|
Post by curlywurly on Jun 6, 2024 11:54:45 GMT
Figure 1 in M... A......'s BRISTOL TREE FORUM comments was taken from the area of land under the ownership of the club. Is it the case that this lower area of land has only one legal point of entry? Is it the case that the club have given permission for the person(s) involved in producing the comments from the BTF to enter their property? Or is it conceivable that the writer(s) of the report entered the property without permission? BTF are at it again. Exaggerated claims about original tree removal have never been backed up with evidence (indeed there is photographic evidence that disputes these claims). They're now claiming Trees T4 and T5 have been removed, but their own photo - taken by a trespasser(?) - shows T4 and T5 still in place. They seem to have assumed some sort of psuedo-statutory powers, whilst they are nothing of the sort. Problem is, with a Green party majority in Bristol, BTF will get even greater influence.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jun 6, 2024 19:11:11 GMT
Figure 1 in M... A......'s BRISTOL TREE FORUM comments was taken from the area of land under the ownership of the club. Is it the case that this lower area of land has only one legal point of entry? Is it the case that the club have given permission for the person(s) involved in producing the comments from the BTF to enter their property? Or is it conceivable that the writer(s) of the report entered the property without permission? BTF are at it again. Exaggerated claims about original tree removal have never been backed up with evidence (indeed there is photographic evidence that disputes these claims). There now claiming Trees T4 and T5 have been removed, but their own photo - taken by a trespasser(?) - shows T4 and T5 still in place. They seem to have assumed some sort of psuedo-statutory powers, whilst they are nothing of the sort. Problem is, with a Green party majority in Bristol, BTF will get even greater influence. Why would they claim trees T4 and T5 have been removed if, as you claim, their own photos show they haven't? You might not like these people but I would dare to suggest they are not congenital liars. They are there to protect what they see as valid interests from developers and landowners who might not be quite so fussy about lopping a few trees down. And making stuff up will not go down well when they present their evidence of potential wrongdoing. All the people on here who condemn organisations like the BTF would think differently if trees at the bottom of their garden were chopped down to reveal the glories of a new three storey block of flats. Oh and the trespassing thing is just a new Gaschat Fact, which doesn't make it true or necessarily even plausible.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 6, 2024 20:30:12 GMT
Figure 1 in M... A......'s BRISTOL TREE FORUM comments was taken from the area of land under the ownership of the club. Is it the case that this lower area of land has only one legal point of entry? Is it the case that the club have given permission for the person(s) involved in producing the comments from the BTF to enter their property? Or is it conceivable that the writer(s) of the report entered the property without permission? BTF are at it again. Exaggerated claims about original tree removal have never been backed up with evidence (indeed there is photographic evidence that disputes these claims). There now claiming Trees T4 and T5 have been removed, but their own photo - taken by a trespasser(?) - shows T4 and T5 still in place. They seem to have assumed some sort of psuedo-statutory powers, whilst they are nothing of the sort. Problem is, with a Green party majority in Bristol, BTF will get even greater influence. Today's Bristol Live as an article confirming 3 blocks of student flats in Bedminster have got pp, the local residents objections that it would affect the local bat run etc were rejected. You do wonder whether the Green Party does have any major influence over planning.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Jun 6, 2024 22:38:28 GMT
BTF are at it again. Exaggerated claims about original tree removal have never been backed up with evidence (indeed there is photographic evidence that disputes these claims). There now claiming Trees T4 and T5 have been removed, but their own photo - taken by a trespasser(?) - shows T4 and T5 still in place. They seem to have assumed some sort of psuedo-statutory powers, whilst they are nothing of the sort. Problem is, with a Green party majority in Bristol, BTF will get even greater influence. Why would they claim trees T4 and T5 have been removed if, as you claim, their own photos show they haven't? You might not like these people but I would dare to suggest they are not congenital liars. They are there to protect what they see as valid interests from developers and landowners who might not be quite so fussy about lopping a few trees down. And making stuff up will not go down well when they present their evidence of potential wrongdoing. All the people on here who condemn organisations like the BTF would think differently if trees at the bottom of their garden were chopped down to reveal the glories of a new three storey block of flats. Oh and the trespassing thing is just a new Gaschat Fact, which doesn't make it true or necessarily even plausible. Just look at the photo.
