Print Topic - Archive

Grismby Town Forum - The Fishy GTFC  /  Archive  /  
Posted by: psgmariner, September 21, 2017, 10:06am
Can we build the new stadium here please?

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/could-garth-lane-site-finally-508935

Can someone explain why this wouldn't be perfect?
Posted by: 1mickylyons, September 21, 2017, 10:25am; Reply: 1
Well apart from the fact that two feasibility studies haven`t had it near the top of the list.No
Posted by: mimma, September 21, 2017, 10:26am; Reply: 2
It was looked at but there isn't the required space for a stadium and the enabling development required to make it viable to the club to help pay for it all.

That's why is was rejected when the council looked at all the sites.

Stop repeating history.
Posted by: Fat Cobra, September 21, 2017, 10:31am; Reply: 3
Quoted from mimma
It was looked at but there isn't the required space for a stadium and the enabling development required to make it viable to the club to help pay for it all.

That's why is was rejected when the council looked at all the sites.

Stop repeating history.


Stop what?
Posted by: Cloudy, September 21, 2017, 10:32am; Reply: 4
Without an enabling development the new stadium will not happen. The club or JF havent got the money to build a stand alone stadium even if they can get various grants to assist
Posted by: Southwark Mariner, September 21, 2017, 10:35am; Reply: 5
There was an article on Cod Almighty that suggested Garth Lane is the best place but also lists some of the reasons why Peaks Parkway was ranked as most feasible: http://codalmighty.com/site/ca.php?article=5961
Posted by: psgmariner, September 21, 2017, 10:41am; Reply: 6
Quoted from Southwark Mariner
There was an article on Cod Almighty that suggested Garth Lane is the best place but also lists some of the reasons why Peaks Parkway was ranked as most feasible: http://codalmighty.com/site/ca.php?article=5961


Thanks for the link.

Garth Lane (Dockside) was assessed as the most suitable site. Peaks Parkway was assessed as the most available site. The consultants have recommended that only Peaks Parkway be assessed for viability.

Garth Lane is clearly now available according to the Telegraph article and the whole surrounding areas seems to be up for grabs for an "enabling development".
Posted by: 1mickylyons, September 21, 2017, 10:45am; Reply: 7
Quoted from psgmariner


Thanks for the link.

Garth Lane (Dockside) was assessed as the most suitable site. Peaks Parkway was assessed as the most available site. The consultants have recommended that only Peaks Parkway be assessed for viability.

Garth Lane is clearly now available according to the Telegraph article and the whole surrounding areas seems to be up for grabs for an "enabling development".


That being the case if Garth Lane was the most suitable it changes things. The problem here is the local council and there dithering which in turn as the Club going round and round wasting money on feasibility studies.A new ground is in the local plan so FFS Council set out where the Club can actually have it then get it built I wonder will we ever see it?
Posted by: RoboCod, September 21, 2017, 10:48am; Reply: 8
You could certainly avoid any traffic/parking problems by kayaking to the ground.
Posted by: Ahh Sole, September 21, 2017, 10:50am; Reply: 9
I can't see how or why we would have gone through all the rigmarole of all the procrastination regarding PP to then bin it at this stage in proceedings. That said, it would be nice to hear from someone in authority that there's progress.
Posted by: psgmariner, September 21, 2017, 10:56am; Reply: 10
Quoted from 1mickylyons


That being the case if Garth Lane was the most suitable it changes things. The problem here is the local council and there dithering which in turn as the Club going round and round wasting money on feasibility studies.A new ground is in the local plan so FFS Council set out where the Club can actually have it then get it built I wonder will we ever see it?


Agreed.

PP was seen as the quickest and easiest option which I get. I just think this site being made available and being part of a massive redevelopment that has the likes of Norman Lamont and David Ross backing it means it could be a better option now.
Posted by: psgmariner, September 21, 2017, 11:00am; Reply: 11
From the Telegraph artcile:

Garth Lane is a key piece in the jigsaw that aims to help create 12 hectares of waterfront/town centre mixed-use sites, as well as 5,400 new jobs, 7,700 new homes and 195 hectares of employment land.


This sounds very much like an enabling development opportunity to me.

With the backing this scheme has it seems nailed on to go ahead. If it does then will there be any appetite for a similar scheme close by at PP? I am not so sure.
Posted by: moosey_club, September 21, 2017, 11:04am; Reply: 12
Quoted from RoboCod
You could certainly avoid any traffic/parking problems by kayaking to the ground.


Unfortunately you would need permissions from ABP to navigate the docks if you approach from the Humber and to access from the upper reaches of the Haven several bridges would have to raised to allow you to pass under....and for that reason its a terrible site and makes this location totally unviable for a football stadium.  
I believe this was noted on Page 827 Para 2 of the previous viability study.

