|
|
 chaos33 |
| September 7, 2016, 8:57pm |
|
Barley Wine Drinker  Posts: 11,594
Posts Per Day: 2.58
Reputation: 67.78%
Rep Score: +66 / -33
Location: The mountains
Approval: +17,929
Gold Stars: 360
|
Oh dear! I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are either one of the two councillors or a blood relation. Would you please explain which part of my post is "Completely rubbish"? Unless you are privy to actualities that us mortals haven't had the advantage of seeing there are no plans. I spent a lot of my campaigning time last year reassuring residents on the Edge Avenue estate that they weren't getting a stadium in the field behind their houses. Now where do you suppose that piece of mis-information came from? It was supported by a map that had the Edge Avenue estate in its correct position but the stadium site was drawn completely out of scale. There may well be issues once the plans are drawn up. Perhaps the dynamic duo would be better waiting for those or maybe I'm being far too simplistic.
"Vanity project" seems to be a pet word for those who don't wish to see the stadium project succeed. I haven't seen the unemployment figures lately but I'd suggest that anything which will see the creation of a reasonably large number of jobs will be viewed as the wise use of said "public money".
Perhaps fortunately for you you haven't named the councillors you allege have involved themselves in "corrupt and secretive" dealings. The libel laws in this country have a nasty habit of being used in such cases. Meanwhile back in factsville it is a certainty that not every house in Park Ward received an invite to the meeting on Monday. I'll leave you to wonder why that might be. By their own admittance the Lib. Dem. councillors failed to control the meeting sufficiently well to enable those in favour of the development to be heard and we have the uninspiring sight and sound of Councillor Barfield bemoaning the fact that he thought his meeting was secret enough for him to be able to get away with talk of booby trapping the project. How dare a member of the public do the community a service by filming proceedings for the benefit of those who couldn't fit into a church hall (or even those who feared for their safety from a rabble that weren't prepared to countenance opposite arguments being presented)
A very fine post indeed. |
| "You should do what you love while you can" |
|
|
|
|
|
| Ipswin |
| September 7, 2016, 10:28pm |
|
Vodka Drinker  Posts: 6,592
Posts Per Day: 1.10
Reputation: 51.24%
Rep Score: +44 / -47
Approval: -3,552
Gold Stars: 89
|
Perhaps fortunately for you you haven't named the councillors you allege have involved themselves in "corrupt and secretive" dealings.
Don't worry about corruption just yet - wait until the contracts to actually build the place are being bid for and handed out  (and I don't mean among the Council) |
| |
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
|
| Rob_in_Grimsby |
| September 7, 2016, 10:51pm |
|
Table Wine Drinker  Posts: 836
Posts Per Day: 0.14
Reputation: 75.95%
Rep Score: +8 / -3
Location: cleethorpes
Approval: +686
Gold Stars: 8
|
Completely rubbish Barralad.
I dont think it is the right site for the scale of development suggested. A football site on its own maybe, but not the widespread demolition of green space to fund this vanity project. Open space is a valuable resource that should not be given up lightly.
Fenty on the radio this morning said that most of the sites were suitable for a stadium but not the enabling add on.
So not thinking its the right location, being against public money being spent on it and being opposed to the corrupt and secretive dealings of some councillors are not valid reasons?
Can I ask where in the interview does he say that. I have listen to the whole interview and cant find anywhere that he says this, here is the interview just in case you need to listen to it again http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0472xzp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| barralad |
| September 7, 2016, 11:09pm |
|
Mariners Trust
Posts: 13,806
Posts Per Day: 2.32
Reputation: 79.47%
Rep Score: +85 / -22
Approval: +9,290
Gold Stars: 126
|
Can I ask where in the interview does he say that. I have listen to the whole interview and cant find anywhere that he says this, here is the interview just in case you need to listen to it again http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0472xzp
It must be on the same radio station as he is supposed to have said it's a done deal. I think it's called Radio Gaga. |
| The aim of argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.
