Print Topic - Archive

Grismby Town Forum - The Fishy GTFC  /  Classic Threads  /  
Posted by: promotion plaice, November 14, 2014, 7:41am
Headlines today Grimsby Telegraph ( no link yet online ).

Grimsby Town hope to take plans for a new community stadium, with the goal of £200 million investment in related housing and retail development, to the next level before the end of the year.

The club's plan is to build a 14,000 seater community venue, with a 2,000- space car park.
A new retail and housing development will help fund the scheme and it is vital if it is to go ahead.

Over the next week, the Grimsby Telegraph will be breaking the matter down into a number of areas to explore the issues in detail.
Posted by: BeijingMariner, November 14, 2014, 7:57am; Reply: 1
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/TOWN-s-5-year-goal-net-new-stadium/story-24533016-detail/story.html
Posted by: promotion plaice, November 14, 2014, 8:42am; Reply: 2
Just wondered if this means Mr Fenty and board are now willing to prop the club up financially for this 5 year period, or it doesn't stack up.

If that's the case the future is bright   ;D ;D ;D
Posted by: aldi_01, November 14, 2014, 9:21am; Reply: 3
Hasn't it already been a 15 year or so stadium plan. Haven't we read/heard all this before?
Posted by: pizzzza, November 14, 2014, 9:38am; Reply: 4
Quoted from aldi_01
Hasn't it already been a 15 year or so stadium plan.


And the rest....
Posted by: Garth, November 14, 2014, 10:14am; Reply: 5
Quoted from aldi_01
Hasn't it already been a 15 year or so stadium plan. Haven't we read/heard all this before?


This could be the one though(groupwave)
Posted by: arryarryarry, November 14, 2014, 10:14am; Reply: 6
Quoted from pizzzza


And the rest....


If my memory serves me right wasn't it 1995 when Bill Carr announced we would build a new stadium on the A180 site.

Before that I seem to remember plans to completely re-roof most of the stands if not re-build some of them including the corners at Blundell Park.

Posted by: Mariner Ronnie, November 14, 2014, 10:20am; Reply: 7
Quoted from arryarryarry


If my memory serves me right wasn't it 1995 when Bill Carr announced we would build a new stadium on the A180 site.

Before that I seem to remember plans to completely re-roof most of the stands if not re-build some of them including the corners at Blundell Park.



1994 it said in the telewag the other day, sorry to be precise ;)
Posted by: grimsby pete, November 14, 2014, 10:50am; Reply: 8
Has anybody seen the plans of the new stadium ?

The Telegraph keep showing the ones for the Great Coates site.

Also I will be in my 70's in 5 years time,

Any more delays and I will be pushing up daisy's,

Get a move on Mr Fenty,

I want to sit in our new stadium before I pass away.
Posted by: rancido, November 14, 2014, 11:11am; Reply: 9
Quoted from arryarryarry


If my memory serves me right wasn't it 1995 when Bill Carr announced we would build a new stadium on the A180 site.

Before that I seem to remember plans to completely re-roof most of the stands if not re-build some of them including the corners at Blundell Park.




This is true but when the club approached the council about planning permission etc the council replied that they would rather the club moved to a new site. The whole dynamic of football finance has changed a lot since then and whereas a refurbishment might have been financially viable then , it certainly isn't now.
Posted by: DocTower, November 14, 2014, 11:20am; Reply: 10
Quoted from grimsby pete
Has anybody seen the plans of the new stadium ?

The Telegraph keep showing the ones for the Great Coates site.

Also I will be in my 70's in 5 years time,

Any more delays and I will be pushing up daisy's,

Get a move on Mr Fenty,

I want to sit in our new stadium before I pass away.


Like you Pete some of us aren't getting any younger and would like it sooner rather than later . I want to remain positive that it will be achieved in my life time .

Posted by: LH, November 14, 2014, 11:21am; Reply: 11
I don't think any of us are getting younger to be fair.
Posted by: Dan, November 14, 2014, 11:22am; Reply: 12
I like Blundell Park, cloaked in barbed wire, nestled between the back to back terraces and accessed through a maze of dog excrement. It's Grimsby. I don't want to see Town play in a Tesco.
Posted by: MyDogsThoughts, November 14, 2014, 11:35am; Reply: 13
Quoted from Dan
I like Blundell Park, cloaked in barbed wire, nestled between the back to back terraces and accessed through a maze of dog excrement. It's Grimsby. I don't want to see Town play in a Tesco.


Ditto, especially the dog sh1t,

Posted by: MarinerWY, November 14, 2014, 11:38am; Reply: 14
Quoted from grimsby pete

Get a move on Mr Fenty


In fairness I think Fenty is doing his absolute utmost, he wants the new stadium as much as anyone. Unfortunately the decision as to whether we can use the land or not isn´t his.
Posted by: MarinerWY, November 14, 2014, 11:38am; Reply: 15
Quoted from grimsby pete

Get a move on Mr Fenty


In fairness I think Fenty is doing his absolute utmost, he wants the new stadium as much as anyone. Unfortunately the decision as to whether we can use the land or not isn´t his.
Posted by: grimsby pete, November 14, 2014, 12:05pm; Reply: 16
Quoted from MarinerWY


In fairness I think Fenty is doing his absolute utmost, he wants the new stadium as much as anyone. Unfortunately the decision as to whether we can use the land or not isn´t his.


Yes I know he is, it's just taking a lot longer than any of us had envisaged.
Posted by: Garth, November 14, 2014, 12:12pm; Reply: 17
Quoted from grimsby pete


Yes I know he is, it's just taking a lot longer than any of us had envisaged.


You will be alright Pete, I will be a young eighty Lol
Posted by: HackneyHaddock, November 14, 2014, 12:17pm; Reply: 18
This can't come soon enough.  After 20 years of obstruction and dithering, the council need to pull their fingers out and just get on with it.

Grimsby could be so much better than it currently is, if only the people running it had some vision.  The North East Lincs area should be a gateway to Europe and the world and should be giving central government the reasons to include it in the "Northern Powerhouse" that they want to run from Liverpool across the country.  Let's aim for a full University in the town, membership of the New Hanseatic League, twinning arrangements with Chinese and Brazilian cities, a renewables hub, a Championship football team, Capital of Culture, and eventually, why not even City status?

If our civic leaders don't even have the vision for this and set as the limit of their development ambitions the installation of new bus shelters and crazy paving slabs, is there any wonder they've prevaricated over something as simple as a new football ground for the last 20 years?
Posted by: MarinerWY, November 14, 2014, 12:19pm; Reply: 19
Quoted from grimsby pete


Yes I know he is, it's just taking a lot longer than any of us had envisaged.


More due to a stubborn and (in my opinion) counter-productive council than anything... it's so frustrating to watch other councils up and down the country support new football ground developments, recognising the value of their respective town/cities' professional football clubs. Can't quite get my head round the attitudes of NEL council in their lack of support.

Posted by: gaz57, November 14, 2014, 12:42pm; Reply: 20
The problem is our council no matter what colour have always planned for mid table and ended up with relegation for years, and now with central government putting the squeeze on  the council is to busy fighting off the wolves. We need someone with vision and guts to go  that extra mile and not just for a new stadium.
Posted by: diehardmariner, November 14, 2014, 12:58pm; Reply: 21
Same old same old with this.

Bored to my back teeth of explaining why Peaks Parkway is the only real option available and the importance of a vibrant football team to the local community.  

Do I believe Peaks Parkway is the best location?  No.  Can I think of any remotely suitable locations to stop the only community asset in North East Lincolnshire that can attract and engage anything above 1% of the population from dying?  No.

GTFC and North East Lincolnshire needs this stadium.  Peaks Parkway will, in all truth, be a terrible location in terms of access but there is absolutely no other option unless we go well outside the local boundary.  In which case are North Lincolnshire Council, for example, likely to approve planning permission?  Doubt it.

Every day this drags on longer and longer makes the attitude of the council to not fully support the Great Coates Stadium look even more backward.  