Page 828 Para 3,  does indicate that Haile Sands Fort would be the most kayak, boat, helicopter friendly location for a stadium.
Posted by: scrumble, September 21, 2017, 11:06am; Reply: 13
I can see it coming now. The next council meeting will have someone point out the change of status at Garth Lane, they'll expect GTFC to pay for a new study to be done. Meantime, someone will dig up a piece of viking pottery at the Peakes Parkway site or some ridiculous reason to not build there. The club will refocus on Garths Lane. Sainsburys and shops in the precinct will object because of fans potentially using their parking, locals will complain. We'll draw up plans, then another study just in time for another site to be available and the great merry-go-round will start again.

Its same pattern again. The council recommend Great Coates, someone objects, process gets drawn out, someone says "isn't there somewhere else more suitable?". Council recommend Peakes Parkway, someone objects......
Posted by: Civvy at last, September 21, 2017, 11:07am; Reply: 14
You're right. We should abandon PP. Write of everything so far and look at Garth Lane.
A couple of years and a good few grand later the flats will be knocked down in Freemo. We could then abandon Garth Lane and go for Freeman St. Etc etc etc etc.  
One of the reasons I fear the new ground will not be built is the total lack of unity for WHEREVER it would be planned.  I know we can't please everybody but I just want to see the fking thing built.

Edit:  Scrumble, you beat me by seconds you b@@@@d 😉
Posted by: scrumble, September 21, 2017, 11:15am; Reply: 15
Quoted from Civvy at last

Edit:  Scrumble, you beat me by seconds you b@@@@d 😉


Great minds think a like, or fools seldom differ. Take your pick :)

I don't think its anything on GTFC's part, its the councils actions. If we had been trying to build a monsterous warehouse, which we'd vacate in a couple of years, and leave to go derelict, they'd be throwing cash and land at us. Maybe thats what we should do, build a massive warehouse with stadium inside.
Posted by: moosey_club, September 21, 2017, 11:27am; Reply: 16
Quoted from scrumble


Its same pattern again. The council recommend Great Coates, someone objects, process gets drawn out, someone says "isn't there somewhere else more suitable?". Council recommend Peakes Parkway, someone objects......


You missed out that we got the planning permission to build at Great Coates and it was the club /JF that decided not to pursue that site and look elsewhere instead......all previous hold ups where as a result of the due process that the council had to follow.

Again...it always comes back to the fact that WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY to move ourselves, we are over reliant on an enabling development / partners to make it happen.

Have the historical councils been previously pro active?... no i dont think they have....the current council set up seems to have been more helpful with the PP site though.

Personally i cannot believe that the council and other agencies couldnt be brought together to raise a case for the development of the East Marsh/Freeman St area.When you have one of the UK's highest ranking  areas of deprivation then surely external funding could be tapped in to redevelop the whole area alongside a "community stadium".  Timescales would probably be the downside to this but then again.....1988 was it that we started considering moving ??
Posted by: 1mickylyons, September 21, 2017, 11:34am; Reply: 17
Quoted from psgmariner


Agreed.

PP was seen as the quickest and easiest option which I get. I just think this site being made available and being part of a massive redevelopment that has the likes of Norman Lamont and David Ross backing it means it could be a better option now.


With it being next to water surely we would run the risk of disturbing a rare water vole or pink headed duck or something?
Posted by: Kris2, September 21, 2017, 11:34am; Reply: 18
[quote=763  I know we can't please everybody but I just want to see the fking thing built.
[/quote]

This is basically how I feel about the situation. I want us to have a new modern ground,I want us to make positive steps forward like a new ground and better training facilities etc. I don't care about if it overlooks the dock tower and the fishing heritage centre so everyone can feel local pride etc.
Posted by: Mallyner, September 21, 2017, 11:39am; Reply: 19
Garth Lane

I have heard he's a waste of space.  :)
Posted by: 1mickylyons, September 21, 2017, 11:41am; Reply: 20
Quoted from moosey_club


You missed out that we got the planning permission to build at Great Coates and it was the club /JF that decided not to pursue that site and look elsewhere instead......all previous hold ups where as a result of the due process that the council had to follow.

Again...it always comes back to the fact that WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY to move ourselves, we are over reliant on an enabling development / partners to make it happen.

Have the historical councils been previously pro active?... no i dont think they have....the current council set up seems to have been more helpful with the PP site though.

Personally i cannot believe that the council and other agencies couldnt be brought together to raise a case for the development of the East Marsh/Freeman St area.Wwhen you have one of the UK's highest ranking  areas of deprivation then surely external funding could be tapped in to redevelop the whole area alongside a "community stadium".  Timescales would probably be the downside to this but then again.....1988 was it that we started considering moving ??



I was told around a year ago by someone I regards as ITK that PP was a done deal and it would go ahead.However time as marched on and were still waiting for this to start I am sure 3-4k of us would go down there armed with a shovel ea and dig the footings if we could.FFS build it
Posted by: grimsby pete, September 21, 2017, 12:42pm; Reply: 21
I know I have not lived in the town for a long time,,

BUT

Is Garth Lane big enough ? I remember Mitchells Building Merchants being down there,

Has it got bigger over the years .?
Posted by: RoboCod, September 21, 2017, 12:58pm; Reply: 22
Quoted from moosey_club


Page 828 Para 3,  does indicate that Haile Sands Fort would be the most kayak, boat, helicopter friendly location for a stadium.


