The faithful are getting worried.
Culled from today's Mail.
IN a couple of weeks' time councillors will be asked to vote on the transfer of Victoria Park to Hartlepool United FC.
Before you cast that vote just have a think.
It's not only about that part of it, the vote will decide if the Mill House area is regenerated and tidied up. Many partners have come forward (colleges, Gus Robinson, Camerons) to say they want to be involved with it.
Do you want to say "no" to that type of investment? New student accommodation, the leisure centre having money invest- ed into it to smarten it up and take it forward for the next couple of decades at the least.
The Odeon purchased and an eye-sore finally taken out of sight.
This is what you're turning down if you vote against this plan.
But just remember, if you vote "no" you're saying you want the Odeon to stand in its current state.
You may be voting in a few years to come for the closure of the leisure centre (will Hartlepool Borough Council have the finances to keep it open?).
If it closes down in years to come not one councillor who votes "no" can blame whatever government is in power when you need to make more cuts and the leisure centre has to be closed.
It will be your fault for refusing this opportunity to make sure it's there in years to come and therefore the services the people of the town use remain here.
Do you want to be part of a council that closes down more services within the town?
If your answer to that is no then you have to vote for this plan for the Mill House area.
lf you vote against it then l, for one, will remind you in years to come that you, as a council, signed its death warrant and not any government.
Do you want the colleges to attract more students and therefore bring more money into the town and local businesses?
If yes then you have to vote for this plan.
If not then you may well be putting more people within the town on the unemployment figures.
Do you want that?
Put your party allegiances to one side.
You were elected to serve the town, not a party
. A "yes" vote shows that you're committed to doing what is best for the town.
It's your choice so think it over strongly. But you know at the end of the day you have to give this plan your support.
I forgot to add it is from the letters page.
What a ridiculously loaded statement. It is shameless and blinkered. What about the potential negatives, Mill House pool is currently a great community asset, will it go the way of the Studio and become another trendy student facility that Joe public is not quite posh enough to feel comfortable in. The ODEON is a monument to our picture house past, it will be criminal if the building is lost and becomes another set of sticky tape houses with a Greggs and a Ladbrokes taped onto the end of it. The cinema was built as a vision to entertain our nation, the pool a facility for the common man and child. This era will go down in history as the one where nobody valued anything but capitalist greed and cherished nothing but a life of fake embellishment .
RC from Ashgrove Avenue
He did but I don't want to use it-he never asked for it to be posted here!
There is a reference to it on The Bunker that reveals his posting ID- 'Fetish'
IN a couple of weeks' time councillors will be asked to vote on the transfer of Victoria Park to Hartlepool United FC.
If the transfer takes place, the Transfer may be to HUFC - but ownership will be with IOR
Before you cast that vote just have a think.
It's not only about that part of it, the vote will decide if the Mill House area is regenerated and tidied up. Many partners have come forward (colleges, Gus Robinson, Camerons) to say they want to be involved with it.
Many Partners, Gus Robinson - the company is the preferred bidder to bring to fruition whatever is decided - Stands to make quite a bit of profit from it - cos thats what businesses do.
Do you want to say "no" to that type of investment? New student accommodation, the leisure centre having money invest- ed into it to smarten it up and take it forward for the next couple of decades at the least.
By wrapping everything in together, it makes it more difficult to take a cold, balanced look at parts of the bid. So undoubtedly some parts that would not in themselves get support may do. Only time will tell if this is for good or bad. Either way it will be too late, because a decision will have been made.
The Odeon purchased and an eye-sore finally taken out of sight.
The Wilki's given a large piece of public money to buy them off, when they should have been prosecuted for leaving the Odeon to cause so much distress to so many people living around it, for so many years. The Seaton Development Plan proposes something similar.
This is what you're turning down if you vote against this plan.
But just remember, if you vote "no" you're saying you want the Odeon to stand in its current state.
NOT TRUE - The owners of the Odeon should be prosecuted and the building taken into public ownership so that it can either be demolished or renovated.
You may be voting in a few years to come for the closure of the leisure centre (will Hartlepool Borough Council have the finances to keep it open?).
The Council may be voting to close more than the leisure centre, so whats the difference?
If it closes down in years to come not one councillor who votes "no" can blame whatever government is in power when you need to make more cuts and the leisure centre has to be closed.
Again NOT TRUE - until a decision is taken there is no way of knowing whether it proves to be right or wrong
It will be your fault for refusing this opportunity to make sure it's there in years to come and therefore the services the people of the town use remain here.
No Guarantees either way, if the facilities are built, will the people of the town use them? Will they be able to afford to use them? No crystal ball
Do you want to be part of a council that closes down more services within the town?
If your answer to that is no then you have to vote for this plan for the Mill House area.
NOT SO SIMPLE
lf you vote against it then l, for one, will remind you in years to come that you, as a council, signed its death warrant and not any government.
Is this the death warrant for the "development plan" or the club?
Do you want the colleges to attract more students and therefore bring more money into the town and local businesses?
Of course, but one does not necessarily rely on the other!
If yes then you have to vote for this plan.
If not then you may well be putting more people within the town on the unemployment figures.
Do you want that?
If the Council does agree, they might still be putting people on the dole, starting with those currently employed by the Club, when IOR sell the ground and move on, money in pocket
Oh to live in such a simplistic world
Put your party allegiances to one side.
You were elected to serve the town, not a party
You should be ashamed of yourself, its not that many years ago, you were one of the front campaigners to retain firefighters right to free dental treatment, the people you are attacking were those who stood alongside you on the picket line. For those who didn't understand the argument then and probably don't understand the argument now. "A firefighter cannot hold the mouthpiece on breathing apparatus safely when wearing dentures."