It's not just about the stadium though.  As mentioned above, North East Lincolnshire is in an absolutely brilliant position at present to take full advantage of the renewable energy movement and attach itself to the Northern Powerhouse plans....instead it will stay in the 19th century thanks to backwards thinking and NIMBY attitudes.  

What was the last thing built in North East Lincolnshire to the benefit of the local people and the economy?  I can think of the Parkway Cinema ten years ago and then probably Pleasure Island 20+ years ago.  For a borough reliant on tourism and with the economic potential it has, that's absolutely pathetic.
Posted by: Grimal, November 14, 2014, 1:04pm; Reply: 22
Quoted from HackneyHaddock
This can't come soon enough.  After 20 years of obstruction and dithering, the council need to pull their fingers out and just get on with it.

Grimsby could be so much better than it currently is, if only the people running it had some vision.  The North East Lincs area should be a gateway to Europe and the world and should be giving central government the reasons to include it in the "Northern Powerhouse" that they want to run from Liverpool across the country.  Let's aim for a full University in the town, membership of the New Hanseatic League, twinning arrangements with Chinese and Brazilian cities, a renewables hub, a Championship football team, Capital of Culture, and eventually, why not even City status?

If our civic leaders don't even have the vision for this and set as the limit of their development ambitions the installation of new bus shelters and crazy paving slabs, is there any wonder they've prevaricated over something as simple as a new football ground for the last 20 years?






And not forgetting the fancy street lamps that look like they've been clouted by every van that ventures into Victoria street.

Posted by: rancido, November 14, 2014, 1:42pm; Reply: 23
Quoted from gaz57
The problem is our council no matter what colour have always planned for mid table and ended up with relegation for years, and now with central government putting the squeeze on  the council is to busy fighting off the wolves. We need someone with vision and guts to go  that extra mile and not just for a new stadium.



But in the same instance the council can shell out large amounts of money for a botched-up bus hub, a supposedly improved station approach, multi-attempts at up-grading Cleethorpes Leisure Centre and a swimming pool out in the suburbs which is costing far more than up-grading an existing facility which has easier access. The Great Dictator and his cohorts believe that only they are right and anybody with a differing point of view is talking rubbish. It says a lot for the area when " The Marx of The Marsh" can get elected as a councillor!
Posted by: HackneyHaddock, November 14, 2014, 3:12pm; Reply: 24
I wonder if it might help if instead of using the 20 year old pencil drawing of the old A180 ground, the club could get a more contemporary impression mocked-up.  If we can't show the people of the town a vision of what we are proposing to build, we will have to expect them to conjure up their own images (especially negative) and project them onto the blank canvas.  Modern computer-aided design packages should easily be able to come up with a set of proposal drawings that we can use to showcase the positive potential of the development.  We could even go to several companies and get them to send in their visions with a view to them pitching for the work if/when it gets the go-ahead?

Are the board able to go to one of the football ground architect practices, to get them to produces some sketches showing a new ground, along with the parking, shops, cycle infrastructure, landscaping, community facilities, leisure, education, allotments and public gardens, so that when we're selling the new ground to councillors and residents, the image they get in their minds is the positive one we have, and not the negative one put into their heads by deFreitas and the antis?
Posted by: arryarryarry, November 14, 2014, 4:47pm; Reply: 25
Quoted from Mariner Ronnie


1994 it said in the telewag the other day, sorry to be precise ;)


I am sure somewhere I have the cutting from the ET when the announcement was made.

I was going to hand it down to my great, great, great, great grandchildren to show them what the ground will look like when it is built.

Posted by: WOZOFGRIMSBY, November 14, 2014, 4:55pm; Reply: 26
Agree mate and it's been said a thousand times. Can we stop using the prototype drawing that was used for the proposed great Coates site. People will never be turned until they can vision what the area will be like - us supporters included. I for one can't get that awful a180 stadium out of my head but can't wait to see the ideas for the proposed new site
Posted by: promotion plaice, November 14, 2014, 5:14pm; Reply: 27
Quoted from HackneyHaddock
This can't come soon enough.  After 20 years of obstruction and dithering, the council need to pull their fingers out and just get on with it.

Grimsby could be so much better than it currently is, if only the people running it had some vision.  The North East Lincs area should be a gateway to Europe and the world and should be giving central government the reasons to include it in the "Northern Powerhouse" that they want to run from Liverpool across the country.  Let's aim for a full University in the town, membership of the New Hanseatic League, twinning arrangements with Chinese and Brazilian cities, a renewables hub, a Championship football team, Capital of Culture, and eventually, why not even City status?

If our civic leaders don't even have the vision for this and set as the limit of their development ambitions the installation of new bus shelters and crazy paving slabs, is there any wonder they've prevaricated over something as simple as a new football ground for the last 20 years?



Bit unfair on the council really,  they've managed to attract SKINT to film here bless em.

Posted by: LH, November 14, 2014, 5:17pm; Reply: 28
Has the stadium design changed since that picture was drawn?
Posted by: sutton mariner, November 14, 2014, 5:31pm; Reply: 29
Let's go on a demonstration outside the council offices
Posted by: HackneyHaddock, November 14, 2014, 5:48pm; Reply: 30
Take a look at this:

http://www.brentfordcommunitystadium.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Brentford-Community-Stadium-South-Site.pdf

I think something like this, even if in a very conceptual format, would be very helpful, especially the sketches of different view from different vantage points.  Can the club make some enquiries with Brentford and get a referral to the company who produced it?  
Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 14, 2014, 6:05pm; Reply: 31
Quoted from rancido



But in the same instance the council can shell out large amounts of money for a botched-up bus hub, a supposedly improved station approach, multi-attempts at up-grading Cleethorpes Leisure Centre and a swimming pool out in the suburbs which is costing far more than up-grading an existing facility which has easier access. The Great Dictator and his cohorts believe that only they are right and anybody with a differing point of view is talking rubbish. It says a lot for the area when " The Marx of The Marsh" can get elected as a councillor!


I totally agree with you about council attitudes. But the money for the harebrained schemes comes from grants, EU or government, not from council tax. The days of councils spending local money on big projects disappeared many year ago.

The KC stadium only came about because of the sale of the telephone company plus money from grants as it was a multi-purpose stadium. Hull City was almost wound up just before it opened so the club put nothing in the kitty. Interesting that there was a lot of argument about the site even in a big place like Hull because of the traffic and residential issues. Glanford Park was built on the cheap and the then council did put up some of the cash but that was in the boom years of the 80s. They also got cash from the Football League and various grants.

The problem JF faces is simple and it isn't the council and it isn't even the residents. It is money. There isn't the money in the area to justify the originally planned extra development around the stadium. There isn't a big name in the background that thinks it would be a worthwhile investment. That is why the magic word "housing" has suddenly appeared. At the moment the only people making big money are property developers and the hope would be that the council could sweeten someone to stump up cash for a stadium/community facility by allowing them to build a ribbon development estate down the Parkway before leaving town with bulging pockets. Jumping on a new bandwagon now that big retail outlets are out of fashion. I would expect there will be some smaller retail outlets involved though, why else have 2000 parking spaces?

I don't pretend to know what the right answer is but it seems most likely to me that eventually permission will come for the Parkway. Then some outside property developer/builder will make a lot of money, a main trunk road will become a traffic horror story, local residents will lose some quality of life, more houses in the central area of town will be bought up for rental as people move out to the new stuff ......... but Town will get a new ground.
Posted by: grimsby pete, November 14, 2014, 6:12pm; Reply: 32
Quoted from Garth


You will be alright Pete, I will be a young eighty Lol


I really hope we will both be there for the opening Garth,

BUT

I doubt it,

We both might live to be a hundred and we will still be saying we need a new ground.
Posted by: Southwark Mariner, November 14, 2014, 6:49pm; Reply: 33

Quoted from promotion plaice



Bit unfair on the council really,  they've managed to attract SKINT to film here bless em.