I heard there's some rare saltwater Newts living on Haile Sands, no go I'm afraid, it seems we'll never get our ground...



* It's amazing to think this parodying of the situation isn't too far removed from the real thing. How hard is it to find a LOCATION for a ground, much less get it built???
Posted by: heppy88, September 21, 2017, 1:40pm; Reply: 23
Seriously, not another thread debating the location of the new stadium?
Seriously, not more posts criticising the council for the lack of action?

The site for the new stadium has been decided. Its Peaks Parkway.
The process is ongoing.
The club and the enabling company have submitted outline viability and it was accepted by the council.
The club and the enabling company will be presenting detailed viability in the next few weeks.
When the council sign this off then it will go to the planning stage, which should take 1 year.
Once planning has been accepted (Considering the NIMBY's objections) it can be built.

This has always been the process.
The next we will all hear is that detailed viability has been submitted. Then probably nothing for another year.
We must continue to be patient. At least we have a plan and a process. Bristol Rovers recently gave up on a new ground after a similar experience to ours. We have a council that is backing the move, we will get the stadium.
Posted by: headingly_mariner, September 21, 2017, 4:42pm; Reply: 24
Much better site for a football ground. The housing at PP could still be the enabling development to raise the cash for a Stadium elsewhere. I'm sure the residents of Peaks Parkway would be thrilled.
Posted by: moosey_club, September 21, 2017, 4:53pm; Reply: 25
Quoted from RoboCod


I heard there's some rare saltwater Newts living on Haile Sands, no go I'm afraid, it seems we'll never get our ground...



* It's amazing to think this parodying of the situation isn't too far removed from the real thing. How hard is it to find a LOCATION for a ground, much less get it built???


Its not newts bud, its soft shelled tampon crabs that can be found out there
Posted by: Civvy at last, September 21, 2017, 5:15pm; Reply: 26
Quoted from moosey_club


Its not newts bud, its soft shelled tampon crabs that can be found out there


Smuggling smoke bombs I believe  ;)
Posted by: WOZOFGRIMSBY, September 21, 2017, 5:58pm; Reply: 27
The longer it goes on, and the lack of information just sums the whole farce up. We can't redevelop BP so it's a non brainer, we have to move.

At this rate, we'll be calling ch4 up for a one off programme of stadium relocation relocation relocation
Posted by: ginnywings, September 21, 2017, 7:12pm; Reply: 28
If we build it by the water, the dogsh1t will be replaced by birdsh1t from all the geese and swans. Still, it will give the Lincoln fans an excuse not to attend.

On a more serious note, i can't see there being much appetite among the great and good for a football stadium that close to the centre of town.
Posted by: RoboCod, September 21, 2017, 7:28pm; Reply: 29
Quoted from heppy88


Bristol Rovers recently gave up on a new ground after a similar experience to ours.


But that case, and our never-ending proposal review isn't the norm. We need to query and if need be, to complain. Other stadiums have gone up, and continue to be built each year. It seems a relatively easy process.




Posted by: TAGG, September 21, 2017, 7:47pm; Reply: 30
I wouldn't worry about it mate.
We will never move to a new stadium.
Town will be at BP until Fenty finally kills the club.
Posted by: mimma, September 21, 2017, 8:15pm; Reply: 31
The Bristol Rovers Plan collapsed after Sainsburys pulled out of being the anchor tenant.

What makes the Peakes Parkway plan attractive is that Town don't have to buy the land. The holding company buy it and rent it to Town for a peppercorn rent. They build their houses on the rest of the plot.

If we were to build on Garth Lane we would have to buy the land to build on it since it isn't a big enough plot for a housing company to build enough houses to make it viable. The cost of the land pushes it out of our reach..
Posted by: ginnywings, September 21, 2017, 8:35pm; Reply: 32
I also think that the council are selling the land at a more favourable price than ABP will be selling theirs. I think it's PP or bust myself.
Posted by: Southwark Mariner, September 21, 2017, 8:39pm; Reply: 33
Quoted from ginnywings
I also think that the council are selling the land at a more favourable price than ABP will be selling theirs. I think it's PP or bust myself.


I think the council should get some shares out of it. Little value now but if the club does become successful the council should get some payback.
Posted by: ginnywings, September 21, 2017, 9:03pm; Reply: 34
Quoted from Southwark Mariner


I think the council should get some shares out of it. Little value now but if the club does become successful the council should get some payback.


The council will benefit from the initial influx of cash, get some much needed housing stock into the area, and of course, hundreds of houses chucking in at least a grand or more each in council tax.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, September 21, 2017, 10:20pm; Reply: 35
Quoted from moosey_club


You missed out that we got the planning permission to build at Great Coates and it was the club /JF that decided not to pursue that site and look elsewhere instead......all previous hold ups where as a result of the due process that the council had to follow.

