Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Fishy Forum Fishy Boards Archive › Stadium Update
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 385 Guests

Stadium Update

  This thread currently has 34,843 views. Print
28 Pages Prev ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next All Recommend Thread
barralad
August 24, 2016, 10:49pm
Mariners Trust
Posts: 13,792
Posts Per Day: 2.33
Reputation: 81.03%
Rep Score: +86 / -20
Approval: +9,195
Gold Stars: 121
Quoted from SteffiMariner


I might be wrong, but I was under the impression the council generally voted for the recommendations of the planning committee. If they go against the planning committee, then they are left open to appeals and they generally lose. Like lose nearly every single time. It isn't the councillors you have to convince, its the planning committee and they base their case on facts.


I dont think you are wrong but I think next weeks meeting is about ratifying the site. There are no physical plans to put before a planning committee yet. If the council vote to agree with the recommendations of the report the planning will start in earnest...


The aim of argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.

Joseph Joubert.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 190 - 276
WOZOFGRIMSBY
August 25, 2016, 7:11am

Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 12,495
Posts Per Day: 2.74
Reputation: 75.45%
Rep Score: +66 / -22
Location: Londonderry
Approval: +8,759
Gold Stars: 177
I can only recall 3 teams we have played against with grounds having 3 sides, Bournemouth, Newport and Oxford. But, with the possibility of the club BUILDING only 2 sides, could they look at the possibility of having (permanent) temporary seating if necessary? I also presume, like I guess many others are, that the 2 stands outlined would run along the sides of the pitch leaving both areas behind the goal empty?


He’s one of our loans
He’s one of our loans
Harvey Cartwright
He’s one of our loans
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 191 - 276
1mickylyons
August 25, 2016, 7:35am
Special Brew Drinker
Posts: 9,040
Posts Per Day: 1.53
Reputation: 75.68%
Rep Score: +42 / -14
Approval: +9,261
Gold Stars: 54
Quoted from Cloudy
I live very close to the proposed site and am very much in favour. I much prefer PP to Freemo or the docks.

I think it gives the area a chance to build something special for our children and grandchildren, something we can be proud of. New housing, new sporting facilities for the community, new jobs & a new ground for GTFC,

Ideal place within easy walking and cycling distance of huge numbers of people in NE Lincs.

Don't believe everyone in Park Ward is against, many are in favour especially those who don't swallow DeFrietas's propaganda


THIS

I am also in this area and believe me DeFreitas is full of BS he came around for signatures opposing the ground and when I told him I was for it and wanted him to give me the sheet to register my support he visibly turned purple with rage.The rights and wrongs of location I am afraid sit with the Council past and present they are the ones who quite rightly wanted to identify the best possible site in terms of feasibility and as I understand it that is now deemed PP? A new ground if done right should benefit the Town and NE Lincs for years to come and forget a football ground this needs to be a community stadium that earns money 7 days a week that`s the key. Anything that brings jobs and investment to this area should be grabbed with both hands GET ON WITH IT.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 192 - 276
1mickylyons
August 25, 2016, 7:44am
Special Brew Drinker
Posts: 9,040
Posts Per Day: 1.53
Reputation: 75.68%
Rep Score: +42 / -14
Approval: +9,261
Gold Stars: 54
Quoted from realist
It's not all gains though. There are far more negatives which I  doubt can be overcome.  When you remove the councillors who cannot vote it leaves very little support for this project.


Only because people like yourself put obstacles in the way without offering any solution Mr Defreitas
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 193 - 276
1mickylyons
August 25, 2016, 7:46am
Special Brew Drinker
Posts: 9,040
Posts Per Day: 1.53
Reputation: 75.68%
Rep Score: +42 / -14
Approval: +9,261
Gold Stars: 54
Quoted from realist
Swansea mariner. If you live in Wales get lost.  This proposal will have profound effects on locals. It is so easy for you to spout garbage and be inaffected by the outcome


So easy to chuck millions of pounds of local taxpayers money into Icelandic banks without them knowing and losing it all.......................
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 194 - 276
WOZOFGRIMSBY
August 25, 2016, 7:54am

Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 12,495
Posts Per Day: 2.74
Reputation: 75.45%
Rep Score: +66 / -22
Location: Londonderry
Approval: +8,759
Gold Stars: 177
Quoted from 1mickylyons


Only because people like yourself put obstacles in the way without offering any solution Mr Defreitas


And defeatists also needs to realise that opportunities for many people on HIS ward would be created through employment. It's not about the short term loss but the long term gain


He’s one of our loans
He’s one of our loans
Harvey Cartwright
He’s one of our loans
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 195 - 276
mirrorballman
August 25, 2016, 8:03am
Beer Drinker
Posts: 117
Posts Per Day: 0.03
Approval: +552
Gold Stars: 8
So…..
We build the stadium only at Garth Lane. The council owned sections of the site are big enough for a stadium and putting it there solves a brownfield site problem for them. The “give me a stadium with character in a great location” PP naysayers get their temple to replace BP and can walk to the town centre pubs etc. The stadium conference facilities and bars/food etc will have business seven days a week.

We put the enabling development at Peaks Parkway. Nobody has to worry about the barbarian hordes gatecrashing funerals etc every two weeks so there are fewer objections to the planning application.

The pitches and GTSET facilities etc will be an attractive selling point for the houses in the development. Developer will be happy because house prices will probably be higher because there won’t be a football ground with the (misperceived) threat of the aforementioned hordes. And they can build more of them without the stadium footprint and parking. The bus station and train station are convenient for Garth Lane but parking might not be – a park and ride can go in PP to relieve matchday traffic in the town centre.

