|
Post by pucklegas on May 25, 2018 17:38:15 GMT
More chance of Lionel Messi and mo Salah wearing the quarters 😂😂 some people live on Fantasy island, Da Da plane ok Boss
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on May 25, 2018 17:56:25 GMT
Anyone out there with video editing skills. Specifically soundtracks. I'm thinking 'dead parrot'sketch with 'parrot' replaced by 'UWE' Im Not Dead I guess you are not a Norwegian Blue then?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 25, 2018 18:22:53 GMT
Im Not Dead I guess you are not a Norwegian Blue then? Recent picture of parrot
|
|
|
Post by CostaBlancaGas on May 25, 2018 18:58:33 GMT
No he’s just resting after his long squawk!!!
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 25, 2018 19:08:57 GMT
Why would UWE want, or need a 200 room Hotel? Who do we know that owns Hotels? Are UWE trying to tempt us with PP? Given the original plans were submitted in 2012 then I guess trying to tempt us hasn't worked do far? Original plans
So why did UWE resubmit the plans?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 25, 2018 19:23:54 GMT
Given the original plans were submitted in 2012 then I guess trying to tempt us hasn't worked do far? Original plans
So why did UWE resubmit the plans? I assume so they can start putting up the 39 signs mentioned in the "Covering letter" shown under the "Documents" tab: "We have been instructed to submit an application to discharge condition 20 of permission PT12/3809 for the UWE masterplan. This condition relates to the signage scheme and is submitted alongside the advertisement consent for the erection of 39 wayfinding and direction signs to be erected in a number of locations throughout Frenchay Campus. The proposal is part of a wider cross campus scheme to improve the current signage and wayfinding strategy" All three documents only refer to "signage" there's no mention of meeting any other of the conditions still outstanding on the original 2012 plans being discharged.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on May 25, 2018 19:53:37 GMT
They are trying to tempt us back.
Build a hotel, bars, restaurants, car park, gym,, and leave a big empty green square in the middle for mixed use and recreational/sporting facilities.
|
|
|
Post by popuppirate on May 25, 2018 20:08:01 GMT
It was early August when the uwe news was broken to us in drastic fashion. I do think the uwe is being considered, even as far as contact between the two parties. Doesn't mean an agreement is any closer but no one knows for sure. Our owners won't sell us up the river, that I'm glad about.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on May 25, 2018 20:22:16 GMT
The application to discharge planning condition for signage has been submitted by UWE because the planning permission on this site has expired and therefore the signage condition is not required any more. This can be applied for under section 106 of the Town and Country planning act. I used to work as a senior landscape and arb officer and consultant to planning so do understand a bit about this. So basically the stadium being built on the UWE site IS DEAD IN THE WATER as Wael said it was. The club would not want to build a stadium on land they don't own as it can be open to charges by the land owner which could rise in time. This is why the owners are looking at redeveloping the Mem as they own the site and are not subject to charges. The club didn't own Eastville look what happened there rents went up and the club had to move out. why invest large sums of money into something you do not fully own?. I have to disagree with you about ownership wertongas and the reason I'm posting again about this is that I think at some stage Rovers fans may have to accept that the club will be playing at a ground it doesn't own. As someone who may be often seen as an "anti" person I'd like to reinforce the points I've made before because in this case I would certainly be "pro" Rovers being tenants in a stadium if it meant the football club could progress to Championship level and beyond. You mentioned Eastville and I suppose all that needs to be said there is that as tenants at Eastville Rovers enjoyed the most successful times in our history. What happened at the end was more down to lack of planning and foresight on the part of Rovers' owners than anything else. When you operate from leased premises you have to plan years ahead and either renegotiate a new lease in good time or find a new home. At the outset you must also be careful to negotiate a lease which fully meets your ongoing business needs and which gives you adequate protection. Millions of successful companies all over the World are tenants and make the conscious decision to invest in their business rather than land, bricks and mortar. We already know the high profile football clubs who are tenants, led by Manchester City and Chelsea, but what about other well known companies ? John Lewis, Next, Boots, PC World are all tenants of Prudential at The Mall Cribbs Causeway and have invested to make the premises they lease attractive and functional because that is essential for the businesses to succeed. Those companies allocate their cash to rent, stock holding, marketing and business development rather than land and buildings. On the other hand Prudential allocate their cash to land and buildings because that is the way their business model works to provide satisfactory returns for investors. From sole traders, through large private and public companies right up to the Government itself the concept of leasing premises often makes sense and is not something to be frightened of or hold in contempt. What I am saying in essence is that if Rovers have limited financial resources they should prioritize the football business as opposed to the property business.
