Rugby Club progress...

[MAL]

Ok perhaps i understand this application more than you MAL and after your radio interview when challenged you said "60 years was a standard industry figure " no it's not , there is a standard industry calculation and the results will be different .
Page 6 of your own flood risk assessment just above 2.2.6


View attachment 2703

Please be assured the main pitches etc are above the 100 year flood level.

Was this the same interview when one unelected person claimed to represent the residents. Is it not the case that the local councillor (the one person who is elected by the residents) has withdrawn her objections. You are fully aware that the environment agency has no issue with site and flooding. You know the levels and the flooding frequency. I am continually grateful for your concern of the condition of pitches but please be assured if RFU and SE are content with facilities then your concerns should be assuaged

 

[markpa12003]

Sites have been searched and no alternate sites available. TW has no interest in the current site so not entirely sure what this means. TW are developing Burleyfields. Lord Lichfield has no interest in either site. Obviously planning conditions need to be discharged

There is plenty of land available in and around Stafford for a rugby club, as such why were these sites discounted?

 

[MAL]

We've noticed. But don't you think that having a senior employee of the council as a fellow director might raise suspicion, and be a conflict of interests.

No

 

[SCHC]

A football pitch for who? Despite working for the college I have no idea if our sports students use it!

I assume the rugby club will let St Leonards use their facilities? You know, for the good of the community and all that. After all, they want to help tackle childhood obesity etc. and to not only do it for just one sport but also only for one club is a tad exclusionist given the rhetoric currently being used to justify the move. If they give a crap about anything other than themselves they'd offer to help, surely?

A football pitch for Who? Who indeed....
We are led to believe that it will become junior football pitches (and apparently its OUR fault!) However, its probably the wrong thread for comment/whinge/moan/get arsy about that....par for the course we guess!
St Leonards have a further year where it will be available for their use. That said, the cricket and hockey club committee (against many of its members wishes it must be said) have allowed SLRUFC to continue using its facilities, at least in the short to medium term. Keen and forensic followers of the Sport and Politics thread might be surprised at this decision, but, we felt that although it was politically and strategically stupid to allow them to carry on, morally and ethically it was the right decision. They have nowhere to go after all. And you never know, when our number is up is a couple of years, someone in power might actually treat us in much the same way...................................................................onwards and upwards.

 

[proactive]

No

!

 

[finnback]

No

Oh mate!
Personally I respect your coming on here and fronting up to a lot of opposition. Takes some balls whether I agree with your or not (as it happens i'm not a supporter or objector of your proposals). But come on, the clash of interest accusation is more than well founded on such a sensitive and passionate subject. If an organisation seeks the help of powerful and influential people, that's their choice, but please don't expect people to think its right especially when there is resignations and denials and half truths when questioned upon the matter

 

[Floss]

The main attraction of a move is the ability to secure a long term site on a 999 year lease. Any talk of 60 years is a total red herring. The main pitches are above the 1 in 100 year flood line and the lower above the 1 in 20 year flood line. They will flood some times this is not an issue - this happens elsewhere and is fine. The main pitches will not flood. Please do not be mislead by people seeking to misuse data. The aim is to build a community sports facility that will support the town for a very long time.

Sorry still a waste of money it will only support people interested in Rugby. Still doesn't justify ripping out trees and disturbing the local wildlife. Keep telling yourself it's for the good of the community if it helps you sleep at night. As for misleading people I think you're doing fine by yourself, you can say it a thousand times a day 'for the good of the community' unless it's open doors to anyone it's only there for a small part of the community!

 

[The truth the whole truth]

Any talk of 60 years is a total red herring.

The information is off your flood risk assessment , paid for by club design on the clubs behalf page 6 , 60 years life that is 22 years more than your current lease on the site on Newport Road ?

 

[PPPPPP]

No

OMG. Even allowing for the fact that we're in sleazy Stafford, a town with a history of planning corruption, that response deserves a prize for ignorance or naivety.

 

[MAL]

The need to move is purely financial, the rugby club is surrendering it's lease so the owner can build houses there. From what I can see this is entirely by choice, as the lease still has a long time left (25 years?).

Moving at all is a want not a need, as is destroying the marshes. They want more pitches, they want a bigger clubhouse and more floodlights.

It's all down to greed really.

