Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Fishy Forum Fishy Boards The New Fishy › Plan to Build New Ground at Docks.
Moderators: Moderator
Users Browsing Forum
AdSense, barralad, Supersixty and 38 Guests

Plan to Build New Ground at Docks.

  This thread currently has 19,157 views. Print
16 Pages Prev ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next All Recommend Thread
Stadium
July 20, 2019, 9:24am Report to Moderator
Table Wine Drinker
Posts: 612
Posts Per Day: 0.47
Reputation: 87.77%
Rep Score: +6 / 0
Approval: +494
Quoted from ska face


Again, not quite as simple as you suggest. The sequential survey (here if anyone wants to read it - http://archive.nelincs.gov.uk/committees/FunctionsPage.aspx?dsid=150004&action=GetFileFromDB) actually recommended the “Dockside” at Garth Lane as the most suitable based on their criteria (page 17), though this did not take into account availability or viability.

You can ask all sorts of questions about the criteria, and point to the fact that the document is immediately out-of-date the moment it’s written as it only applies to all sites at a particular snapshot in time. That was carried out 4 years ago and many things have changed in relation to the project, particularly around funding and the impact that would have on the development itself - i.e. in terms of space requirements, if we don’t need 9000sq.m for a supermarket to fund it, plus hotels and pubs, perhaps the whole picture looks entirely different.

Peaks Parkway was always a reasonable compromise in terms of being available, viable and deliverable (thanks Extreme Leisure! lol), if not necessarily desirable. We’re in a completely new position now if, as people suggest, different funding is available for different sites with different aims from different people with a completely different vision for what the project could achieve.


The question asked was why didn't the club consider the dock development.
So as stated-at the time peaks parkway was the preferred site which the club pursued.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 120 - 152
promotion plaice
July 20, 2019, 9:51am Report to Moderator

Moderator
Posts: 7,621
Posts Per Day: 2.25
Reputation: 74.81%
Rep Score: +16 / -6
Location: Cleethorpes
Approval: +7,724

The way it's going the new stadium will be getting built on the old Pleasure Island site in a couple of months  


Sometimes it is the people no one imagines anything of who do the things that no-one can imagine
Alan Turing
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 121 - 152
forza ivano
July 20, 2019, 10:40am Report to Moderator

Exile
Posts: 10,819
Posts Per Day: 2.54
Reputation: 80.2%
Rep Score: +65 / -16
Approval: +4,976
Quoted from Stadium


The question asked was why didn't the club consider the dock development.
So as stated-at the time peaks parkway was the preferred site which the club pursued.


Obviously the government change of policies towards spending ,plus the government grant and the change in personnel and policy at AB P are 3 huge game changers and couldn't have been foreseen
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 122 - 152
Stadium
July 20, 2019, 10:53am Report to Moderator
Table Wine Drinker
Posts: 612
Posts Per Day: 0.47
Reputation: 87.77%
Rep Score: +6 / 0
Approval: +494
Quoted from forza ivano


Obviously the government change of policies towards spending ,plus the government grant and the change in personnel and policy at AB P are 3 huge game changers and couldn't have been foreseen


Exactly Forza.
The original question was around why wasn't the club pursuing the dock development if land etc was available.
The report at the time explains the reasons.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 123 - 152
GollyGTFC
July 20, 2019, 12:39pm Report to Moderator
Table Wine Drinker
Posts: 521
Posts Per Day: 0.13
Reputation: 83.37%
Rep Score: +12 / -2
Approval: +492
I always thought at the time of the report GTFC (i.e. Fenty) originally insisted on the new stadium site and enabling development being on the same site and the land being available within 3-5 years. Those criteria excluded sites such as East Marsh & Garth Lane. I am not saying the criteria was deliberately set to ensure Peaks Parkway won, but that’s how it seemed to me at the time.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 124 - 152
KingstonMariner
July 20, 2019, 2:42pm Report to Moderator
Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 13,383
Posts Per Day: 6.94
Reputation: 83.7%
Rep Score: +33 / -6
Approval: +12,787
Quoted from GollyGTFC
I always thought at the time of the report GTFC (i.e. Fenty) originally insisted on the new stadium site and enabling development being on the same site and the land being available within 3-5 years. Those criteria excluded sites such as East Marsh & Garth Lane. I am not saying the criteria was deliberately set to ensure Peaks Parkway won, but that’s how it seemed to me at the time.


I don't know if that was cynical so much as stupidly restrictive.


Oi niitä aikoja, oi niitä aikoja
Ne tahtoisin niin elää uudelleen
Tuo aika rakkauden
Tuo aika nuoruuden
Ne tahtoisin niin elää uudelleen
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 125 - 152
mimma
July 20, 2019, 3:36pm Report to Moderator
Fine Wine Drinker
Posts: 1,128
Posts Per Day: 0.26
Reputation: 86.52%
Rep Score: +11 / -1
Approval: +1,817
Quoted from GollyGTFC
I always thought at the time of the report GTFC (i.e. Fenty) originally insisted on the new stadium site and enabling development being on the same site and the land being available within 3-5 years. Those criteria excluded sites such as East Marsh & Garth Lane. I am not saying the criteria was deliberately set to ensure Peaks Parkway won, but that’s how it seemed to me at the time.


The report was made by an independent consultant, with no axe to grind. There would be no point in Fenty wasting money on a report to agree with what Fenty wanted.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 126 - 152
GollyGTFC
July 20, 2019, 4:51pm Report to Moderator
Table Wine Drinker
Posts: 521
Posts Per Day: 0.13
Reputation: 83.37%
Rep Score: +12 / -2
Approval: +492
Quoted from mimma


The report was made by an independent consultant, with no axe to grind. There would be no point in Fenty wasting money on a report to agree with what Fenty wanted.


There was every point. An independent report would hold considerable sway. Fenty could theoretically have said "PP is the only viable site and this proves it." Unfortunately, as always, Fenty completely failed to deliver the new stadium and the report became redundant because of time and because of land becoming available which couldn't have been predicated at the time the report was made.

And the report might have been independent, but the criteria were all set by Fenty and were all criteria which PP provided.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 127 - 152
OllieGTFC
July 20, 2019, 5:01pm Report to Moderator
Fine Wine Drinker
Posts: 1,279
Posts Per Day: 0.84
Reputation: 70.77%
Rep Score: +2 / -2
Approval: -324
Really can’t see a new stadium in my life time and am in my 20s hope am wrong


We're on our way back
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 128 - 152
smokey111
July 20, 2019, 6:28pm Report to Moderator
Beer Drinker
Posts: 123
Posts Per Day: 0.03
Reputation: 81.78%
Rep Score: +1 / 0
Approval: +144
Unless you are Scottish, your life expectancy is probably mid 70s, so that gives us 50 years by my reckoning. Even Fenty won't be around then, so I think we will have moved by then.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 129 - 152
16 Pages Prev ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next All Recommend Thread
Print

Fishy Forum Fishy Boards The New Fishy › Plan to Build New Ground at Docks.

Thread Rating

There have been 1 votes for this thread.
 

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.