Again...it always comes back to the fact that WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY to move ourselves, we are over reliant on an enabling development / partners to make it happen.

Have the historical councils been previously pro active?... no i dont think they have....the current council set up seems to have been more helpful with the PP site though.

Personally i cannot believe that the council and other agencies couldnt be brought together to raise a case for the development of the East Marsh/Freeman St area.When you have one of the UK's highest ranking  areas of deprivation then surely external funding could be tapped in to redevelop the whole area alongside a "community stadium".  Timescales would probably be the downside to this but then again.....1988 was it that we started considering moving ??


It wasn't that. It was the owner of the land decided he/it (think it was some sort of estate)  no longer wanted to sell the land to be used as a football stadium.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, September 21, 2017, 10:22pm; Reply: 36
Quoted from WOZOFGRIMSBY
The longer it goes on, and the lack of information just sums the whole farce up. We can't redevelop BP so it's a non brainer, we have to move.

At this rate, we'll be calling ch4 up for a one off programme of stadium relocation relocation relocation


Or the worst ever episode of Grand Designs. The one that gets stuck in an endless loop of planning problems, followed by the money running out, followed by new planning problems......
Posted by: Maringer, September 22, 2017, 7:48am; Reply: 37
Grand Designs tends to follow people with loadsamoney on an ego trip. Not something our club is guilty of in general.
Posted by: Mrs Doyle, September 22, 2017, 8:12am; Reply: 38
Quoted from KingstonMariner


It wasn't that. It was the owner of the land decided he/it (think it was some sort of estate)  no longer wanted to sell the land to be used as a football stadium.



Sutton Estates if memory serves me correctly, the Natural England group also lodged a concern about wild life.

Peaks parkway seems to be the best viable option.

Garth lane would mean away fans coming into the town centre via Alexander Road not ideal and the other way Deansgate Bridge is a nightmare on Saturday afternoons as it is.
Posted by: cannylad68, September 22, 2017, 8:28am; Reply: 39
Until I read the thread, I thought we had just signed another midfielder.
Posted by: WOZOFGRIMSBY, September 22, 2017, 9:39am; Reply: 40
Quoted from Maringer
Grand Designs tends to follow people with loadsamoney on an ego trip. Not something our club is guilty of in general.


So, they are following that carrot crunching knob head from stroud
Posted by: moosey_club, September 22, 2017, 10:17am; Reply: 41
Quoted from KingstonMariner


It wasn't that. It was the owner of the land decided he/it (think it was some sort of estate)  no longer wanted to sell the land to be used as a football stadium.


Here's a potted history from 2001 of Town's bid to relocate.

1. In 2001 planning permission at Great Coates was refused.

2. The scheme was brought back and approved subject to signing the Section 106 agreement.

3. The Developer wouldn’t then sign the S106 agreement, as this would have triggered a very large payment without certainty of securing another anchor tenant

As with developments of this type timing is critical, losing B&Q killed the project

4. In 2003 the club's scheme at Great Coates was allocated in the Council's Local plan

5. In 2005 the club resubmitted an updated planning application catalysed by new retail interest

6. After lengthy delays the planning application was determined with approval in Jan 2007
• The Scheme was then subjected to Judicial Review by Henry Boot, who were attempting to deliver a competing retail scheme (Garth Lane i think they were going to develop ironically !!)
• In November 2007 the Planning Permission for Great Coates was finally validated

7. In 2008 the Economy crashed and the scheme was rendered unviable for many reasons

8. In 2010 the club finally turned its back on Great Coates and began looking for other sites that could accommodate the club's needs together with a vital enabling development.
Posted by: 1mickylyons, September 22, 2017, 10:38am; Reply: 42
Quoted from moosey_club


Here's a potted history from 2001 of Town's bid to relocate.

1. In 2001 planning permission at Great Coates was refused.

2. The scheme was brought back and approved subject to signing the Section 106 agreement.

3. The Developer wouldn’t then sign the S106 agreement, as this would have triggered a very large payment without certainty of securing another anchor tenant

As with developments of this type timing is critical, losing B&Q killed the project

4. In 2003 the club's scheme at Great Coates was allocated in the Council's Local plan

5. In 2005 the club resubmitted an updated planning application catalysed by new retail interest

6. After lengthy delays the planning application was determined with approval in Jan 2007
• The Scheme was then subjected to Judicial Review by Henry Boot, who were attempting to deliver a competing retail scheme (Garth Lane i think they were going to develop ironically !!)
• In November 2007 the Planning Permission for Great Coates was finally validated

7. In 2008 the Economy crashed and the scheme was rendered unviable for many reasons

8. In 2010 the club finally turned its back on Great Coates and began looking for other sites that could accommodate the club's needs together with a vital enabling development.


Pretty sure I was at a game in 1988 when leaflets were handed out asking fans opinions of a proposed move :-/
Posted by: RichMariner, September 22, 2017, 11:35am; Reply: 43
Personally, I don't like the idea of us playing at a brand new, shiny, grey stadium with superb toilets on the periphery of town.