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on May 25, 2018 20:54:02 GMT
The application to discharge planning condition for signage has been submitted by UWE because the planning permission on this site has expired and therefore the signage condition is not required any more. This can be applied for under section 106 of the Town and Country planning act. I used to work as a senior landscape and arb officer and consultant to planning so do understand a bit about this. So basically the stadium being built on the UWE site IS DEAD IN THE WATER as Wael said it was. The club would not want to build a stadium on land they don't own as it can be open to charges by the land owner which could rise in time. This is why the owners are looking at redeveloping the Mem as they own the site and are not subject to charges. The club didn't own Eastville look what happened there rents went up and the club had to move out. why invest large sums of money into something you do not fully own?. I have to disagree with you about ownership wertongas and the reason I'm posting again about this is that I think at some stage Rovers fans may have to accept that the club will be playing at a ground it doesn't own. As someone who may be often seen as an "anti" person I'd like to reinforce the points I've made before because in this case I would certainly be "pro" Rovers being tenants in a stadium if it meant the football club could progress to Championship level and beyond. You mentioned Eastville and I suppose all that needs to be said there is that as tenants at Eastville Rovers enjoyed the most successful times in our history. What happened at the end was more down to lack of planning and foresight on the part of Rovers' owners than anything else. When you operate from leased premises you have to plan years ahead and either renegotiate a new lease in good time or find a new home. At the outset you must also be careful to negotiate a lease which fully meets your ongoing business needs and which gives you adequate protection. Millions of successful companies all over the World are tenants and make the conscious decision to invest in their business rather than land, bricks and mortar. We already know the high profile football clubs who are tenants, led by Manchester City and Chelsea, but what about other well known companies ? John Lewis, Next, Boots, PC World are all tenants of Prudential at The Mall Cribbs Causeway and have invested to make the premises they lease attractive and functional because that is essential for the businesses to succeed. Those companies allocate their cash to rent, stock holding, marketing and business development rather than land and buildings. On the other hand Prudential allocate their cash to land and buildings because that is the way their business model works to provide satisfactory returns for investors. From sole traders, through large private and public companies right up to the Government itself the concept of leasing premises often makes sense and is not something to be frightened of or hold in contempt. What I am saying in essence is that if Rovers have limited financial resources they should prioritize the football business as opposed to the property business. That my friend is a very good post....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2018 21:33:04 GMT
You not tempted to change the thread title Greg’s? Gwan you know you wanna!
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 25, 2018 21:52:52 GMT
The application to discharge planning condition for signage has been submitted by UWE because the planning permission on this site has expired and therefore the signage condition is not required any more. This can be applied for under section 106 of the Town and Country planning act. I used to work as a senior landscape and arb officer and consultant to planning so do understand a bit about this. So basically the stadium being built on the UWE site IS DEAD IN THE WATER as Wael said it was. The club would not want to build a stadium on land they don't own as it can be open to charges by the land owner which could rise in time. This is why the owners are looking at redeveloping the Mem as they own the site and are not subject to charges. The club didn't own Eastville look what happened there rents went up and the club had to move out. why invest large sums of money into something you do not fully own?. I have to disagree with you about ownership wertongas and the reason I'm posting again about this is that I think at some stage Rovers fans may have to accept that the club will be playing at a ground it doesn't own. As someone who may be often seen as an "anti" person I'd like to reinforce the points I've made before because in this case I would certainly be "pro" Rovers being tenants in a stadium if it meant the football club could progress to Championship level and beyond. You mentioned Eastville and I suppose all that needs to be said there is that as tenants at Eastville Rovers enjoyed the most successful times in our history. What happened at the end was more down to lack of planning and foresight on the part of Rovers' owners than anything else. When you operate from leased premises you have to plan years ahead and either renegotiate a new lease in good time or find a new home. At the outset you must also be careful to negotiate a lease which fully meets your ongoing business needs and which gives you adequate protection. Millions of successful companies all over the World are tenants and make the conscious decision to invest in their business rather than land, bricks and mortar. We already know the high profile football clubs who are tenants, led