They should do a tv series about skint football clubs. That would be worth watching
Posted by: WOZOFGRIMSBY, November 14, 2014, 6:53pm; Reply: 34
Quoted from Southwark Mariner





They should do a tv series about skint football clubs. That would be worth watching


Who first!! I think that every club is in debt with "major benefactors"
Posted by: promotion plaice, November 14, 2014, 7:41pm; Reply: 35
Quoted from HackneyHaddock
Take a look at this:

http://www.brentfordcommunitystadium.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Brentford-Community-Stadium-South-Site.pdf

I think something like this, even if in a very conceptual format, would be very helpful, especially the sketches of different view from different vantage points.  Can the club make some enquiries with Brentford and get a referral to the company who produced it?  





Sorry if i'm missing something but i can't see no stadium, just loads of flats.

Posted by: barralad, November 14, 2014, 7:43pm; Reply: 36
Quoted from rancido



But in the same instance the council can shell out large amounts of money for a botched-up bus hub, a supposedly improved station approach, multi-attempts at up-grading Cleethorpes Leisure Centre and a swimming pool out in the suburbs which is costing far more than up-grading an existing facility which has easier access. The Great Dictator and his cohorts believe that only they are right and anybody with a differing point of view is talking rubbish. It says a lot for the area when " The Marx of The Marsh" can get elected as a councillor!


Harsh! He worked very hard to get elected (at a time when UKIP were very much on top) and he has worked very hard for West Marsh since May. I wouldn't argue with your view of Councillor S**w though.
Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 14, 2014, 7:59pm; Reply: 37
Quoted from barralad


Harsh! He worked very hard to get elected (at a time when UKIP were very much on top) and he has worked very hard for West Marsh since May. I wouldn't argue with your view of Councillor S**w though.


His idea of working hard for his constituents is spending other people's money on his ideas. Mind you, he is not the only councillor to have that disease.

Posted by: barralad, November 14, 2014, 9:03pm; Reply: 38


His idea of working hard for his constituents is spending other people's money on his ideas. Mind you, he is not the only councillor to have that disease.



Are we talking Shaw or Mickleburgh here?
Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 14, 2014, 9:20pm; Reply: 39
Quoted from barralad


Are we talking Shaw or Mickleburgh here?


Both.

Posted by: barralad, November 14, 2014, 9:54pm; Reply: 40


Both.



Well in Tim's case you must have info. I don't have access to. I don't recognise the description!
Posted by: HackneyHaddock, November 14, 2014, 10:21pm; Reply: 41
Quoted from promotion plaice





Sorry if i'm missing something but i can't see no stadium, just loads of flats.



EXACTLY.  The idea of these pictures is to show the development as a whole and how it fits into the local area.  In Brentford's case, apartments in an urban area in desperate need of housing.  In our case, it could show leisure and community facilities, landscaping and give an impression of how the ground fits into the local area.

It's precisely to show people that it's not all about the stadium that Brentford produced these images and brochures; to address the wavering element of local opinion which was in the end crucial to them getting the go-ahead.  We need to do the same and start appealing to the 100,000 people who are open to persuasion that this development is good for the town.
Posted by: promotion plaice, November 14, 2014, 11:23pm; Reply: 42
Quoted from HackneyHaddock


EXACTLY.  The idea of these pictures is to show the development as a whole and how it fits into the local area.  In Brentford's case, apartments in an urban area in desperate need of housing.  In our case, it could show leisure and community facilities, landscaping and give an impression of how the ground fits into the local area.

It's precisely to show people that it's not all about the stadium that Brentford produced these images and brochures; to address the wavering element of local opinion which was in the end crucial to them getting the go-ahead.  We need to do the same and start appealing to the 100,000 people who are open to persuasion that this development is good for the town.


I now see where your coming from, maybe the problem here is that Towns new ground is on a greenfield site, and Brentfords new ground is on land currently occupied by industrial tenants. Having said that i totally agree with you.

Posted by: petethemariner, November 15, 2014, 12:33am; Reply: 43
one question we should perhaps ask is will BP as it presently stands be a usable facility for 5 more years? Personally i
doubt it,surely its only a matter of time before the wooden shambles we call the main stand is denied a safety certificate
and the rusty iron girders holding  up the roof of the Osmond are an embarrassment,as are the wilderness areas in the corners,
the new stadium was first muted 20 years ago and i am totally fed up with it all now, 1 year delay, 2 years delay,council district
changes, red tape,newts, bull sh1t, more bullsh1t, Great Coates NIMBYS and now we are told it could still be 5 years away and
in a location so bizarre its bound to start the merry go round of objections all over again.
Lets just  revamp BP, concentrate on improving our league status and re-visit this in the future,otherwise we could find ourselves
with both with an even more embarrassingly  decrepit ground and still no sign of a new stadium
My opinion, i'm sure plenty will disagree..
Posted by: petethemariner, November 15, 2014, 12:33am; Reply: 44
one question we should perhaps ask is will BP as it presently stands be a usable facility for 5 more years? Personally i
doubt it,surely its only a matter of time before the wooden shambles we call the main stand is denied a safety certificate
and the rusty iron girders holding  up the roof of the Osmond are an embarrassment,as are the wilderness areas in the corners,
the new stadium was first muted 20 years ago and i am totally fed up with it all now, 1 year delay, 2 years delay,council district
changes, red tape,newts, bull sh1t, more bullsh1t, Great Coates NIMBYS and now we are told it could still be 5 years away and
in a location so bizarre its bound to start the merry go round of objections all over again.
Lets just  revamp BP, concentrate on improving our league status and re-visit this in the future,otherwise we could find ourselves
with both with an even more embarrassingly  decrepit ground and still no sign of a new stadium
My opinion, i'm sure plenty will disagree..
Posted by: WappingMariner, November 15, 2014, 1:22am; Reply: 45
Quoted from LH
I don't think any of us are getting younger to be fair.


I'm 25 in a few days. It's become as bad as Caistor's South Western Bypass...
Posted by: Nelly GTFC, November 15, 2014, 2:01am; Reply: 46
Quoted from HackneyHaddock
Take a look at this:

http://www.brentfordcommunitystadium.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Brentford-Community-Stadium-South-Site.pdf

I think something like this, even if in a very conceptual format, would be very helpful, especially the sketches of different view from different vantage points.  Can the club make some enquiries with Brentford and get a referral to the company who produced it?  
Check out the other pics here, looks awesome >> http://www.dharchitects.co.uk/#!brentford-community-stadium/c1bcb

Also >> http://www.afl-uk.com/ - Brentford, Rotherham, Chelsea - Stand, Wolves - Stand, plus other sporting projects including Rugby Stadiums, Nou Camp - Barcelona.

Grimsby Town should follow a similar, but unique design project, it's a pity Freeman Street could not be totally knocked down and rebuilt just like that, would totally regenerate the area.
Posted by: Rick12, November 15, 2014, 8:56am; Reply: 47
Quoted from promotion plaice
Headlines today Grimsby Telegraph ( no link yet online ).

Grimsby Town hope to take plans for a new community stadium, with the goal of £200 million investment in related housing and retail development, to the next level before the end of the year.

The club's plan is to build a 14,000 seater community venue, with a 2,000- space car park.
A new retail and housing development will help fund the scheme and it is vital if it is to go ahead.

Over the next week, the Grimsby Telegraph will be breaking the matter down into a number of areas to explore the issues in detail.

