of objection is grounded in these very narrow parameters, and have quite clearly maintained throughout that they are not the best people to ask about the wider implications of this development. They have even directed the Planning Officer toward the people who are the best people to ask. It is quite clear that the said PO has then roundly ignored this direction.
TBF, i am more disappointed with them than i am with you - after all, why the f**k should you care?
I am a big fan of analogies, so please indulge me... you are a man, you have a car, a wife, a PA, and a needy friend.
The friend calls and asks to borrow your car. You are out, so your PA takes the call then passes it on. You get the message, you have no problem with the request, but ask that your PA consults your wife to ask if she has a problem with it, and if she does, to say no. Your PA calls your wife, she refuses permission to borrow the car in no uncertain terms, convinced that the friend will not take due care of it. Your PA calls the friend to say that they can borrow the car.
The friend borrows the car, and returns it with a huge dent.
Some months pass...
The friend calls and asks to borrow your car. You are out, so your PA takes the call then passes it on. You get the message, you still have no problem with the request.
You now know that your wife will not give her permission to borrow the car. You know that your PA has directly ignored your directions in this matter once before. Do you ask that your PA consults your wife to ask if she has a problem with it?
This is a false dichotomy.
Your false dichotomy is bad, and you should feel bad.
MAL will probably be busy with rugby today, but it takes seconds to find out that Mr H became a director in May 2014. While we're on the subject, according to Companies House, MAL became a director on 7/4/11, but was then appointed again with a different ID on 26/4/12, only to resign on 26/4/12? Yet despite that he's still a director now. Seems like there's shome mistake in the record here.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Surely only one position was resigned,and there were technically 2?