Joseph Joubert. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Davec |
| September 8, 2016, 8:12am |
|
Whiskey Drinker  Posts: 3,592
Posts Per Day: 1.17
Reputation: 65.33%
Rep Score: +15 / -10
Approval: +1,442
Gold Stars: 42
|
"All we hear is Radio Gaga", maybe it should be changed to "All Realist hears is Radio Gaga"
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dapperz fun pub |
| September 8, 2016, 10:29am |
|
|
Posts: 9,346
Posts Per Day: 1.59
Reputation: 84.95%
Rep Score: +37 / -6
Approval: +9,929
Gold Stars: 82
|
Don't worry about corruption just yet - wait until the contracts to actually build the place are being bid for and handed out (and I don't mean among the Council)
That will be interesting for sure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| WetFlannel |
| September 8, 2016, 3:49pm |
|
Snakebite drinker  Posts: 491
Posts Per Day: 0.11
Reputation: 72.37%
Rep Score: +8 / -4
Approval: +395
Gold Stars: 7
|
"There are no plans" is not really correct. Without any plans a suitability study could not have been conducted. Whilst these will be draft and possibly subje t to large changes as it develops it is reasonable to assume that the boundary of the develoment as marked on the plan in the study is fairly accurate. From this you can see the scale of whatever development might be submitted. So if it is good enough for the council to vote on it is certainly good enough for me to form an opinion.
Your next point about my alegations about councillors integrity. Why did Fenty say on radio Humberside some time ago that it was a done deal?
Why are these rumours of undehand deals continually circulating about letting the ground go ahead. I challenged a prominent councillor about this whose reaction was to stare at his feet looking very uneasy and did not answer?
Why did a one party cabinet with no representations from ward councillors take a few minutes to approve such a one sided document that has such a wide ranging effect?
Until these are answered I cannot support such a project.
You can't?! Back up everyone! Ignore the facts, popular support and economic benefits Realist cannot support the project! |
|
|
|
|
|
| oldun |
| September 8, 2016, 4:36pm |
|
 Whiskey Drinker Posts: 4,341
Posts Per Day: 0.90
Reputation: 90.37%
Rep Score: +57 / -5
Approval: +3,475
|
We should all bear in mind no plans have been drawn up or submitted for scrutiny yet. So we can only deal with objections in principle. The serious analysis must wait until the planning process takes place. However, much has been said about the proximity to the Crematorium and how detrimental this will be. As one who has the misfortune to visit the crematorium more often these days as family and friends reach the end of the line, may I suggest some positive benefits and opportunities if the stadium is located there.
1 Access to the crematorium is very poor and congested and with forethought the new development can alleviate this.
2 Parking at the crematorium is inadequate despite a recent small extension. Again I see no reason why the stadium parking cannot be done in such a way as to be available for those attending funerals.
3. If good function rooms are incorporated into the plan, I feel sure they would be very well used as venues for wakes following funerals.
All of this would improve the crematorium for users, provide some weekday revenue for the stadium, and make life easier for the local residents. Make the crematorium a "one stop shop " as it were !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| grimsby pete |
| September 8, 2016, 6:33pm |
|
 Exile Posts: 55,699
Posts Per Day: 9.81
Reputation: 81.7%
Rep Score: +126 / -28
Location: Suffolk
Approval: +17,796
Gold Stars: 222
|
I agree with all the other posters who say the urinals should be called after Defriatas , I think most fans would pay to pee on a picture of his face.  |
| Over 36 years living in Suffolk but always a mariner.
68 Years following the Town
Life member of Trust
First game April 1955
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nelly GTFC |
| September 8, 2016, 11:46pm |
|
'Usually Positive' Whiskey Drinker Posts: 3,468
Posts Per Day: 0.84
Reputation: 82.94%
Rep Score: +26 / -5
Location: 2024 ?
Approval: +2,739
Gold Stars: 31
|
I agree with all the other posters who say the urinals should be called after Defriatas , I think most fans would pay to pee on a picture of his face.
Instead of Trump - De Freitas lol!   |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site Home
News
Football
Season
Database
Club
POM
Contact
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
chaos33
Logged
(and I don't mean among the Council)