Hope this finally comes to fruition at some point.
Posted by: BeijingMariner, November 15, 2014, 11:19am; Reply: 48
Quoted from Nelly GTFC
it's a pity Freeman Street could not be totally knocked down and rebuilt just like that, would totally regenerate the area.


would be a fab idea, that. it will be a land ownership issue though I reckon, maybe like the docks is, loads of different owners.
Posted by: grimsby pete, November 15, 2014, 11:27am; Reply: 49
We can discuss other sites and talk about revamping Blundell Park,

BUT

John Fenty has said on many occasions why they are not feasible ,

If we want a new ground we all have to get behind the Peaks Parkway site,

OR

We will remain at Blundell Park

It will in time fall down and we will have no ground at all.
Posted by: rancido, November 15, 2014, 3:27pm; Reply: 50
[quote=2757]one question we should perhaps ask is will BP as it presently stands be a usable facility for 5 more years? Personally i
doubt it,surely its only a matter of time before the wooden shambles we call the main stand is denied a safety certificate
and the rusty iron girders holding  up the roof of the Osmond are an embarrassment,as are the wilderness areas in the corners,
the new stadium was first muted 20 years ago and i am totally fed up with it all now, 1 year delay, 2 years delay,council district
changes, red tape,newts, bull sh1t, more bullsh1t, Great Coates NIMBYS and now we are told it could still be 5 years away and
in a location so bizarre its bound to start the merry go round of objections all over again.
Lets just  revamp BP, concentrate on improving our league status and re-visit this in the future,otherwise we could find ourselves
with both with an even more embarrassingly  decrepit ground and still no sign of a new stadium
My opinion, i'm sure plenty will disagree..[/
quote]


The problem with trying to develop BP has been mentioned many times and it still wouldn't help the club in having non-football income streams. I'm absolutely convinced that planning permission wouldn't be allowed for any alterations or development. There is also the problem of car parking. At present I don't believe there is any car parking for fans and it is completely unacceptable in this modern age to expect fans to park in side streets on peoples fronts. The congestion on some of these side streets is horrendous on match days now and will progressively get worse when we get back in the league. The world has moved on a lot since BP was last upgraded. The present location, surrounded by terraced housing, harks back to a bygone age and the club ( and fans ) must move with the times.
Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 15, 2014, 4:22pm; Reply: 51
Quoted from rancido
[quote=2757]one question we should perhaps ask is will BP as it presently stands be a usable facility for 5 more years? Personally i
doubt it,surely its only a matter of time before the wooden shambles we call the main stand is denied a safety certificate
and the rusty iron girders holding  up the roof of the Osmond are an embarrassment,as are the wilderness areas in the corners,
the new stadium was first muted 20 years ago and i am totally fed up with it all now, 1 year delay, 2 years delay,council district
changes, red tape,newts, bull sh1t, more bullsh1t, Great Coates NIMBYS and now we are told it could still be 5 years away and
in a location so bizarre its bound to start the merry go round of objections all over again.
Lets just  revamp BP, concentrate on improving our league status and re-visit this in the future,otherwise we could find ourselves
with both with an even more embarrassingly  decrepit ground and still no sign of a new stadium
My opinion, i'm sure plenty will disagree..[/
quote]



The problem with trying to develop BP has been mentioned many times and it still wouldn't help the club in having non-football income streams. I'm absolutely convinced that planning permission wouldn't be allowed for any alterations or development. There is also the problem of car parking. At present I don't believe there is any car parking for fans and it is completely unacceptable in this modern age to expect fans to park in side streets on peoples fronts. The congestion on some of these side streets is horrendous on match days now and will progressively get worse when we get back in the league. The world has moved on a lot since BP was last upgraded. The present location, surrounded by terraced housing, harks back to a bygone age and the club ( and fans ) must move with the times.


Plan B could be the most sensible short/medium term alternative regardless of parking issues and JF's talk about the state of BP. One reason why it is in such a state is that the prolonged new ground saga has led to neglect and the notion of just doing enough repairs to pass H&S inspection. The other point of course is that crowds of 5000+ are unlikely on a regular basis even if the club gets back in the league. A new stadium won't alter that. Moving with the times? This might be the times we move with!

It would be relatively simple to alter BP with replacement stands if need be and still have plenty of capacity.

Redeveloping what can be redeveloped at BP still needs cash though, and this is why JF is so keen on a new ground, it involves far less financial input from the club (or him). I think that is the real reason why BP will never be his favoured option.



Posted by: rancido, November 15, 2014, 4:55pm; Reply: 52


Plan B could be the most sensible short/medium term alternative regardless of parking issues and JF's talk about the state of BP. One reason why it is in such a state is that the prolonged new ground saga has led to neglect and the notion of just doing enough repairs to pass H&S inspection. The other point of course is that crowds of 5000+ are unlikely on a regular basis even if the club gets back in the league. A new stadium won't alter that. Moving with the times? This might be the times we move with!

It would be relatively simple to alter BP with replacement stands if need be and still have plenty of capacity.

Redeveloping what can be redeveloped at BP still needs cash though, and this is why JF is so keen on a new ground, it involves far less financial input from the club (or him). I think that is the real reason why BP will never be his favoured option.






I still don't think we would get planning permission to develop BP.
Posted by: arryarryarry, November 15, 2014, 7:34pm; Reply: 53
Not sure if I am reading it correctly but it seems to me that this 5 year plan is just to get to the point of applying for planning permission, how long after that would it take to get the new build started?
Posted by: jimgtfc, November 15, 2014, 8:02pm; Reply: 54
How many times do people need to be told that redeveloping BP is no longer an option? Getting a new ground isn't just about how many people we can get in to a stadium to watch GTFC  or even replacing the old for the new. Football is a business, not just a sport anymore therefore we need income outside of football and to do that we need extra land for other facilities such as a gym, 5 a side pitches, restaurants, supermarkets, hotels or whatever else the club decide feasible. None of this can happen at Blundell Park which is why the club need to relocate to progress long term as a business. 24/7 income is now fundamental for professional football clubs.
Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 15, 2014, 8:17pm; Reply: 55
Quoted from jimgtfc
How many times do people need to be told that redeveloping BP is no longer an option? Getting a new ground isn't just about how many people we can get in to a stadium to watch GTFC  or even replacing the old for the new. Football is a business, not just a sport anymore therefore we need income outside of football and to do that we need extra land for other facilities such as a gym, 5 a side pitches, restaurants, supermarkets, hotels or whatever else the club decide feasible. None of this can happen at Blundell Park which is why the club need to relocate to progress long term as a business. 24/7 income is now fundamental for professional football clubs.


True enough, it is a business. Though the club would not be entitled to any income stream from those things would it? The club will not own or manage the site and may not even own the stadium. And it is those extras that are the real problem with the siting of the new ground aren't they? The original supermarket idea would have meant traffic 24/7 for instance. Now we have the possibility of housing estates up the Parkway. It is a conundrum without an ideal solution.
Posted by: arryarryarry, November 15, 2014, 8:28pm; Reply: 56
Quoted from jimgtfc
How many times do people need to be told that redeveloping BP is no longer an option? Getting a new ground isn't just about how many people we can get in to a stadium to watch GTFC  or even replacing the old for the new. Football is a business, not just a sport anymore therefore we need income outside of football and to do that we need extra land for other facilities such as a gym, 5 a side pitches, restaurants, supermarkets, hotels or whatever else the club decide feasible. None of this can happen at Blundell Park which is why the club need to relocate to progress long term as a business. 24/7 income is now fundamental for professional football clubs.


I may have missed something but would GTFC actually own any of the land, in that case then there would not be any income for GTFC from those you are mentioning.
Posted by: petethemariner, November 15, 2014, 9:00pm; Reply: 57
As a matter of interest Jim, what sort of percentage of clubs outside of the prem and top Championship clubs have the sort
.of facilities you describe? Most i would suggest survive  by relevant success in  their respective leagues, cup runs   a
good marketing plan, or a combination of the three, even though i am sure all aspire for such facilities - lets be sensible we are still
a non league club and no-one knows how long this will be the case.
As others have posted, this 'plan' will take a MINIMUM of 5 years - can you imagine the state of BP by then ?Its 50/50 we will still have
4 workable stands ffs!
I am not a Peakes Parkway area nimby, i would love to see GTFC in a nice new stadium as much as anyone else, but all we have seen
for 20 fecking years is delay after delay and IMO this state of total inertia shouldn't be allowed to continue, even if it means taking all
the grants available to improve BP, after all i am sure 5000 can find a place to park when in the past 15-20000 have managed to do it.
Posted by: promotion plaice, November 15, 2014, 9:23pm; Reply: 58
[quote=2226]Just wondered if this means Mr Fenty and board are now willing to prop the club up financially for this 5 year period, or it doesn't stack up.

If that's the case the future is bright   ;D ;D ;D[/quote

Over to you John.

