Rugby Club progress...

P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
The truth the whole truth said:
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/...rd-rugby-club-relocation-approved-by-council/
Click to expand...


A rather pathetic defence. Presumably only part of it is honest.

Club trustee Malcolm Boswell said the club was in danger of folding if the relocation plans were not approved.

He said: “The club currently occupies land on a declining lease.

“Unless the club can secure alternative premises the likelihood is that it will cease to exist within 33 years, the remainder of the lease.”

“I can honestly confirm had we been able to find suitable alternative locations we would have done it. At present the ground is a declining ground. Each year that passes weakens our position.”
 
proactive

proactive

Enjoying a drop of red.
PPPPPP said:
A rather pathetic defence. Presumably only part of it is honest.

Club trustee Malcolm Boswell said the club was in danger of folding if the relocation plans were not approved.

He said: “The club currently occupies land on a declining lease.

“Unless the club can secure alternative premises the likelihood is that it will cease to exist within 33 years, the remainder of the lease.”

“I can honestly confirm had we been able to find suitable alternative locations we would have done it. At present the ground is a declining ground. Each year that passes weakens our position.”
Click to expand...
Don't know about you but it brought a tear to my eye.
 
dr watson

dr watson

Well-Known Forumite
Withnail said:
strobes@private-eye.co.uk

Sir,

I beseech you to cast your eyes upon the goings on in our fair Borough.

As befits a tale mired in the muck, it involves an actual mire.

The mire, or rather marsh, is a SSSI, and our tale involves a Peer of the Realm, a dodgy land deal, a complicit Council, one Judicial Review of procedure, thence a quashing of the planning permission, a hasty resubmission, an equally hasty ‘rubber stamp’, and the prospect of a ‘call in’ by the DCLG.

In short it is one holy mess, and quite frankly the entire debacle stinks to high heaven.

We suffer a local press so ineffectual that the entire Stafford Hospital fiasco slipped under their radar, so are in desperate need of the kind of probity your esteemed organ is noted for.

As a subscriber to said organ for many years, one would hope that you would at least take some time to peruse the more salient parts of these missives –

http://www.staffordforum.com/xf/index.php?threads/rugby-clubs-plans-go-to-judicial-review.16915/

- and consider our plight.

Yours faithfully,

Withnail
Click to expand...

Brilliant!
Have you sent this to Ian Hyslop?
 
1JKz

1JKz

Well-Known Forumite
PPPPPP said:
A rather pathetic defence. Presumably only part of it is honest.

Club trustee Malcolm Boswell said the club was in danger of folding if the relocation plans were not approved.

He said: “The club currently occupies land on a declining lease.

“Unless the club can secure alternative premises the likelihood is that it will cease to exist within 33 years, the remainder of the lease.”

“I can honestly confirm had we been able to find suitable alternative locations we would have done it. At present the ground is a declining ground. Each year that passes weakens our position.”
Click to expand...
Go and shit all over the marshes then!
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
PPPPPP said:
A rather pathetic defence. Presumably only part of it is honest.

Club trustee Malcolm Boswell said the club was in danger of folding if the relocation plans were not approved.

He said: “The club currently occupies land on a declining lease.

“Unless the club can secure alternative premises the likelihood is that it will cease to exist within 33 years, the remainder of the lease.”

“I can honestly confirm had we been able to find suitable alternative locations we would have done it. At present the ground is a declining ground. Each year that passes weakens our position.”
Click to expand...

This application has nothing to do with the future of the club; another mishonest statement by the club. This is do with part of the land being allocated for development. Just be honest!

I have lost all respect for this club and I will not support any activities in carries out in the future.
 
PeterD

PeterD

ST16 Represent.
Its odd the club isnt looking at that land and thinking this is a terrible mistake, outside of the population of the town being against the move, the fact that it will undoubtedly flood surely will ring alarm bells for them.
 
G

Gareth

Well-Known Forumite
Of course it is to do with future of the club. Better facilities in a better location will bring reward in their eyes, why else do it? My understanding they will owe their own facilities and land which is something they currently cannot claim.

If the landlord were to kick them off they are homeless. Look at the situation with Stafford Hockey Club.

This for them is home, they submitted their plans all legal and above board. The only question is to do with the application decision and process which YOUR elected officials undertook.

You can have all the JRs you want, save your breathe and money this will legally get passed by the highest bodies in the land, I hate to say. The government are cutting through swathes of countryside and ancient woodland, they won't care about someone building on wasteland, which is what doxey marshes is ( ugly).

More to the point in a couple of years time the electorate will shame themselves to be the hypocrites they tend to show they are when they use the facilities and wonder what all the fuss was for. Just as they did in Leek 5 years ago with the historic roundabout and new Sainsburys. All much ado about nothing, move on with your lives, as much as I would not want this it is no longer worth the time of day.
 
Last edited:
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Gareth said:
Of course it is to do with future of the club. Better facilities in a better location will bring reward in their eyes, why else do it? My understanding they will owe their own facilities and land which is something they currently cannot claim.