I'm sure the individual members of the organisation are nice people. My point is that their zealous behaviour gets in the way of their objectivity - like most of us when it comes to Rovers, no doubt. They purport to be expert in their field and in many ways they are, but they have a history of making basic errors that undermines their cause.
|
|
|
Post by albaron on Jun 10, 2024 15:58:01 GMT
Is it me ? I am simply not interested in a new screen. Sooner have a nicer stadium and a good team. When we had one before I ever hardly watched it and when I did it did'nt really full me with joy.
|
|
|
Post by kruger on Jun 10, 2024 17:40:18 GMT
Is it me ? I am simply not interested in a new screen. Sooner have a nicer stadium and a good team. When we had one before I ever hardly watched it and when I did it did'nt really full me with joy. Iim.interested in improving the ground as much as possible, we won't be getting a new one that's for sure
|
|
|
Post by Rovers 12th Man on Jun 10, 2024 17:51:19 GMT
Is it me ? I am simply not interested in a new screen. Sooner have a nicer stadium and a good team. When we had one before I ever hardly watched it and when I did it did'nt really full me with joy. It might not be the most exciting thing ever but it’s another step in the right direction and will make the stadium look a bit better and possibly even generate some advertising revenue depending on what we put on it. Just typical that I’ve just moved my ST from the Thatchers Terrace to the West Stand so won’t be able to see it!
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 10, 2024 18:19:02 GMT
Is it me ? I am simply not interested in a new screen. Sooner have a nicer stadium and a good team. When we had one before I ever hardly watched it and when I did it did'nt really full me with joy. New screen £10K(?), new ground £50m(?), good L1 team, £5m(?), I see why the owners have decided to.install a new screen! Although you'd hope any new stadium would also have one anyway.
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jun 11, 2024 5:54:21 GMT
Is it me ? I am simply not interested in a new screen. Sooner have a nicer stadium and a good team. When we had one before I ever hardly watched it and when I did it did'nt really full me with joy. New screen £10K(?), new ground £50m(?), good L1 team, £5m(?), I see why the owners have decided to.install a new screen! Although you'd hope any new stadium would also have one anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of the screen project is 10 x that.
|
|
|
Post by Wembley_Gas on Jun 11, 2024 7:17:38 GMT
New screen £10K(?), new ground £50m(?), good L1 team, £5m(?), I see why the owners have decided to.install a new screen! Although you'd hope any new stadium would also have one anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of the screen project is 10 x that. They are preparing for the football to be dull…it’s the broadcast licence for Netflix, Amazon Prime and Paramount Plus that costs the money.
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jun 11, 2024 9:48:36 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of the screen project is 10 x that. They are preparing for the football to be dull…it’s the broadcast licence for Netflix, Amazon Prime and Paramount Plus that costs the money. Its interesting that you mention this. I was thinking to myself this morning, would this open up streaming games back to the Mem and then being able to stand on the Thatchers with a pint to watch it? In the summer months, would this open up an outdoor screening of a movie? We might be able to borrow Harry Kane's dodgy firestick.
|
|
|
Post by fatherbrown on Jun 11, 2024 11:17:55 GMT
Is it me ? I am simply not interested in a new screen. Sooner have a nicer stadium and a good team. When we had one before I ever hardly watched it and when I did it did'nt really full me with joy. I like a big screen, although I won't be able to see it as I stand near the tunnel on the West Enclosure, at least I won't be on the "kiss cam" at half time.