Posted by: jimgtfc, November 15, 2014, 10:01pm; Reply: 59
Of course I'm not saying we own any hotel or supermarket or the like, that's the enabling development helps the project off the ground, that's what the additional acres of land are for. The non football income we could generate comes from corporate events, weddings and other celebratory events, potentially a built in restaurant and even a gym could be housed in the stadium grounds. I'm not sure what the situation would be regarding the proposed on site training facility, and who would own that, but perhaps that's another option to rent out on an evening. There are plenty of extra ways to make money outside of football that are considerably restricted at BP.

As for what other clubs do this, I'd say pretty much all of the new stadia have similar facilities. A quick look at Rotherham United's New York stadium website shows what can be achieved.
Posted by: petethemariner, November 15, 2014, 10:19pm; Reply: 60
So i take it then Jim that you would be happy to see GTFC play in a increasingly decrepit and embarrassing stadium for
at least 5,probably up to 8 years?
BP is crumbling and we are talking 2020 at   the earliest - is that a price worth paying?
Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 15, 2014, 10:47pm; Reply: 61
Fenty keeps on about Rotherham and the like. Rotherham were bought by a multi-millionaire Tony Stewart who has spent at least £30m on keeping the club alive. The New York Stadium was supposed to cost £17m but ran out at £25m built on a demolished factory site. Presumably this is owned by Stewart and the stadium itself is a business venture as it has its own website for the conference centre.

We are talking about much less money for GTFC but even so hardly any of that money will come from the club itself. The rest is supposed to come from somebody making an investment in something else who will agree to fund the stadium as a sort of by-line. That's where the problem lies because not only does the stadium need planning permission and support from the council but the council has to also agree to whatever development the funding investor has in mind.

When people start talking about nimbys not wanting a stadium they are forgetting this second part of the deal which is the one that could affect planning for whole of the Grimsby area.

This is not a simple little matter - "Oh BP is falling down, let's build another ground, it's good for the community" - it's a lot more complicated than I think JF has let on to The Fishy or anyone else.
Posted by: arryarryarry, November 15, 2014, 10:49pm; Reply: 62
Quoted from jimgtfc
Of course I'm not saying we own any hotel or supermarket or the like, that's the enabling development helps the project off the ground, that's what the additional acres of land are for. The non football income we could generate comes from corporate events, weddings and other celebratory events, potentially a built in restaurant and even a gym could be housed in the stadium grounds. I'm not sure what the situation would be regarding the proposed on site training facility, and who would own that, but perhaps that's another option to rent out on an evening. There are plenty of extra ways to make money outside of football that are considerably restricted at BP.

As for what other clubs do this, I'd say pretty much all of the new stadia have similar facilities. A quick look at Rotherham United's New York stadium website shows what can be achieved.


You did mention extra income and hotels.

I would like it confirmed if GTFC would actually own any of the land off Peakes Parkway, if it is to remain in the hands of the Council then surely a significant amount of income generated would belong to them and not GTFC.
Posted by: jimgtfc, November 15, 2014, 11:29pm; Reply: 63
Quoted from arryarryarry


You did mention extra income and hotels.

I would like it confirmed if GTFC would actually own any of the land off Peakes Parkway, if it is to remain in the hands of the Council then surely a significant amount of income generated would belong to them and not GTFC.

Yeah you're right, read it back and it does read like that, just meant they would be part of the bigger complex.

I'd also like a few things clearing up like ground ownership and leaseholds but I guess it might be a bit early for that? The phrase 'land transfer' that fenty uses a lot confuses me.
Posted by: jimgtfc, November 15, 2014, 11:39pm; Reply: 64
Quoted from petethemariner
So i take it then Jim that you would be happy to see GTFC play in a increasingly decrepit and embarrassing stadium for
at least 5,probably up to 8 years?
BP is crumbling and we are talking 2020 at   the earliest - is that a price worth paying?


Yes I would. I get what your saying, but did you really expect them to start laying foundations tomorrow? It's gonna take time but hopefully worth the wait. Is BP that bad at this level in the short term? Certainly worse grounds in this league and even the ones above.

To be fair to the club they have attempted to do small improvements to BP over the last few years like the scoreboard and tannoy system, but crucially these are things that could be transferred to a new stadium. To spend money structurally on BP would be counter productive at the moment.
Posted by: petethemariner, November 15, 2014, 11:57pm; Reply: 65
The thing is though Jim that we have laid NO  foundations for 20 years and if the Fenty plan
goes through its going to be something in the region of 28 years since relocation was first
mooted and we have no guarantee of even that happening.
If we get back in the FL, a ramshackle stadium is just going to back up the image of a Town
that will already be slaughtered by Skint and Cohens film- some may feel we deserve it, but i have
this constant feeling(maybe i'm wrong) that this proposed development is more about certain people
making money and not so much the clubs future prospects- i really do hope i am massively wrong
about this though.
Posted by: bobbyturtle, November 16, 2014, 12:59am; Reply: 66
Quoted from MyDogsThoughts


Ditto, especially the dog sh1t,



dont forget the cat shite at the top of the main stand
Posted by: WOZOFGRIMSBY, November 16, 2014, 9:26am; Reply: 67
Does land transfer mean : transfer of use or transfer of deeds!?!?!?

And for those that want BP updated, would the council (sic) allow the already decrepit main and osmand stands to be bulldozed and redeveloped? I think the majority of fans would prefer our "home" to be brought up to scratch but as JF has pointed out, the extra revenue streams would not be available and doing so may not be cost effective.
Posted by: moosey_club, November 16, 2014, 9:30am; Reply: 68
Quoted from LH
Has the stadium design changed since that picture was drawn?


Yes, once Scunny have built and moved into their 2nd new home we are buying the flatpack Glumford Park and reconstructing here, save a fortune that way, it will become Grimford Park... :o
Posted by: WOZOFGRIMSBY, November 16, 2014, 9:42am; Reply: 69
Quoted from moosey_club


Yes, once Scunny have built and moved into their 2nd new home we are buying the flatpack Glumford Park and reconstructing here, save a fortune that way, it will become Grimford Park... :o


I think that's everyone's worst fear moosey. A cloned box stadium (a bit like the original great Coates) that has no soul.
Posted by: barralad, November 16, 2014, 11:13am; Reply: 70
Quoted from WOZOFGRIMSBY
Does land transfer mean : transfer of use or transfer of deeds!?!?!?

And for those that want BP updated, would the council (sic) allow the already decrepit main and osmand stands to be bulldozed and redeveloped? I think the majority of fans would prefer our "home" to be brought up to scratch but as JF has pointed out, the extra revenue streams would not be available and doing so may not be cost effective.


And therein lies the problem for me. Whilst I take a lot of notice of posters like RRFCs concerns re:- the Peaks Parkway development, there are at least as many problems associated with any upgrade of B.P.
Any redevelopment of the Osmond and Main stands would almost certainly require extra land behind both. That land is populated with domestic dwellings which the owners would be under no obligation to sell.
There may be grants for upgrades available but those are nothing like 100% of the cost. Where is the other money going to come from? As it stands Mr Fenty is doing a good job of propping up the club from the season to season running point of view would he be expected to finance the necessary improvements as well?
If the crowd facilities could be improved where is the room to make the community facilities that would earn GTFC the same level of extra income it is hoped the Parkway development will provide?
Posted by: barralad, November 16, 2014, 11:14am; Reply: 71
Quoted from jimgtfc


Yes I would. I get what your saying, but did you really expect them to start laying foundations tomorrow? It's gonna take time but hopefully worth the wait. Is BP that bad at this level in the short term? Certainly worse grounds in this league and even the ones above.

To be fair to the club they have attempted to do small improvements to BP over the last few years like the scoreboard and tannoy system, but crucially these are things that could be transferred to a new stadium. To spend money structurally on BP would be counter productive at the moment.