by Manchester City and Chelsea, but what about other well known companies ? John Lewis, Next, Boots, PC World are all tenants of Prudential at The Mall Cribbs Causeway and have invested to make the premises they lease attractive and functional because that is essential for the businesses to succeed. Those companies allocate their cash to rent, stock holding, marketing and business development rather than land and buildings. On the other hand Prudential allocate their cash to land and buildings because that is the way their business model works to provide satisfactory returns for investors. From sole traders, through large private and public companies right up to the Government itself the concept of leasing premises often makes sense and is not something to be frightened of or hold in contempt. What I am saying in essence is that if Rovers have limited financial resources they should prioritize the football business as opposed to the property business. I wonder if somebody posted something similar on Coventry's forum a few years ago? The Eithad Stadium is owned by Manchester council and Chelsea's by some fans organisation so neither of those will ever evict the clubs. Perhaps the stumbling block with the UWE was the ALQ's couldn't come to an agreement to secure Rovers long term future we just don't know. As far as John Lewis if the Mall owners ever put up the rents to high they always could find a new site nearby that isn't so easy for a football club, as we found to our cost when we had to move to Twerton.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,475
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 25, 2018 22:29:51 GMT
Any leasing arrangement will have to have safeguards inbuilt to prevent such a situation where we are priced out. It can be done with goodwill on both sides.
My personal view, which I've suggested a few times on here before, is that if there is a new build then ownership won't be with 1883 but as another subsidiary under Dwane Sports.
That would allow the Mem to be sold either as debt repayment or as a part payment on the new build.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on May 26, 2018 9:10:47 GMT
The application to discharge planning condition for signage has been submitted by UWE because the planning permission on this site has expired and therefore the signage condition is not required any more. This can be applied for under section 106 of the Town and Country planning act. I used to work as a senior landscape and arb officer and consultant to planning so do understand a bit about this. So basically the stadium being built on the UWE site IS DEAD IN THE WATER as Wael said it was. The club would not want to build a stadium on land they don't own as it can be open to charges by the land owner which could rise in time. This is why the owners are looking at redeveloping the Mem as they own the site and are not subject to charges. The club didn't own Eastville look what happened there rents went up and the club had to move out. why invest large sums of money into something you do not fully own?. I have to disagree with you about ownership wertongas and the reason I'm posting again about this is that I think at some stage Rovers fans may have to accept that the club will be playing at a ground it doesn't own. As someone who may be often seen as an "anti" person I'd like to reinforce the points I've made before because in this case I would certainly be "pro" Rovers being tenants in a stadium if it meant the football club could progress to Championship level and beyond. You mentioned Eastville and I suppose all that needs to be said there is that as tenants at Eastville Rovers enjoyed the most successful times in our history. What happened at the end was more down to lack of planning and foresight on the part of Rovers' owners than anything else. When you operate from leased premises you have to plan years ahead and either renegotiate a new lease in good time or find a new home. At the outset you must also be careful to negotiate a lease which fully meets your ongoing business needs and which gives you adequate protection. Millions of successful companies all over the World are tenants and make the conscious decision to invest in their business rather than land, bricks and mortar. We already know the high profile football clubs who are tenants, led by Manchester City and Chelsea, but what about other well known companies ? John Lewis, Next, Boots, PC World are all tenants of Prudential at The Mall Cribbs Causeway and have invested to make the premises they lease attractive and functional because that is essential for the businesses to succeed. Those companies allocate their cash to rent, stock holding, marketing and business development rather than land and buildings. On the other hand Prudential allocate their cash to land and buildings because that is the way their business model works to provide satisfactory returns for investors. From sole traders, through large private and public companies right up to the Government itself the concept of leasing premises often makes sense and is not something to be frightened of or hold in contempt. What I am saying in essence is that if Rovers have limited financial resources they should prioritize the football business as opposed to the property business. The difference is of course that commercial retail units are more readily available than football stadia. The problem at Eastville was a change of landlord, something which tenants have no opportunity to plan for. Its an unmitigatable risk. Just ask Newport County: www.southwalesargus.co.uk/sport/15185108.ANDREW_PENMAN__WRU_plans_cast_big_doubt_over_Newport_County_s_future_at_Rodney_Parade/