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Jun 11, 2024 20:40:06 GMT
Anything about the East stand?
|
|
|
Post by Gasshole on Jun 11, 2024 21:03:03 GMT
Anything about the East stand? East Stand will go through easy……. No trees , neighbours or blue tits over there. Build it big , do it once , do it right ……Championship ready.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Trevor on Jun 17, 2024 15:32:15 GMT
Just For Your Information
Application Validated Date
Wednesday 1st May 2024
Actual Committee Date
Neighbour Consultation Expiry Date
Tuesday 28th May 2024
Standard Consultation Expiry Date
Latest Advertisement Expiry Date
Latest Site Notice Expiry Date
Wednesday 12th June 2024
Agreed Expiry Date Permission Expiry Date Determination Deadline Date
Wednesday 26th June 2024
Temporary Permission Expiry Date
(More details to follow)
|
|
|
Post by strads1983 on Jun 19, 2024 20:12:13 GMT
From Martin Samuels in the Times today. Didn’t know this about a premier league grant for new stand. From starmers and debbonairs visit to the mem:
“A club like this, it’s not the wealthiest in the world, and it wants to be able to invest in infrastructure,” she said. “It wants to be able to make sure that facilities are good for the future. That does take money, so I’m going to look at absolutely everything that might help increase the financial sustainability.”
And who owns poor, impoverished Bristol Rovers? That would be poor, impoverished Hussain AlSaeed, the former treasury and investment manager at the Commercial Bank of Kuwait, former assistant general manager at Kuwait Investment International Company, and founder of the Al Elmam Estate Company in 1993, which has developed housing, shopping malls, offices, hotels and restaurants, becoming one of the biggest players in Kuwait’s property market.
All of which, presumably, was achieved without a handout from Brighton & Hove Albion. So quite why AlSaeed needs one now to develop Bristol Rovers hasn’t been adequately explained — by Debbonaire, Starmer or anyone else. Rovers did, however, get a stand rebuilt with a £750,000 grant from the Premier League Stadium Fund, a fact that also seems to have passed them all by.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 19, 2024 20:59:37 GMT
Not sure our Hussain AlSaeed is the same Kuwaiti who worked at the bank, plus there's zero evidence he's one of the biggest players in the Kuwait property market, if he was then I doubt funding Rovers would be an issue, as he's surely be a multi billionaire? Although what's is wealth got to do with Rovers, why should he spend his own money redeveloping the Mem when the likes of BHA are regularly spending £50m on mediocre players? I've no idea where the info came from about the £750K grant, is one even available to league clubs as I thought only non league clubs now had access to such grants premierleaguestadiumfund.co.uk/(perhaps the woman's team are now entitled to such a grant, although no idea what tier they are at?)
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Jun 20, 2024 9:32:48 GMT
They are preparing for the football to be dull…it’s the broadcast licence for Netflix, Amazon Prime and Paramount Plus that costs the money. Its interesting that you mention this. I was thinking to myself this morning, would this open up streaming games back to the Mem and then being able to stand on the Thatchers with a pint to watch it?
In the summer months, would this open up an outdoor screening of a movie?
We might be able to borrow Harry Kane's dodgy firestick. In theory yes, in reality it's probably too small to comfortably watch from that distance for 90 minutes. If the plans are accurate our screen will be 13m x 4m wide - and around 70m from the North terrace. For comparison these screens in the Nou Camp are 12m x 6m and positioned about 20-30m from the stands - much better for watching for prolonged periods of time
|
|
|
Post by Sir Trevor on Jun 30, 2024 20:00:47 GMT
Just For Your Information
Application Validated Date
Wednesday 1st May 2024
Actual Committee Date
Neighbour Consultation Expiry Date
Tuesday 28th May 2024
Standard Consultation Expiry Date
Latest Advertisement Expiry Date
Latest Site Notice Expiry Date
Wednesday 12th June 2024
Agreed Expiry Date
Monday 1st July 2024
Permission Expiry Date
Determination Deadline Date
Wednesday 26th June 2024
Temporary Permission Expiry Date
(More details to follow)
|
|
|
Post by Sir Trevor on Jul 1, 2024 18:52:15 GMT
Application Validated Date Wednesday 1st May 2024
Actual Committee Date ***********************
Neighbour Consultation Expiry Date Tuesday 28th May 2024
Standard Consultation Expiry Date Thursday 11th Jul 2024
Latest Advertisement Expiry Date ***********************
Latest Site Notice Expiry Date Wednesday 12th June 2024
Agreed Expiry Date Monday 1st July 2024
Decision Issued Date Monday 1st July 2024
Permission Expiry Date *******************
Determination Deadline Wednesday 26th June 2024
Temporary Permission Expiry Date **********************
|
|