Really good points for me....
Posted by: rancido, November 16, 2014, 11:48am; Reply: 72
[quote=2757]As a matter of interest Jim, what sort of percentage of clubs outside of the prem and top Championship clubs have the sort
.of facilities you describe? Most i would suggest survive  by relevant success in  their respective leagues, cup runs   a
good marketing plan, or a combination of the three, even though i am sure all aspire for such facilities - lets be sensible we are still
a non league club and no-one knows how long this will be the case.
As others have posted, this 'plan' will take a MINIMUM of 5 years - can you imagine the state of BP by then ?Its 50/50 we will still have
4 workable stands ffs!
I am not a Peakes Parkway area nimby, i would love to see GTFC in a nice new stadium as much as anyone else, but all we have seen
for 20 fecking years is delay after delay and IMO this state of total inertia shouldn't be allowed to continue, even if it means taking all
the grants available to improve BP, after all i am sure 5000 can find a place to park when in the past 15-20000 have managed to do it.[/quote]


But that still means on-road parking obstructing the legitimate parking for house occupants. It also adds to the congestion down all the adjoining side streets which were never designed for the present levels of car ownership. I'm sure that you would object to a development in your area that allowed parking on your house front meaning you had to park somewhere else. Yes, we have had crowds of that magnitude in the past but car ownership has increased greatly since then. I would imagine if we presently had the capacity for 20,000 and we entertained Manure in a cup match then the surrounding area would be traffic gridlocked for a hours before and after the game. By not addressing the parking issues, either at BP or any other location, we are then playing into the NIMBY's hands.  
Posted by: WOZOFGRIMSBY, November 16, 2014, 12:31pm; Reply: 73
Agree rancido that there has to be ways to make Plans for the traffic infrastructure within the ground and schematics. Tram systems seem to be all the rage once again and this could link areas such as Waltham, scartho/hospital, college/nunsthorpe town. Is there space adjacent/parallel with peakes parkway to allow a scheme?
Posted by: MarinerWY, November 16, 2014, 12:38pm; Reply: 74


Plan B could be the most sensible short/medium term alternative regardless of parking issues and JF's talk about the state of BP. One reason why it is in such a state is that the prolonged new ground saga has led to neglect and the notion of just doing enough repairs to pass H&S inspection. The other point of course is that crowds of 5000+ are unlikely on a regular basis even if the club gets back in the league. A new stadium won't alter that. Moving with the times? This might be the times we move with!

It would be relatively simple to alter BP with replacement stands if need be and still have plenty of capacity.

Redeveloping what can be redeveloped at BP still needs cash though, and this is why JF is so keen on a new ground, it involves far less financial input from the club (or him). I think that is the real reason why BP will never be his favoured option.


With you on this one. The propsed Peaks Parkway development seems to have too many holes in it, or too many conditional factors. I feel like we're chasing geese somewhat. Is it really that unrealistic to redevelop BP?  Can we see projected budgets of this? What would the council view be? With current crowds we could certainly close one stand at a time whilst we redevelop. We also have temporary seating if need be. If at all feasible we should just go for it, I get the feeling we'll still be talking about a proposed new ground in 10-15 years time.

Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 16, 2014, 1:00pm; Reply: 75
Admittedly BP's best days are behind it in its present form. The days of parking your bike for a tanner in somebody's front garden have gone. So have the football special buses unfortunately. However there is a difference in the parking issues there and at a new site because the residents around BP bought or rented houses there knowing about the problem. That's a bit different to suddenly having the problem foisted on your quiet street by a new ground. Even a 2000 space car park will still lead to on street parking.

But what bothers me most is the fallacy that a new ground and all the stuff that goes with it is a guaranteed boost for the town's economy and image. That is simply not true under the plans that JF is putting forward. The only way it could ever be true is if the model followed Hull and Rotherham in investment and design or if there was a particular development investment directly linked to it like the leisure complex at Scunthorpe. That is not going to happen.

JF does not have the same money as the owner of Rotherham. The council hasn't got a telephone company to sell off and no local or national leisure company wants to invest that amount of money on a new project. The Grimsby plans are el cheapo and depend entirely on giving away land and planning permission in the future in order to build a new ground now.

Therefore my humble opinion for what it's worth is that it is not in Grimsby's interests, the design of the stadium will not be iconic either. Any other sports facilities that it offers will be in a competing market as well. So the best worst option is still to repair/redevelop BP.

People may think I am siding with the NIMBYs but I'm not. I do think the club needs to move forward but schemes like the Parkway are just not the way to do it for a club that has yet to prove good enough to escape the Conference. To me, a revamp at BP would be the best compromise whatever JF says about its suitability. It might even be worth the club's while to pay for a park and ride scheme.
Posted by: barralad, November 16, 2014, 6:11pm; Reply: 76
Admittedly BP's best days are behind it in its present form. The days of parking your bike for a tanner in somebody's front garden have gone. So have the football special buses unfortunately. However there is a difference in the parking issues there and at a new site because the residents around BP bought or rented houses there knowing about the problem. That's a bit different to suddenly having the problem foisted on your quiet street by a new ground. Even a 2000 space car park will still lead to on street parking.

But what bothers me most is the fallacy that a new ground and all the stuff that goes with it is a guaranteed boost for the town's economy and image. That is simply not true under the plans that JF is putting forward. The only way it could ever be true is if the model followed Hull and Rotherham in investment and design or if there was a particular development investment directly linked to it like the leisure complex at Scunthorpe. That is not going to happen.

JF does not have the same money as the owner of Rotherham. The council hasn't got a telephone company to sell off and no local or national leisure company wants to invest that amount of money on a new project. The Grimsby plans are el cheapo and depend entirely on giving away land and planning permission in the future in order to build a new ground now.

Therefore my humble opinion for what it's worth is that it is not in Grimsby's interests, the design of the stadium will not be iconic either. Any other sports facilities that it offers will be in a competing market as well. So the best worst option is still to repair/redevelop BP.

People may think I am siding with the NIMBYs but I'm not. I do think the club needs to move forward but schemes like the Parkway are just not the way to do it for a club that has yet to prove good enough to escape the Conference. To me, a revamp at BP would be the best compromise whatever JF says about its suitability. It might even be worth the club's while to pay for a park and ride scheme.


There are no plans-at least not on paper. It is your opinion and you are quite entitled to hold it but it remains that-an opinion that has to be based entirely on supposition at the moment.
The residents may have known about the existence of a football club when they purchased their properties but as regards the redevelopment of B.P. they would have at least equal grounds for complaint with the extra traffic, noise etc. involved in any building work and whilst this would be an extended temporary inconvenience the residents would have to live with the results. Far more people would be affected by that redevelopment than by any development along Peaks Parkway which would increase the chances of planning permission not being given.
Does your opinion stretch to considering how revamping B.P. would give the club the 7 day use that J.F. hopes for with the Parkway development?
I suspect that whatever we say about Blundell Park's suitability that J.F. will have a big say in it seeing as the proponents of a scheme for upgrading B.P. tacitly appear to expect him to foot what remains of the bill after allowing for any grants. Grants which, incidentally could be available for Parkway...
That is my opinion. I suspect we won't know which of us is "right" until proper plans are published.
Posted by: grimsby pete, November 16, 2014, 6:17pm; Reply: 77
Quoted from barralad


There are no plans-at least not on paper. It is your opinion and you are quite entitled to hold it but it remains that-an opinion that has to be based entirely on supposition at the moment.
The residents may have known about the existence of a football club when they purchased their properties but as regards the redevelopment of B.P. they would have at least equal grounds for complaint with the extra traffic, noise etc. involved in any building work and whilst this would be an extended temporary inconvenience the residents would have to live with the results. Far more people would be affected by that redevelopment than by any development along Peaks Parkway which would increase the chances of planning permission not being given.
Does your opinion stretch to considering how revamping B.P. would give the club the 7 day use that J.F. hopes for with the Parkway development?
I suspect that whatever we say about Blundell Park's suitability that J.F. will have a big say in it seeing as the proponents of a scheme for upgrading B.P. tacitly appear to expect him to foot what remains of the bill after allowing for any grants. Grants which, incidentally could be available for Parkway...
That is my opinion. I suspect we won't know which of us is "right" until proper plans are published.