Let's be brutally honest here: the town of Grimsby faces stiff economic challenges, day in, day out. It lost its major industry decades ago but what it hasn't lost - and what it'll never lose - is its people.

And these people all have one thing in common: any of them that even remotely enjoy sport (watching or playing) will go down to Blundell Park and support the Mariners.

The Mariners are the one thing that bind us together - not just those who currently live in the town, but those who moved away and live elsewhere.

GTFC is an important part of the town. It's the one thing we all have in common. I think it would be a HUGE mistake to move it to a part of town that is relatively inaccessible.

A football club is a community. This forum is a community. Things like these should be at the heart of everything, not just literally but physically.

Think of all the times you've passed Blundell Park on a non-match day... as a kid, as an adult... still gives me a special feeling. Makes me think about the next match, brings back memories, all that stuff.

Think of the next generation of fans, too young to go now but who may walk past a new community stadium at the heart of the town every day they go to school, or every time they go into town to meet up with mates. The stadium's just there, you can't miss it, you can't ignore it. People using it, shopping in the areas around it, looking forward to the weekend when they can be in it.

Then think of a future where kids of this town don't even know what our new stadium looks like because they've never been there; they never pass it, because it's never on their route, it's never in their sights because it's not really part of the town.

Surgically remove the football from the heart of the town and dump it on the edge at your peril. In my opinion it needs to be where the people are. It has to be impossible to miss. It has to be 'in' Grimsby, in the truest sense. Because this football club 'is' Grimsby, not an after-thought that exists on the periphery.

I don't want a new stadium at Peaks Parkway because it's the only viable option. I want a new stadium at Peaks Parkway because it's the right thing to do, and I'm sorry but I don't honestly believe it's right for the town.
Posted by: Kris2, September 22, 2017, 12:00pm; Reply: 44
Quoted from RichMariner
Personally, I don't like the idea of us playing at a brand new, shiny, grey stadium with superb toilets on the periphery of town.

Let's be brutally honest here: the town of Grimsby faces stiff economic challenges, day in, day out. It lost its major industry decades ago but what it hasn't lost - and what it'll never lose - is its people.

And these people all have one thing in common: any of them that even remotely enjoy sport (watching or playing) will go down to Blundell Park and support the Mariners.

The Mariners are the one thing that bind us together - not just those who currently live in the town, but those who moved away and live elsewhere.

GTFC is an important part of the town. It's the one thing we all have in common. I think it would be a HUGE mistake to move it to a part of town that is relatively inaccessible.

A football club is a community. This forum is a community. Things like these should be at the heart of everything, not just literally but physically.

Think of all the times you've passed Blundell Park on a non-match day... as a kid, as an adult... still gives me a special feeling. Makes me think about the next match, brings back memories, all that stuff.

Think of the next generation of fans, too young to go now but who may walk past a new community stadium at the heart of the town every day they go to school, or every time they go into town to meet up with mates. The stadium's just there, you can't miss it, you can't ignore it. People using it, shopping in the areas around it, looking forward to the weekend when they can be in it.

Then think of a future where kids of this town don't even know what our new stadium looks like because they've never been there; they never pass it, because it's never on their route, it's never in their sights because it's not really part of the town.

Surgically remove the football from the heart of the town and dump it on the edge at your peril. In my opinion it needs to be where the people are. It has to be impossible to miss. It has to be 'in' Grimsby, in the truest sense. Because this football club 'is' Grimsby, not an after-thought that exists on the periphery.

I don't want a new stadium at Peaks Parkway because it's the only viable option. I want a new stadium at Peaks Parkway because it's the right thing to do, and I'm sorry but I don't honestly believe it's right for the town.


And this right here is why we'll never have a new football stadium. Too many fans who choose feelings over thought,sentiment over logic and being local over progress. We need to move from Blundell Park because it's an outdated old ground that will hinder any sort of progress for the future, sure it's fine now while we are non league tinpot trying to consolidate our new position as a league club but what happens when we progress up the leagues like in the distant past?

It doesn't matter where it's located, if we have a stadium with room to expand it makes a statement that the club is the real deal, everyone will know where the ground is, kids will be asking their dad to drive past it so they can have a look and then take them to the game. It gives off a good image for the town when people enter it and see that stadium and it'll become a source of pride for the town and a message that the area is open for business and redevelopment. A football club making progress gives off a good image. It'll be accessible on public transport with room for parking and that's important too for ease of getting to matches.

I feel like this is just another thinly veiled "Garth Lane is a better choice because it's near the Dock Tower and the Heritage Centre and because Freeman Street needs to become like the good old days when it was local people and not all foreigners."