I can only disagree. The club wants a sustainable future and this move gives that. This is not a move that puts money in the bank it builds a modern facility suitable for men, women and children to modern standards. It guarantees that future for coming generations, I like to think well beyond 25 years to leave a great sporting legacy for the town

 

[MAL]

MAL - are really claiming that land that you use for Rugby has been sold to a developer and you don't know anything about it? I very much doubt that.

I am saying no land has been sold to a developer. I have checked and there is an unexplained anomaly being reported that is being looked at. Nothing has been sold

 

[MAL]

The information is off your flood risk assessment , paid for by club design on the clubs behalf page 6 , 60 years life that is 22 years more than your current lease on the site on Newport Road ?

I repeat as I have oft repeated that the land is in Stafford Rugby Club ownership for 999 years. The main pitches are above the 100 year flood level. SE and RFU are content.

 

[markpa12003]

Kier Ventures Ltd are a development company. They are named as the proprietor of land currently used by the Rugby Club on the title deeds.

That's not an anomaly.

 

[PPPPPP]

'Unexplained anomaly' = anything that the council or rugby club prefer to keep secret, for whatever reason.

While you're here, MAL, you say that this isn't a move to put money in the bank. Is it true that SportEngland is donating £480,000 of public funds to the cause, plus £250,000 from the MoD, and if so, where is it?

 

[tek-monkey]

I can only disagree. The club wants a sustainable future and this move gives that. This is not a move that puts money in the bank it builds a modern facility suitable for men, women and children to modern standards. It guarantees that future for coming generations, I like to think well beyond 25 years to leave a great sporting legacy for the town

Thats what I said, want not need. You don't NEED to leave the current site, you don't NEED to move to the marshes. As you yourself said, its what the club WANTS which is rather different.

As I've said many a time before though I'm sure its a done deal, all discrepancies and irregularities will be given about as much attention as evidence from Staffordshire Wildlife Trust and the thing will get built irrespective of what people want. Just don't forget the ill will bit, don't ever think people will warm to it because most won't - especially when they can't walk across the marshes in the evening without seeing loads of floodlights.

 

[PPPPPP]

. Is it not the case that the local councillor (the one person who is elected by the residents) has withdrawn her objections.

She then called it in again, but this document has apparently vanished into the SBC black hole.

 

[MAL]

OMG. Even allowing for the fact that we're in sleazy Stafford, a town with a history of planning corruption, that response deserves a prize for ignorance or naivety.

I believe that people with skills who choose to volunteer to help others, where this is entirely open is not a conflict of interest. I understand that people want to try and cast shadow over people who volunteer their time but I feel they are wrong. I volunteer my time for zero money. I work with various groups for zero money. Why is it hard to accept that people who offer their expertise and advice do so in good will and with no ulterior motive. I have found that having a starting point of accepting things as being for good is a healthier way to act. Volunteers everywhere do a great job and do not deserve to be castigated by people with a different agenda. People with requisite skills and expertise are always in short demand and it is not helped to volunteer when there are false accusations of corruption.

 

[MAL]

There is plenty of land available in and around Stafford for a rugby club, as such why were these sites discounted?

Where precisely are you thinking

 

[MAL]

Thats what I said, want not need. You don't NEED to leave the current site, you don't NEED to move to the marshes. As you yourself said, its what the club WANTS which is rather different.

As I've said many a time before though I'm sure its a done deal, all discrepancies and irregularities will be given about as much attention as evidence from Staffordshire Wildlife Trust and the thing will get built irrespective of what people want. Just don't forget the ill will bit, don't ever think people will warm to it because most won't - especially when they can't walk across the marshes in the evening without seeing loads of floodlights.

I am not sure how you differentiate in this context between want and need. I feel that we need sustainable sports facilities, the club needs to find a long term home if it is to continue to exist.

 

[MAL]

'Unexplained anomaly' = anything that the council or rugby club prefer to keep secret, for whatever reason.

While you're here, MAL, you say that this isn't a move to put money in the bank. Is it true that SportEngland is donating £480,000 of public funds to the cause, plus £250,000 from the MoD, and if so, where is it?

Money raised goes to develop optimal sports facilities and a community resource. They both think this is a great asset and will fund the development to optimise the resources. Money comes with development on this site. No development all this valuable resource leaves Stafford and will (I guess) be invested in community and sports facilites in other parts of country