Rugby Club progress...

[MAL]

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.

yes it is

 

[tek-monkey]

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.

That you don't NEED to move, you WANT to. You don't NEED to move now, you don't NEED to move at all, let alone to the marshes, right now. You WANT to because you're getting a good deal out of it financially.

 

[MAL]

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

I am not sure about denials and half truths. I understand that people want to make a story but non exist. MPs sit on boards of sporting bodies, arts organisation etc etc, as do councillors, as do many business leaders. I personally volunteer and think offering skills you have to organisations is a good thing. If people believe we should hound all people who hold office or directorships or MPs etc etc out of volunteering and the world will be better then they are of a different view to me.

 

[MAL]

I thinks MAL is trying to be clever , getting a pal to resign from the board , so there is no wrong doing on this application , Poor Mr Hill , after doing all the leg work filling in grant forms , steering the club in good stead , tailoring the leisure plan for Stafford to favour the Rugby Club over others clubs in the town . He has resigned from a post that gives him dividends . Pull the other one do you honestly think us Staffordians are stupid ?

I am sure you are aware that being a director of a rugby club getsno dividends - it is voluntary position to help guide the club. I am sure you know that and are simply using this forum to make anonymous accusations you know have zero basis in fact.

 

[MAL]

Quite frankly I don't know how the people who approve this move sleep at night, it's a total and utter disgrace and another insult to the people of Stafford, what kind of person approves the destruction of a nature reserve in favour of a new rugby club!

Again - this development does not even adjoin the nature reserve

 

[Floss]

Again - this development does not even adjoin the nature reserve

So no trees whatsoever have been chopped down?

 

[tek-monkey]

Personally I couldn't care less if he gets paid or not, its irrelevant. What is relevant was the holding of two contradictory positions at the same time.

 

[markpa12003]

Where precisely are you thinking

Any undeveloped land within, or on the edge of, Stafford that isn't Doxey Marshes, for example, Riverway, Beaconside etc.

Does your site search exercise form part of your planning submission?

 

[finnback]

I am not sure about denials and half truths. I understand that people want to make a story but non exist. MPs sit on boards of sporting bodies, arts organisation etc etc, as do councillors, as do many business leaders. I personally volunteer and think offering skills you have to organisations is a good thing. If people believe we should hound all people who hold office or directorships or MPs etc etc out of volunteering and the world will be better then they are of a different view to me.

Like I said, i'm not an anti and i'm not a pro for this project. However, having the head of leisure at the borough council on your board of directors, when the leisure department is a consultee in a very sensitive and delicate decision making process is wrong. its plain wrong. if it was happening in Westminster it would be wrong, if its happening at riverside its wrong. Everyone in Stafford will raise an eyebrow at it even if nothing untoward is/was going on. Its a major lack of judgement by the individual and the club. It brings the process into disrepute and to defend it on the basis of volunteering is at best naive.
And finally, how may MP's volunteer for directorships? They are offered them for renumeration related to influence in probably 99% of the time.
What were the skills he brought to the table by the way?

 

[PeterD]

Fair play to MAL, he is getting bombarded and not once flounced off.

 

[PPPPPP]

Any undeveloped land within, or on the edge of, Stafford that isn't Doxey Marshes, for example, Riverway, Beaconside etc.

Does your site search exercise form part of your planning submission?

The site search was confined to land owned by Lord Stafford, allegedly. Except for the vast acres of greenery near his Swynnerton des res.

 

[PPPPPP]

Again - this development does not even adjoin the nature reserve

So it won't involve removing 970m of hedges?

 

[MAL]

So no trees whatsoever have been chopped down?

If this goes ahead there will be trees removed and there will be significantly more planted, equally there will be some hedges removed and hedges planted This is still a different question to the point I made which was this site is not on the Nature Reserve.

 

[MAL]

The site search was confined to land owned by Lord Stafford, allegedly. Except for the vast acres of greenery near his Swynnerton des res.

Any undeveloped land within, or on the edge of, Stafford that isn't Doxey Marshes, for example, Riverway, Beaconside etc.

Does your site search exercise form part of your planning submission?

I have responded to the Beaconside comments many times. Where on Riverway are you suggesting 4 more Pitches. There is already a mass conflict about trying to have Hockey and Cricket coexist and manage a home for St Leonards. There is simply no space to add a club the size of Stafford Rugby Club. Any more suggestions?

 

[MAL]

The site search was confined to land owned by Lord Stafford, allegedly. Except for the vast acres of greenery near his Swynnerton des res.

So your suggestion is to move Stafford Rugby Club to Swynnerton - now that would be great for increasing the carbon footprint

 

[MAL]

Fair play to MAL, he is getting bombarded and not once flounced off.

Thank you

 

[markpa12003]

I have responded to the Beaconside comments many times. Where on Riverway are you suggesting 4 more Pitches. There is already a mass conflict about trying to have Hockey and Cricket coexist and manage a home for St Leonards. There is simply no space to add a club the size of Stafford Rugby Club. Any more suggestions?

Yes any undeveloped land that is not Doxey Marches. That's a large remit.

Let's be honest, you haven't done a thorough site search. You are relocating to another parcel of land because it's financially advantageous i.e. its owned by your current landowner. Also I am well aware that there have been discussions between the developer that has acquired part of the rugby pitch and the rugby club about them helping to fund a new club house.

 

[captainpish]

Like I said, i'm not an anti and i'm not a pro for this project. However, having the head of leisure at the borough council on your board of directors, when the leisure department is a consultee in a very sensitive and delicate decision making process is wrong. its plain wrong. if it was happening in Westminster it would be wrong, if its happening at riverside its wrong. Everyone in Stafford will raise an eyebrow at it even if nothing untoward is/was going on. Its a major lack of judgement by the individual and the club. It brings the process into disrepute and to defend it on the basis of volunteering is at best naive.
And finally, how may MP's volunteer for directorships? They are offered them for renumeration related to influence in probably 99% of the time.
What were the skills he brought to the table by the way?

And then he resigned once people asked questions about it, basicly a knee jerk reaction to getting caught with his pants down.

 

[Floss]

If this goes ahead there will be trees removed and there will be significantly more planted, equally there will be some hedges removed and hedges planted This is still a different question to the point I made which was this site is not on the Nature Reserve.

Not the point really, trees should not be removed to make way for a playground which essentially what it is, it's for leisure purposes and it is not necessary!! We're never going to agree on this because I just cannot condone the greed of the people who are pushing this forward, there is a rugby club already and there are much more important and essential things that Stafford need and this isn't just one of them! You still haven't responded to my post about if it's for community use is it for anyone at anytime? If not how does it benefit the community as a whole as a legitimate reason for it to be going ahead?

 

[captainpish]

If his choice of avatar is any indication of this individual's attitude to the little people who have had the temerity to criticise this murky affair, it would indeed appear to be the case that he considers himself as clever as those who are unimpressed by this entertaining tableau - 'Cronyism in the Shires Thwarted', perhaps, after Hogarth - are stupid.

The avatar is the first thing i noticed. Its pretty obvious what it's implying and gives u an idea of the blokes attitude.