Well put Ian
Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 16, 2014, 6:27pm; Reply: 78
Quoted from barralad


There are no plans-at least not on paper. It is your opinion and you are quite entitled to hold it but it remains that-an opinion that has to be based entirely on supposition at the moment.
The residents may have known about the existence of a football club when they purchased their properties but as regards the redevelopment of B.P. they would have at least equal grounds for complaint with the extra traffic, noise etc. involved in any building work and whilst this would be an extended temporary inconvenience the residents would have to live with the results. Far more people would be affected by that redevelopment than by any development along Peaks Parkway which would increase the chances of planning permission not being given.
Does your opinion stretch to considering how revamping B.P. would give the club the 7 day use that J.F. hopes for with the Parkway development?
I suspect that whatever we say about Blundell Park's suitability that J.F. will have a big say in it seeing as the proponents of a scheme for upgrading B.P. tacitly appear to expect him to foot what remains of the bill after allowing for any grants. Grants which, incidentally could be available for Parkway...
That is my opinion. I suspect we won't know which of us is "right" until proper plans are published.


You could be right with your opinion too Barra! ;)

I've said before that I don't know the answers but there are a lot of unanswered questions and even more misleading statements from all over the place. There may not be detailed published plans but I'm old enough and cynical enough to think that nobody goes to all this trouble without having done considerable confidential groundwork with other people behind the scenes.

As to the 7 day use of BP, I don't know exactly what could be done about that either. There is already McMenemys of course. The rest depends on what kind of revamp it was given.

You are correct though, what I say is just my opinion. I'm only interested in trying to give some balance to the debate that seems to swing between doom & gloom and euphoria! :)

Posted by: barralad, November 16, 2014, 6:38pm; Reply: 79


You could be right with your opinion too Barra! ;)

I've said before that I don't know the answers but there are a lot of unanswered questions and even more misleading statements from all over the place. There may not be detailed published plans but I'm old enough and cynical enough to think that nobody goes to all this trouble without having done considerable confidential groundwork with other people behind the scenes.

As to the 7 day use of BP, I don't know exactly what could be done about that either. There is already McMenemys of course. The rest depends on what kind of revamp it was given.

You are correct though, what I say is just my opinion. I'm only interested in trying to give some balance to the debate that seems to swing between doom & gloom and euphoria! :)



And long may it continue. This particular juggernaut has a long distance yet to travel.... :o
Posted by: arryarryarry, November 16, 2014, 6:43pm; Reply: 80
Quoted from barralad


There are no plans-at least not on paper. It is your opinion and you are quite entitled to hold it but it remains that-an opinion that has to be based entirely on supposition at the moment.
The residents may have known about the existence of a football club when they purchased their properties but as regards the redevelopment of B.P. they would have at least equal grounds for complaint with the extra traffic, noise etc. involved in any building work and whilst this would be an extended temporary inconvenience the residents would have to live with the results. Far more people would be affected by that redevelopment than by any development along Peaks Parkway which would increase the chances of planning permission not being given.
Does your opinion stretch to considering how revamping B.P. would give the club the 7 day use that J.F. hopes for with the Parkway development?
I suspect that whatever we say about Blundell Park's suitability that J.F. will have a big say in it seeing as the proponents of a scheme for upgrading B.P. tacitly appear to expect him to foot what remains of the bill after allowing for any grants. Grants which, incidentally could be available for Parkway...
That is my opinion. I suspect we won't know which of us is "right" until proper plans are published.


Interesting what 7 day use there would be.

Posted by: grimsby pete, November 16, 2014, 6:45pm; Reply: 81
Quoted from arryarryarry


Interesting what 7 day use there would be.



Yoga ?
Posted by: barralad, November 16, 2014, 6:47pm; Reply: 82
Quoted from arryarryarry


Interesting what 7 day use there would be.



Well I'm led to believe there will be sports facilities, conference facilities and leisure facilities but as I said before anything at the moment is hearsay! I have no inside information-like just about anyone else who has contributed to the myriad threads on the subject  :-/
Posted by: barralad, November 16, 2014, 6:48pm; Reply: 83
Quoted from grimsby pete


Yoga ?


;D ;D ;D
Posted by: promotion plaice, November 16, 2014, 7:05pm; Reply: 84
Shoot me down, but if raising enough money for the ground is the stumbling block, why not slash the cost, and build half of it ( two sides ) giving a more than adequate capacity of 7,000 at this moment in time.

Then when the times right ( financially and need for greater capacity ) finish the third side, ultimately completing the project.

Part of something is better than lots of nowt.
Posted by: barralad, November 16, 2014, 7:39pm; Reply: 85
God I'm in danger of hogging this whole thread....Have you been to Oxford's Kassam stadium? They decided to develop three sides. The empty end really kills atmosphere. If you need to reduce the amount of build then M.K. Dons ground was probably the best. Apparently they built one tier with the proviso they could build on top should the need ever arise (hardly likely for Franchise F.C. but a good idea nevertheless...)
Posted by: rancido, November 16, 2014, 7:45pm; Reply: 86
Nobody on here seems to have any ideas on how to address the problem of planning permission for any development at BP. It wouldn't be a foregone conclusion that because there is a stand there now then if we demolished it we could just replace it without involving the council for planning permission. As I've said before the only reason we went down the road of a new ground all those years ago was because  of the councils preferred choice of relocation as opposed to updating BP.
Posted by: moosey_club, November 16, 2014, 7:53pm; Reply: 87
Quoted from WOZOFGRIMSBY


I think that's everyone's worst fear moosey. A cloned box stadium (a bit like the original great Coates) that has no soul.


i dont think there is a modern stadium that has a soul, been to plenty and the larger ones all look exactly the same once inside,  a bowl of concrete steps, plastic seats, block walling and steel beams.
I personally would prefer the four distinct stand type of design if possible, old school.
On the smaller scale of new grounds i actually quite liked Dartford's, sod the all seater design off and at least give the home fans a proper terrace section to play in.
Posted by: arryarryarry, November 16, 2014, 9:53pm; Reply: 88
Quoted from barralad


Well I'm led to believe there will be sports facilities, conference facilities and leisure facilities but as I said before anything at the moment is hearsay! I have no inside information-like just about anyone else who has contributed to the myriad threads on the subject  :-/



But like I mentioned in another post, who will actually own the ground and surrounding area.

If it is like the Keepmoat for instance, this wasn't built for just the benefit of Doncaster Rovers as they are only leasing it for their home matches, it is used for ladies football and rugby so I would suggest monies from the use of the conference facilities, leisure facilities and even concerts held there would go into a pot to try and pay off the original cost and running of the site not for the benefit of Donny Rovers.

So perhaps if this could be confirmed by someone ;)
Posted by: barralad, November 16, 2014, 10:07pm; Reply: 89
Quoted from arryarryarry



But like I mentioned in another post, who will actually own the ground and surrounding area.

If it is like the Keepmoat for instance, this wasn't built for just the benefit of Doncaster Rovers as they are only leasing it for their home matches, it is used for ladies football and rugby so I would suggest monies from the use of the conference facilities, leisure facilities and even concerts held there would go into a pot to try and pay off the original cost and running of the site not for the benefit of Donny Rovers.

So perhaps if this could be confirmed by someone ;)


You could be right. I guess only time and a few concrete planning documents will tell....
Posted by: BIGChris, November 16, 2014, 10:14pm; Reply: 90
Quoted from arryarryarry



But like I mentioned in another post, who will actually own the ground and surrounding area.

If it is like the Keepmoat for instance, this wasn't built for just the benefit of Doncaster Rovers as they are only leasing it for their home matches, it is used for ladies football and rugby so I would suggest monies from the use of the conference facilities, leisure facilities and even concerts held there would go into a pot to try and pay off the original cost and running of the site not for the benefit of Donny Rovers.

So perhaps if this could be confirmed by someone ;)


My recollection from information given out at least a year ago the concept is that the ground would be owned by a new company, the shareholders being the club & the council. The football club would be given a 100 year+ lease at a peppercorn rent.
I assume all income generated from the 'supporting facilities' would go to the new co?