Happy fans
Happy Fenty
Happy council
Happy developer
Happy nimbys

Unhappy ?
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 196 - 276
Grim74
August 25, 2016, 8:18am
Cocktail Drinker
Posts: 1,849
Posts Per Day: 0.57
Reputation: 61.1%
Rep Score: +16 / -13
Approval: -1,909
Gold Stars: 1
Quoted from 1mickylyons


THIS

I am also in this area and believe me DeFreitas is full of BS he came around for signatures opposing the ground and when I told him I was for it and wanted him to give me the sheet to register my support he visibly turned purple with rage.The rights and wrongs of location I am afraid sit with the Council past and present they are the ones who quite rightly wanted to identify the best possible site in terms of feasibility and as I understand it that is now deemed PP? A new ground if done right should benefit the Town and NE Lincs for years to come and forget a football ground this needs to be a community stadium that earns money 7 days a week that`s the key. Anything that brings jobs and investment to this area should be grabbed with both hands GET ON WITH IT.


Couldn't agree more because at the time the club were looking for new sites even before peaks parkway was even mooted, I used to go for a run around weelsby woods and part of my route would take me over the parkway bridge, to what could only be described as waste ground nothing happening nothing growing I don't even recall seeing a dog on there. but I remembered thinking this area is just the perfect location for a new stadium this area is crying out to be developed and I even put a post on the fishy saying we should build the stadium here, I'm just pleased the club see my post😊


Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Promise a man someone else's fish and he votes Labour.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 197 - 276
Swansea_Mariner
August 25, 2016, 1:15pm
Whiskey Drinker
Posts: 3,508
Posts Per Day: 0.61
Reputation: 85.79%
Rep Score: +22 / -3
Approval: +6,387
Gold Stars: 62
Quoted from mirrorballman
So…..
We build the stadium only at Garth Lane. The council owned sections of the site are big enough for a stadium and putting it there solves a brownfield site problem for them. The “give me a stadium with character in a great location” PP naysayers get their temple to replace BP and can walk to the town centre pubs etc. The stadium conference facilities and bars/food etc will have business seven days a week.

We put the enabling development at Peaks Parkway. Nobody has to worry about the barbarian hordes gatecrashing funerals etc every two weeks so there are fewer objections to the planning application.

The pitches and GTSET facilities etc will be an attractive selling point for the houses in the development. Developer will be happy because house prices will probably be higher because there won’t be a football ground with the (misperceived) threat of the aforementioned hordes. And they can build more of them without the stadium footprint and parking. The bus station and train station are convenient for Garth Lane but parking might not be – a park and ride can go in PP to relieve matchday traffic in the town centre.

Happy fans
Happy Fenty
Happy council
Happy developer
Happy nimbys

Unhappy ?



In an ideal world a dockside position would be great, kind of iconic. Unfortunately Garth Lane is not big enough even for just a functional stadium. The report says that the baseline requirement for a stadium is 2.82 ha, excluding the enabling development and the five pitches, this does not make a functional development, this is just the space for the buildings. To have a functional site with circulation space, parking and public transport interchanges you need to add on an additional 6.5 ha. This totals 9.32 ha to have a workable community stadium. Even then this is subject to additional site specific land requirements for drainage, nobody knows how much additional land this will require until they do the site investigation surveys.

Garth Lane is just 2.5 ha so way too small for any sort of development, this is why the consultants correctly discounted it in the fist place (only to be asked to look at it again by the Council). Unfortunately no matter how many times you look at it, it a'int getting any bigger.
Logged Online
Private Message
Reply: 198 - 276
richardhallam
August 25, 2016, 4:54pm

Coke Drinker
Posts: 4
Posts Per Day: 0.00
Approval: +0
Quoted from Swansea_Mariner



In an ideal world a dockside position would be great, kind of iconic. Unfortunately Garth Lane is not big enough even for just a functional stadium. The report says that the baseline requirement for a stadium is 2.82 ha, excluding the enabling development and the five pitches, this does not make a functional development, this is just the space for the buildings. To have a functional site with circulation space, parking and public transport interchanges you need to add on an additional 6.5 ha. This totals 9.32 ha to have a workable community stadium. Even then this is subject to additional site specific land requirements for drainage, nobody knows how much additional land this will require until they do the site investigation surveys.

Garth Lane is just 2.5 ha so way too small for any sort of development, this is why the consultants correctly discounted it in the fist place (only to be asked to look at it again by the Council). Unfortunately no matter how many times you look at it, it a'int getting any bigger.


The 2.82 ha is based upon the design for Great Cotes which is now dated and wasn't designed with the limitations that Garth Lane might present. Chesterfields and Wycombes stadiums would fit into 2.82 ha for example. Most of the 6.5 ha you mention is for 3G pitches which could be located at PP. As for the Car Parking and circulation space, Garth Lane presents very different challenges to PP, which a good design and a few careful land acquisitions might solve.

Some vision beyond the closed road to PP is needed.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 199 - 276
28 Pages Prev ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next All Recommend Thread
Print

Fishy Forum Fishy Boards Archive › Stadium Update

Back to top of page

This is not an official forum of Grimsby Town Football Club, the opinions expressed are those of the individual authors. If you see an offensive post then click "Report" on the relevant post. Posts will be deleted at the discretion of the moderators whose decision is final. Posts should abide by the Forum Rules. IP addresses of contributors together with dates and times of access are stored. The opinions and viewpoints expressed by contributors to The Fishy are their own and not necessarily those of The Fishy. The Fishy makes no claims that information dispersed through this forum is accurate or reliable. Also The Fishy cannot be held liable for any statements made by contributors of The Fishy.