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 26, 2018 9:38:40 GMT
I have to disagree with you about ownership wertongas and the reason I'm posting again about this is that I think at some stage Rovers fans may have to accept that the club will be playing at a ground it doesn't own. As someone who may be often seen as an "anti" person I'd like to reinforce the points I've made before because in this case I would certainly be "pro" Rovers being tenants in a stadium if it meant the football club could progress to Championship level and beyond. You mentioned Eastville and I suppose all that needs to be said there is that as tenants at Eastville Rovers enjoyed the most successful times in our history. What happened at the end was more down to lack of planning and foresight on the part of Rovers' owners than anything else. When you operate from leased premises you have to plan years ahead and either renegotiate a new lease in good time or find a new home. At the outset you must also be careful to negotiate a lease which fully meets your ongoing business needs and which gives you adequate protection. Millions of successful companies all over the World are tenants and make the conscious decision to invest in their business rather than land, bricks and mortar. We already know the high profile football clubs who are tenants, led by Manchester City and Chelsea, but what about other well known companies ? John Lewis, Next, Boots, PC World are all tenants of Prudential at The Mall Cribbs Causeway and have invested to make the premises they lease attractive and functional because that is essential for the businesses to succeed. Those companies allocate their cash to rent, stock holding, marketing and business development rather than land and buildings. On the other hand Prudential allocate their cash to land and buildings because that is the way their business model works to provide satisfactory returns for investors. From sole traders, through large private and public companies right up to the Government itself the concept of leasing premises often makes sense and is not something to be frightened of or hold in contempt. What I am saying in essence is that if Rovers have limited financial resources they should prioritize the football business as opposed to the property business. The difference is of course that commercial retail units are more readily available than football stadia. The problem at Eastville was a change of landlord, something which tenants have no opportunity to plan for. Its an unmitigatable risk. Just ask Newport County: www.southwalesargus.co.uk/sport/15185108.ANDREW_PENMAN__WRU_plans_cast_big_doubt_over_Newport_County_s_future_at_Rodney_Parade/Eastville Stadium was always owned by the Bristol Stadium company, who's main shareholders were always the Stevens family. Just the £ signs seems to have decided the change in direction from sports stadium to retail development. Who's to say the UWE wouldn't sooner have an extended Abby Wood retail park on their own land in 25/50 years, when our lease came up for renewal?
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on May 26, 2018 9:48:49 GMT
Eastville Stadium was always owned by the Bristol Stadium company, who's main shareholders were always the Stevens family. Just the £ signs seems to have decided the change in direction from sports stadium to retail development. Who's to say the UWE wouldn't sooner have an extended Abby Wood retail park on their own land in 25/50 years, when our lease came up for renewal? Was it not a 99 year lease originally?
|
|
|
Post by peterhooper57 on May 26, 2018 10:16:15 GMT
Ffs Waq has clearly told us BRFC have walked away from any potential agreement with the UWE. Waq says he intends, at some stage in the future ("evolution strategy"), on a piecemeal basis, to refurbish the MEM; therefore, why do people still talk about building a stadium at the UWE ?
|
|
|
Post by gas2 on May 26, 2018 10:18:55 GMT
Eastville Stadium was always owned by the Bristol Stadium company, who's main shareholders were always the Stevens family. Just the £ signs seems to have decided the change in direction from sports stadium to retail development. Who's to say the UWE wouldn't sooner have an extended Abby Wood retail park on their own land in 25/50 years, when our lease came up for renewal? Retail is dead now look at the high street and out of town shops closed down
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 26, 2018 10:19:29 GMT
Ffs Waq has clearly told us BRFC have walked away from any potential agreement with the UWE. Waq says he intends, at some stage in the future ("evolution strategy"), on a piecemeal basis, to refurbish the MEM; therefore, why do people still talk about building a stadium at the UWE ? Because some think that a very rich American consortium will buy us soon and build us a 50,000 covered stadium with parking for 10,000 cars pigs are out flying again
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 26, 2018 10:27:44 GMT
Eastville Stadium was always owned by the Bristol Stadium company, who's main shareholders were always the Stevens family. Just the £ signs seems to have decided the change in direction from sports stadium to retail development. Who's to say the UWE wouldn't sooner have an extended Abby Wood retail park on their own land in 25/50 years, when our lease came up for renewal? Was it not a 99 year lease originally? Nobody really knows but apparently there was never a contract in place in any event, so what was ever agreed with NH could have been different once it came to draw up an agreement with the ALQ's.
|
|