If the landlord were to kick them off they are homeless. Look at the situation with Stafford Hockey Club.

This for them is home, they submitted their all legal and above board. The only question is to doing with the application decision which YOUR elected officials undertook.

You can have all the JRs you want, save your breathe and money this will legally get passed by the highest bodies in the land. The government are cutting through swathes of countryside and ancient woodland, they won't care about someone building on wasteland.

More to the point in a couple of years time the electorate will shame themselves to be the hypocrites they when they use the facilities and wonder what all the fuss was. Just as they did in Leek 5 years ago with historic roundabout and new Sainsburys. All much ago about nothing, move on with lives.
Click to expand...

Each to their own, I shall hold this against the egg chasing bastards for the rest of my time. I shall never use their facilities, and I shall fully support any JR that comes of this. I agree our councillors are to blame, and I shall remind my local representative that he allowed this whilst kicking him off my property come the next local election. Too many of the governments own guidelines have been ignored here, the decision is a farce. As we're still in the EU I wonder if they have any danger to wildlife rules we could apply to this?
 
1JKz

1JKz

Well-Known Forumite
Gareth said:
Of course it is to do with future of the club. Better facilities in a better location will bring reward in their eyes, why else do it? My understanding they will owe their own facilities and land which is something they currently cannot claim.

If the landlord were to kick them off they are homeless. Look at the situation with Stafford Hockey Club.

This for them is home, they submitted their plans all legal and above board. The only question is to do with the application decision and process which YOUR elected officials undertook.

You can have all the JRs you want, save your breathe and money this will legally get passed by the highest bodies in the land, I hate to say. The government are cutting through swathes of countryside and ancient woodland, they won't care about someone building on wasteland, which is what doxey marshes is ( ugly).

More to the point in a couple of years time the electorate will shame themselves to be the hypocrites they tend to show they are when they use the facilities and wonder what all the fuss was for. Just as they did in Leek 5 years ago with the historic roundabout and new Sainsburys. All much ado about nothing, move on with your lives, as much as I would not want this it is no longer worth the time of day.
Click to expand...
I take it, that's your last post on the matter?

I agree with most of what you've said, but If you don't turn up to the boxing ring at all, then there's no fight to be had.
...if you get my meaning.

PS Doxey Marshes ugly? seriously??
 
G

Gareth

Well-Known Forumite
Oh I agree this was a fight worth fighting, there are fors and against with development, i see both sides and one has to win no matter how many times some shout illegal.

With regards to doxey marshes I would rather it was there for nature than a car park.

but its flat, windy, bleak, flanked by a motorway where every concrete column is covered in graffiti 50 foot across, the soon to be western access, housing on 2 sides, split by a rail line, currently has a dumped biege leather sofa on the doxey side, the old west main line footpath has graffiti at every bridge that resembles gangland Harlem when it should be a pleasant walk, it is actually quite intimidating, let alone it is mostly under water.

If this is what Stafford folk think is is great then fair enough, but an area of outstanding natural beauty it isn't. Personally I think it could be far better looked after but it reminds me of an old landfill site, where the surrounds of not been looked after by local people, council and wildlife organisations. Only my own opinion of course.
 
Last edited:
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
Gareth said:
Of course it is to do with future of the club. Better facilities in a better location will bring reward in their eyes, why else do it? My understanding they will owe their own facilities and land which is something they currently cannot claim.

If the landlord were to kick them off they are homeless. Look at the situation with Stafford Hockey Club.

This for them is home, they submitted their plans all legal and above board. The only question is to do with the application decision and process which YOUR elected officials undertook.

You can have all the JRs you want, save your breathe and money this will legally get passed by the highest bodies in the land, I hate to say. The government are cutting through swathes of countryside and ancient woodland, they won't care about someone building on wasteland, which is what doxey marshes is ( ugly).

More to the point in a couple of years time the electorate will shame themselves to be the hypocrites they tend to show they are when they use the facilities and wonder what all the fuss was for. Just as they did in Leek 5 years ago with the historic roundabout and new Sainsburys. All much ado about nothing, move on with your lives, as much as I would not want this it is no longer worth the time of day.
Click to expand...

So it's all our fault for what's happened, Voice of Council, and nothing to do with the rugby club still not finding a site even after neary thirty years?

One thing's sure; we didn't elect anyone on the basis that they'd cheat, lie and use our money fraudulently.
 
The truth the whole truth

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
Copied message off SPAG Facebook page

This is just another chapter in the story book. It's not the end and SBC have just given us yet another insight into the supidity of this Council.We've formed a strong bond through this and it is only going to become stronger. We are not just a few residents fighting a shady application anymore, we are a formidable force now being taken seriously,People are starting to wake up to this now so watch out SBC we are scrutinising all your conduct in planning decisions

Love you all to the marshes and back!
 