Honestly people like Rich probably loved us being Non League because they could go to tiny nowhere places with what can barely be called a football ground because that's "real football". People like Rich would love us to stay as low as possible and not be near those evil terrible top leagues that are all about making money.
Posted by: golfer, September 22, 2017, 1:07pm; Reply: 45
J.F. to change to Labour then something might be done
Posted by: moosey_club, September 22, 2017, 1:57pm; Reply: 46
Quoted from Kris2


And this right here is why we'll never have a new football stadium. Too many fans who choose feelings over thought,sentiment over logic and being local over progress. We need to move from Blundell Park because it's an outdated old ground that will hinder any sort of progress for the future, sure it's fine now while we are non league tinpot trying to consolidate our new position as a league club but what happens when we progress up the leagues like in the distant past?

It doesn't matter where it's located, if we have a stadium with room to expand it makes a statement that the club is the real deal, everyone will know where the ground is, kids will be asking their dad to drive past it so they can have a look and then take them to the game. It gives off a good image for the town when people enter it and see that stadium and it'll become a source of pride for the town and a message that the area is open for business and redevelopment. A football club making progress gives off a good image. It'll be accessible on public transport with room for parking and that's important too for ease of getting to matches.

I feel like this is just another thinly veiled "Garth Lane is a better choice because it's near the Dock Tower and the Heritage Centre and because Freeman Street needs to become like the good old days when it was local people and not all foreigners."

Honestly people like Rich probably loved us being Non League because they could go to tiny nowhere places with what can barely be called a football ground because that's "real football". People like Rich would love us to stay as low as possible and not be near those evil terrible top leagues that are all about making money.


Maybe some fans, myself included, accept we need to move but also as living locally want certain other things from any such development...
i would like open fields to remain open fields, green spaces to remain green spaces i would absolutley prefer a brownfield site over any other if possible, rather than urban sprawl spreading and filling in open areas between the suburbs.
The East Marsh/ Freeman St area has been slowly dying since the 70's and is now in need of major redevelopment...seems perfect to me for all but two things, starting again now would mean timescales would equate to even more years waiting, various landlords and landowners would need to be bought out increasing overall costs.
Peaks Parkway and the approaches to that area of Town around New Waltham/Waltham/South Cleethorpes/Humberston are already swamped with permitted sites for housing developments not counting any further homes as part of the ground enabling. Traffic will therefore be increasing along that corridor and if anyone uses that road now they know the bottle necks that already exist without further housing and then matchday traffic.

We all want a new home, we all will have our our own slants on what and why we think some are better than others, some of those views maybe borne of selfishness (NIMBY's), some out of reasoned argument and some out of pie in the sky thinking but all entitled to a view which unfortunately actually matters very little,  as currently only The Board/Council/Developers have the choice to make and that is clearly PP currently.  Not my preference but if thats where it does go then i shall be there.

Posted by: headingly_mariner, September 22, 2017, 5:22pm; Reply: 47
Quoted from Kris2


And this right here is why we'll never have a new football stadium. Too many fans who choose feelings over thought,sentiment over logic and being local over progress. We need to move from Blundell Park because it's an outdated old ground that will hinder any sort of progress for the future, sure it's fine now while we are non league tinpot trying to consolidate our new position as a league club but what happens when we progress up the leagues like in the distant past?

It doesn't matter where it's located, if we have a stadium with room to expand it makes a statement that the club is the real deal, everyone will know where the ground is, kids will be asking their dad to drive past it so they can have a look and then take them to the game. It gives off a good image for the town when people enter it and see that stadium and it'll become a source of pride for the town and a message that the area is open for business and redevelopment. A football club making progress gives off a good image. It'll be accessible on public transport with room for parking and that's important too for ease of getting to matches.

I feel like this is just another thinly veiled "Garth Lane is a better choice because it's near the Dock Tower and the Heritage Centre and because Freeman Street needs to become like the good old days when it was local people and not all foreigners."

Honestly people like Rich probably loved us being Non League because they could go to tiny nowhere places with what can barely be called a football ground because that's "real football". People like Rich would love us to stay as low as possible and not be near those evil terrible top leagues that are all about making money.


It's not the ground that hinders progress.
Posted by: Ahh Sole, September 22, 2017, 5:39pm; Reply: 48
Quoted from golfer
J.F. to change to Labour then something might be done


Haha! All joking aside.....
Posted by: mariner91, September 22, 2017, 7:16pm; Reply: 49
Quoted from RichMariner
Personally, I don't like the idea of us playing at a brand new, shiny, grey stadium with superb toilets on the periphery of town.

Let's be brutally honest here: the town of Grimsby faces stiff economic challenges, day in, day out. It lost its major industry decades ago but what it hasn't lost - and what it'll never lose - is its people.

And these people all have one thing in common: any of them that even remotely enjoy sport (watching or playing) will go down to Blundell Park and support the Mariners.

The Mariners are the one thing that bind us together - not just those who currently live in the town, but those who moved away and live elsewhere.



This just isn't true. Bearing in mind that a significant percentage of our support is from exiles then that would mean there is only a couple of thousand people who "remotely enjoy" sport in a town with a population over 100,000.
Posted by: mimma, September 23, 2017, 2:26pm; Reply: 50
Don't believe that's true Mariner91. When I go to the pub everyone wants to know what the game was like how they played etc. The interest is there. Those that have stopped going all have different reasons for not going anymore.