I may well have got the wrong end of the stick and this bottle of claret is confusing my memory??
Posted by: petethemariner, November 16, 2014, 10:24pm; Reply: 91
Completely agree with this post, we would all love a new stadium, but is it REALLY going to happen? Too
many ifs,buts and 'enabling' factors for my liking, i suppose any BP redevelopment is unlikely to happen
because JF would have to fund a good portion of it and his plans go in different directions to that, sorry to say it,
but we face at least another 8 years of non investment in BP, so god knows what it will look like and MAYBE if
the circumstances are right for ''people of interest' we might get a stadium by 2023
All a bit depressing IMHO.
Posted by: petethemariner, November 16, 2014, 10:28pm; Reply: 92
Sorry, i meant to 'quote' MarinerWY's post but failed - that was the post i was agreeing with.
Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 16, 2014, 10:41pm; Reply: 93
Quoted from BIGChris


My recollection from information given out at least a year ago the concept is that the ground would be owned by a new company, the shareholders being the club & the council. The football club would be given a 100 year+ lease at a peppercorn rent.
I assume all income generated from the 'supporting facilities' would go to the new co?

I may well have got the wrong end of the stick and this bottle of claret is confusing my memory??


That is something like the idea at York I think though that the extra development there is larger.  But the other snag is still the money up front and what future has to be mortgaged to get it.

Someone mentioned what development could be done at BP. They could start by using the area under the Findus that was meant to be the new dressing rooms and gym.



Posted by: arryarryarry, November 16, 2014, 10:58pm; Reply: 94


That is something like the idea at York I think though that the extra development there is larger.  But the other snag is still the money up front and what future has to be mortgaged to get it.

Someone mentioned what development could be done at BP. They could start by using the area under the Findus that was meant to be the new dressing rooms and gym.



I think the York development will be more like the Keepmoat as it will be used by the York Knights as well as York City and other sections of the community so it will not be a cash cow for the Kit Kat men alone.
Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 17, 2014, 8:43am; Reply: 95
Quoted from arryarryarry


I think the York development will be more like the Keepmoat as it will be used by the York Knights as well as York City and other sections of the community so it will not be a cash cow for the Kit Kat men alone.


That's right but I think York City has been appointed to manage all aspects of the stadium business. I don't know if that is for a flat rate fee or a percentage of the takings.

Posted by: promotion plaice, November 19, 2014, 8:36am; Reply: 96
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Grimsby-Town-bosses-talks-housing-developer-Peaks/story-24559152-detail/story.html

Club in talks with housing developer over Parkway stadium plan.
They also hope a major supermarket retailer can join the squad.
Contrary to popular belief, house prices go up when a new stadium is built nearby.
The club hopes to create a 14,000-seater stadium which has the capacity to expand to a 20,000 seat stadium.
The stadium complex could also house a health and wellbeing centre and provide education and training facilities and pitches for other sports including rugby, netball and cricket.
A budget of £22 million has been allocated for the construction of the new stadium.
Club bosses are working on two plans, one of which will deliver 1,488 new homes.
Plan Two would create a subsidy to the club of £5 million from a retail developer and £13 million from housing if around 850 homes were built.
In addition the club is expecting to secure a grant from The Football Foundation.
Posted by: rancido, November 19, 2014, 1:33pm; Reply: 97
It just goes to show how short sighted this council is when you consider their plans for a new pool. They knew town were looking for a new ground so why not approach the club to see if their proposed new swimming pool could be incorporated in GTFC's plan? The land is already owned by the council and with the clubs intention to incorporate other business ventures it would have been a win-win situation for both parties.
Posted by: WOZOFGRIMSBY, November 19, 2014, 2:43pm; Reply: 98
Quoted from rancido
It just goes to show how short sighted this council is when you consider their plans for a new pool. They knew town were looking for a new ground so why not approach the club to see if their proposed new swimming pool could be incorporated in GTFC's plan? The land is already owned by the council and with the clubs intention to incorporate other business ventures it would have been a win-win situation for both parties.


Totally agree and incorporate a gym and you have ready made revenue stream. This Apparantly works really well at Fgr
Posted by: ackomariner, November 19, 2014, 2:50pm; Reply: 99
Quoted from rancido
It just goes to show how short sighted this council is when you consider their plans for a new pool. They knew town were looking for a new ground so why not approach the club to see if their proposed new swimming pool could be incorporated in GTFC's plan? The land is already owned by the council and with the clubs intention to incorporate other business ventures it would have been a win-win situation for both parties.


This, but could the club have approached to council too on the idea..?
Posted by: Mariner Ronnie, November 19, 2014, 5:02pm; Reply: 100
Quoted from promotion plaice
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Grimsby-Town-bosses-talks-housing-developer-Peaks/story-24559152-detail/story.html

Club in talks with housing developer over Parkway stadium plan.
They also hope a major supermarket retailer can join the squad.
Contrary to popular belief, house prices go up when a new stadium is built nearby.
The club hopes to create a 14,000-seater stadium which has the capacity to expand to a 20,000 seat stadium.
The stadium complex could also house a health and wellbeing centre and provide education and training facilities and pitches for other sports including rugby, netball and cricket.
A budget of £22 million has been allocated for the construction of the new stadium.
Club bosses are working on two plans, one of which will deliver 1,488 new homes.
Plan Two would create a subsidy to the club of £5 million from a retail developer and £13 million from housing if around 850 homes were built.
In addition the club is expecting to secure a grant from The Football Foundation.


Champion! I like it :)
Posted by: rancido, November 19, 2014, 8:34pm; Reply: 101
Quoted from ackomariner


This, but could the club have approached to council too on the idea..?


But the council had already made the decision before the club , like the rest of us, found out about the plans for a new pool. The council knew we were looking for a new ground when they discussed the decision to build a new pool. Surely before that decision was made they could have contacted the club to see if the two plans could be merged. It would have been impossible for the GTFC board to have known what the council were planning prior to it being announced.
Posted by: GorgeousGeorge, November 20, 2014, 7:46pm; Reply: 102
Why do councils have to be run by politician wannabe's?  Not an ounce of business sense between them and, coupled to the fact that Grimsby is for some strange reason a labour stronghold, you have a perfect recipe for zero foresight and investment in things that matter.

Can anyone come up with anything positive that our (yours actually, I had the sense to leave) wonderful majority labour council has EVER done that has actually improved the town?
Posted by: Getyourfactsright, November 20, 2014, 8:04pm; Reply: 103
Quoted from ackomariner


This, but could the club have approached to council too on the idea..?


Did so for years. A leisure destination.
Posted by: rancido, November 20, 2014, 8:13pm; Reply: 104
Quoted from Getyourfactsright


Did so for years. A leisure destination.




That shows what DeFreitas and The Great Dictator think about GTFC then!
Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 20, 2014, 8:22pm; Reply: 105
Quoted from rancido




That shows what DeFreitas and The Great Dictator think about GTFC then!


Which all lends weight to the suspicion that a new ground will only ever be built as a 'throw in' as part of a very large and lucrative housing development deal, not necessarily anywhere close to the stadium. Just the sort of thing that The Great Dictator loves for his photo ops.

Posted by: rancido, November 20, 2014, 8:26pm; Reply: 106


Which all lends weight to the suspicion that a new ground will only ever be built as a 'throw in' as part of a very large and lucrative housing development deal, not necessarily anywhere close to the stadium. Just the sort of thing that The Great Dictator loves for his photo ops.




Agreed but if the land is going to be developed anyway then why not get in on the act. If it's the only way we can get a new ground then surely " the end justifies the means ".
Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 20, 2014, 9:20pm; Reply: 107
Quoted from rancido



Agreed but if the land is going to be developed anyway then why not get in on the act. If it's the only way we can get a new ground then surely " the end justifies the means ".


I just like people to tell the truth. :)

Posted by: GorgeousGeorge, November 20, 2014, 9:51pm; Reply: 108
***laughter***, a negative vote for daring to criticise the Labour Party.  Well my friend, your negative vote carries about the same weight as a vote at the next GE for the Labour Party will.  Zilch!!
Print page generated: March 29, 2024, 12:23pm