Last edited:
The Hawk

The Hawk

Well-Known Forumite
Gareth said:
Of course it is to do with future of the club. Better facilities in a better location will bring reward in their eyes, why else do it? My understanding they will owe their own facilities and land which is something they currently cannot claim.

If the landlord were to kick them off they are homeless. Look at the situation with Stafford Hockey Club.

This for them is home, they submitted their plans all legal and above board. The only question is to do with the application decision and process which YOUR elected officials undertook.

You can have all the JRs you want, save your breathe and money this will legally get passed by the highest bodies in the land, I hate to say. The government are cutting through swathes of countryside and ancient woodland, they won't care about someone building on wasteland, which is what doxey marshes is ( ugly).

More to the point in a couple of years time the electorate will shame themselves to be the hypocrites they tend to show they are when they use the facilities and wonder what all the fuss was for. Just as they did in Leek 5 years ago with the historic roundabout and new Sainsburys. All much ado about nothing, move on with your lives, as much as I would not want this it is no longer worth the time of day.
Click to expand...

As far as the planning application is concerned, I agree it is unlikely that a judicial review will, ultimately, stop the development; I will also be surprised if it does get called in by the DCLG, but you never know.

As I have stated before, the real battle ahead lies in taking action against the rugby club, using a variety of environmental laws, torts and European Directives. Sadly, of course, most, if not all, of this action can only be taken once the development commences / is completed / is operational. As I have previously mentioned, there is a recent case that went all the way to the UK Supreme Court and ended up costing one sports club well over £1,000,000 in legal costs.

Of course, if the development does not detrimentally impact on the SSSI or their new neighbours then the rugby club have nothing to fear. However, if it does then they should expect a very long and, potentially, very costly battle.
 
The truth the whole truth

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
Each to their own, I shall fully support any JR that comes of this. I agree our councillors are to blame, Too many of the governments own guidelines have been ignored here,
Click to expand...

It seems that 12 borough councillors and the planning department have stuck two fingers up to the quashing order . again , so desperate for the Stafford Plan to happen , whatever , whoever gets in the way we must make sure The County Council gets its share of dibs and dabs so the SWAR can be built
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
Gareth said:
Of course it is to do with future of the club. Better facilities in a better location will bring reward in their eyes, why else do it? My understanding they will owe their own facilities and land which is something they currently cannot claim.

If the landlord were to kick them off they are homeless. Look at the situation with Stafford Hockey Club.

This for them is home, they submitted their plans all legal and above board. The only question is to do with the application decision and process which YOUR elected officials undertook.

You can have all the JRs you want, save your breathe and money this will legally get passed by the highest bodies in the land, I hate to say. The government are cutting through swathes of countryside and ancient woodland, they won't care about someone building on wasteland, which is what doxey marshes is ( ugly).

More to the point in a couple of years time the electorate will shame themselves to be the hypocrites they tend to show they are when they use the facilities and wonder what all the fuss was for. Just as they did in Leek 5 years ago with the historic roundabout and new Sainsburys. All much ado about nothing, move on with your lives, as much as I would not want this it is no longer worth the time of day.
Click to expand...
Gareth said:
Of course it is to do with future of the club. Better facilities in a better location will bring reward in their eyes, why else do it? My understanding they will owe their own facilities and land which is something they currently cannot claim.

If the landlord were to kick them off they are homeless. Look at the situation with Stafford Hockey Club.

This for them is home, they submitted their plans all legal and above board. The only question is to do with the application decision and process which YOUR elected officials undertook.

You can have all the JRs you want, save your breathe and money this will legally get passed by the highest bodies in the land, I hate to say. The government are cutting through swathes of countryside and ancient woodland, they won't care about someone building on wasteland, which is what doxey marshes is ( ugly).

More to the point in a couple of years time the electorate will shame themselves to be the hypocrites they tend to show they are when they use the facilities and wonder what all the fuss was for. Just as they did in Leek 5 years ago with the historic roundabout and new Sainsburys. All much ado about nothing, move on with your lives, as much as I would not want this it is no longer worth the time of day.
Click to expand...

Gareth do you have any evidence to prove that the new site will be owned by the rugby club. I thought it was another leasehold arrangement with the SAME landowner.

Had the rugby club stated from the outset the following:-

Land X is allocated in the local plan and land Y has development potential, therefore, our landowner has agreed to sell the land to a developer as such if we don't move to an alternative site we will be homeless.

We haven't done a thorough a search of Stafford because our current owner has given us an alternative site and a longer lease.

Honest statements ^ rather than the bull s*it we've had from MAL and the Borough Council. I genuinely believe that MAL and the Borough Council think we are too stupid to know what's going on.
 
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
If the council had arranged for an EIA two years ago they could have avoided all this hassle and waste of taxpayers' money. Obviously, they knew that a proper assessment would have found there would be an environmental impact.
 
proactive

proactive

Enjoying a drop of red.
Does Councillor Baron think that by abstaining we will think she is anything but a gutless self-serving waste of taxpayers money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top