I believe that the new modern stadium wirh up to date facilities would get them all interested in going again.
Posted by: mariner91, September 23, 2017, 2:39pm; Reply: 51
Quoted from mimma
Don't believe that's true Mariner91. When I go to the pub everyone wants to know what the game was like how they played etc. The interest is there. Those that have stopped going all have different reasons for not going anymore.

I believe that the new modern stadium wirh up to date facilities would get them all interested in going again.


That's entirely my point. The post said that "any of them that even remotely enjoy sport will go down to Blundell Park and support the Mariners. Which can't be true as I'm sure there are many more than approx. 3K who enjoy sport. Like you said, I agree that a better stadium which is easier to access than BP on a busy match day would hopefully get more interested and the club could move forward.
Posted by: Bawmariner, September 23, 2017, 2:48pm; Reply: 52
I think Garth Lane would be a terrible place for the stadium. It is a small area and I honestly believe it would put people off shopping in the town centre when matches are on.

I write this comment while sat in Leeds Dock and if really does give you an idea of what the waterfront in the town centre should look like. A mix of nice flats and restraints. It really is a huge under used asset and once I believe will become more attractive to developers once the new cinema opens in the town centre.

While there are benefits of putting the stadium close to the town centre there is also the negatives that it will only be used to it's full potential on matchdays once or twice a week. Land in a town centre needs to either generate or attract large amounts of footfall 24/7 and I just don't think a football stadium will ever do that. What the town centre needs is more people living in it to boost retail and make it more attractive to potential retail and leisure companies and stadium doesn't deliver that.
Posted by: Perkins, September 23, 2017, 2:59pm; Reply: 53
Quoted from mimma
Don't believe that's true Mariner91. When I go to the pub everyone wants to know what the game was like how they played etc. The interest is there. Those that have stopped going all have different reasons for not going anymore.

I believe that the new modern stadium wirh up to date facilities would get them all interested in going again.


If anyone asks me i always say Go yourself and find out if your that interested, but then i am a miserable sod.
Posted by: mimma, September 23, 2017, 6:21pm; Reply: 54
You must be the guy at the end of the bar drinking on his own.
Posted by: GYinScuntland, September 24, 2017, 12:41pm; Reply: 55
Quoted from Bawmariner
I think Garth Lane would be a terrible place for the stadium. It is a small area and I honestly believe it would put people off shopping in the town centre when matches are on.

I write this comment while sat in Leeds Dock and if really does give you an idea of what the waterfront in the town centre should look like. A mix of nice flats and restraints. It really is a huge under used asset and once I believe will become more attractive to developers once the new cinema opens in the town centre.

While there are benefits of putting the stadium close to the town centre there is also the negatives that it will only be used to it's full potential on matchdays once or twice a week. Land in a town centre needs to either generate or attract large amounts of footfall 24/7 and I just don't think a football stadium will ever do that. What the town centre needs is more people living in it to boost retail and make it more attractive to potential retail and leisure companies and stadium doesn't deliver that.

You must have dated the same Leeds lass that I did.  :P
Posted by: Vance Warner, September 24, 2017, 12:49pm; Reply: 56
Quoted from Kris2


And this right here is why we'll never have a new football stadium. Too many fans who choose feelings over thought,sentiment over logic and being local over progress. We need to move from Blundell Park because it's an outdated old ground that will hinder any sort of progress for the future, sure it's fine now while we are non league tinpot trying to consolidate our new position as a league club but what happens when we progress up the leagues like in the distant past?

It doesn't matter where it's located, if we have a stadium with room to expand it makes a statement that the club is the real deal, everyone will know where the ground is, kids will be asking their dad to drive past it so they can have a look and then take them to the game. It gives off a good image for the town when people enter it and see that stadium and it'll become a source of pride for the town and a message that the area is open for business and redevelopment. A football club making progress gives off a good image. It'll be accessible on public transport with room for parking and that's important too for ease of getting to matches.

I feel like this is just another thinly veiled "Garth Lane is a better choice because it's near the Dock Tower and the Heritage Centre and because Freeman Street needs to become like the good old days when it was local people and not all foreigners."

Honestly people like Rich probably loved us being Non League because they could go to tiny nowhere places with what can barely be called a football ground because that's "real football". People like Rich would love us to stay as low as possible and not be near those evil terrible top leagues that are all about making money.


Really?? I would suggest the location is vital for attracting people. How many people leave their car at home because they like a drink on a matchday? Not many grounds could cope if everyone drove to the match. I don't think PP is as inaccessible as people are making out but Great Coates would have been a disaster IMO.
Posted by: GollyGTFC, September 27, 2017, 1:09pm; Reply: 57
PP was chosen as the site because Fenty/GTFC insisted an enabling development had to be at the same location as the stadium. This is the only reason why Garth Lane didn't come out on top.

Since then Fenty has stated that enabling developments (NB. plural) could basically be anywhere in North East Lincolnshire.

The process was rigged to ensure PP came out of top. And now Fenty has got what he wanted the goal posts have moved.

Garth Lane is perfect. It's close to the town centre, but easily accessible from the A180 (the main road into Grimsby). It's close to the railway station & the town centre bus terminal. It will be across the road from to the new cinema/restaurant complex at Riverhead.

The Ice Rink, house development and whatever else can still be at PP and act as an enabling development for the stadium at Garth Lane.
Posted by: Bigdog, September 27, 2017, 2:56pm; Reply: 58
Quoted from GollyGTFC
PP was chosen as the site because Fenty/GTFC insisted an enabling development had to be at the same location as the stadium. This is the only reason why Garth Lane didn't come out on top.

Since then Fenty has stated that enabling developments (NB. plural) could basically be anywhere in North East Lincolnshire.

The process was rigged to ensure PP came out of top. And now Fenty has got what he wanted the goal posts have moved.

Garth Lane is perfect. It's close to the town centre, but easily accessible from the A180 (the main road into Grimsby). It's close to the railway station & the town centre bus terminal. It will be across the road from to the new cinema/restaurant complex at Riverhead.

The Ice Rink, house development and whatever else can still be at PP and act as an enabling development for the stadium at Garth Lane
.


I tend to agree with this. If the council or associated bodies could help with bridging loans or shortfalls to cover a longer timeframe than a PP single location, the enabling developments could be spread about over the central part of town as that land became available rather than building on a greenfield site. That's if the figures can be made to work and net costs to the club don't increase. As a town plan it seems daft that there could be a shiny new investment built on unspoilt land and other areas of the town will be left derelict. As long as a blue sky thinking solution could be formed quickly so it doesn't delay the stadium being built, I'd be up for that..
Posted by: moosey_club, September 27, 2017, 4:11pm; Reply: 59
Quoted from Bigdog


I tend to agree with this. If the council or associated bodies could help with bridging loans or shortfalls to cover a longer timeframe than a PP single location, the enabling developments could be spread about over the central part of town as that land became available rather than building on a greenfield site. That's if the figures can be made to work and net costs to the club don't increase. As a town plan it seems daft that there could be a shiny new investment built on unspoilt land and other areas of the town will be left derelict. As long as a blue sky thinking solution could be formed quickly so it doesn't delay the stadium being built, I'd be up for that..


We are talking about our proposal being backed by a housing developer primarily....i severely doubt that 700 -1400 homes would be desirable or in demand or even fit on the West Marsh/ Town Centre site...PP would still be wanted as a "Prime" housing site to attract any home builders and i cant see any house builder financing something in the town centre so the club can build a stadium, just so they can build houses in the suburbs.  
Posted by: Cloudy, September 27, 2017, 4:29pm; Reply: 60
Quoted from GollyGTFC
PP was chosen as the site because Fenty/GTFC insisted an enabling development had to be at the same location as the stadium. This is the only reason why Garth Lane didn't come out on top.

Since then Fenty has stated that enabling developments (NB. plural) could basically be anywhere in North East Lincolnshire.

The process was rigged to ensure PP came out of top. And now Fenty has got what he wanted the goal posts have moved.

Garth Lane is perfect. It's close to the town centre, but easily accessible from the A180 (the main road into Grimsby). It's close to the railway station & the town centre bus terminal. It will be across the road from to the new cinema/restaurant complex at Riverhead.

The Ice Rink, house development and whatever else can still be at PP and act as an enabling development for the stadium at Garth Lane.


Personal view but I can just not see anyone passing the building of a football stadium on top of the shopping area. Just think it would deter even further any potential retail tenants in Freshney Place
Posted by: headingly_mariner, September 27, 2017, 4:43pm; Reply: 61
Quoted from Cloudy


Personal view but I can just not see anyone passing the building of a football stadium on top of the shopping area. Just think it would deter even further any potential retail tenants in Freshney Place


Football grounds are in loads of city and town centres. Many have retail parks and attractions attached to them that are still in use on a Saturday.
Posted by: barralad, September 27, 2017, 4:48pm; Reply: 62
Quoted from Cloudy


Personal view but I can just not see anyone passing the building of a football stadium on top of the shopping area. Just think it would deter even further any potential retail tenants in Freshney Place


Well we agree on that!  I've seen numerous complaints across social media claiming that Peaks Parkway is a recipe for traffic chaos. I can only assume those advocating Garth Lane have never been anywhere near Top Town on a Saturday and seen the queues of traffic trying to access the centre. The scope for altering the road infrastructure is severely limited especially with the proposed expansion and cinema development of Freshney Place (which is already pretty much in the pipeline). I readily accept the enabling development could be elsewhere but why when a site has been agreed that can take the lot?
Posted by: barralad, September 27, 2017, 4:51pm; Reply: 63
Quoted from headingly_mariner


Football grounds are in loads of city and town centres. Many have retail parks and attractions attached to them that are still in use on a Saturday.


Outside of London there are fewer and fewer and those that remain belong to a bygone age.
Print page generated: March 29, 2024, 11:18am