A "yes" vote shows that you're committed to doing what is best for the town.
Commitment to the town, is not the same thing as commitment to the club, or IOR. You have obviously been "blinded by the light" and need to have a rest in a darkened room.
It's your choice so think it over strongly. But you know at the end of the day you have to give this plan your support.
I make no assumptions either way. What I do know is, there is no room on Brinkburn Field for a football club.
If IOR pull out, sell up, raise money against what would then be their asset and ultimately default, the club, the land and the ground are all gone.
WHO WILL YOU BLAME THEN?
So it's a 'no' from the Labour party?
Again, despite complimenting me on the post, you then accompanied by others jump in an make assumptions again.
At no point in my post have I said that I speak on behalf of anyone other than myself.
Also at no point have I said I am for or against the proposal.
What I have done, is to flag up a number of issues that would need to be discussed and resolved before anyone holds their hand up to vote in either direction.
Quote from: Straight Talking on May 23, 2012, 06: AM
If not then you may well be putting more people within the town on the unemployment figures.
Do you want that?
If the Council does agree, they might still be putting people on the dole, starting with those currently employed by the Club, when IOR sell the ground and move on, money in pocket
So, you either haven't read the report or, if you have, are choosing to ignore certain parts of it in order to try and make a point which suits you? Which do we think it is? ::)
The report says that, should the plan be approved, HBC would have first option to buy back the ground and land for ZERO consideration, i.e. they would get it back FOR NOWT if HUFC / IOR ever wanted rid of it. Yet you still make claims that they could sell up and pocket a wad of cash.
Why does EVERYBODY who is set against this plan for whatever reason they want (probably personal reasons with regards not liking the mayor or hating football) ignore this part. Surely the only reason is because it doesn't suit their argument?
Quote from: Donkey Kong on May 23, 2012, 08: AM
Quote from: Straight Talking on May 23, 2012, 06: AM
If not then you may well be putting more people within the town on the unemployment figures.
Do you want that?
If the Council does agree, they might still be putting people on the dole, starting with those currently employed by the Club, when IOR sell the ground and move on, money in pocket
So, you either haven't read the report or, if you have, are choosing to ignore certain parts of it in order to try and make a point which suits you? Which do we think it is? ::)
The report says that, should the plan be approved, HBC would have first option to buy back the ground and land for ZERO consideration, i.e. they would get it back FOR NOWT if HUFC / IOR ever wanted rid of it. Yet you still make claims that they could sell up and pocket a wad of cash.
Why does EVERYBODY who is set against this plan for whatever reason they want (probably personal reasons with regards not liking the mayor or hating football) ignore this part. Surely the only reason is because it doesn't suit their argument?
I could say the same thing, you are selective in which bits of the report you give weight too.
1. I don't hate the Mayor
2. I do like football
Once an asset is on the balance sheet of a company, it is traded, borrowed against etc. Whilst the intentions are clear, they may not be enforceable. If IOR uses the ground to raise money, for some other part of their company, which then fails, would we know about it until it was too late?
Sceptical I might be - biased I am not.
Quote from: Straight Talking on May 23, 2012, 10: AM
Once an asset is on the balance sheet of a company, it is traded, borrowed against etc. Whilst the intentions are clear, they may not be enforceable. If IOR uses the ground to raise money, for some other part of their company, which then fails, would we know about it until it was too late?
I'm not a legal expert, but couldn't this be countered by HBC having first charge against the land in line with the buyback option?
Can anyone please explain what this master plan is, apart from the ground itself what other part of the area do IOR want, who else is involved, what is going to be built, where is the money coming from, Gus Robinson is the preferred builder/developer, as above what are they going to build, who is going to pay for it? Was there not a time when IOR offered to buy the ground but were turned down by the council, so why should we now give them the land?
Is this going to be pie in the sky again, like the bridge to the Headland, the Waterworld on the marina, the War Museum, the cruise ships coming in and berthing next to a scrap yard, does anyone actually know or is everyone just jumping on the bandwagon guessing game.
Quote from: Micksmate on May 23, 2012, 11: AM
Can anyone please explain what this master plan is, apart from the ground itself what other part of the area do IOR want...
A tiny slither of land around the edge of the ground is all that the football club want over and above the existing footprint of the ground.
The rest of the land in the area transfers to GRD and is nothing to do with the football club. Too many people seem to be either completely missing this point or choosing to ignore it in an attempt to make the discussion / argument completely about HUFC getting a whopping great big free gift off HBC which isn't actually the case. The plans for the redevelopment of the leisure centre, the housing, student accommodation and potential commercial units are absolutely nothing to do with HUFC and wouldn't be provided by them.
The report and the plans can be seen in the other thread about this where I posted a link to them (a thread called something like "best £500 Ken ever spent". I really really wish that every bugger commenting on false premises would actually read the bloody thing!
Quote from: Micksmate on May 23, 2012, 11: AM
Was there not a time when IOR offered to buy the ground but were turned down by the council, so why should we now give them the land?
Although it says transfer for zero consideration there would be a sum of £100k payable by HUFC to HBC so it's not technically a case of "give them the land".
Quote from: Micksmate on May 23, 2012, 11: AM
Is this going to be pie in the sky again, like the bridge to the Headland, the Waterworld on the marina, the War Museum, the cruise ships coming in and berthing next to a scrap yard, does anyone actually know or is everyone just jumping on the bandwagon guessing game.
What gets me about these schemes isn't that they are daft ideas that don't come to fruition but that they are in principle sound ideas that are invested in but then shelved because the folk who think them up don't have the skills to move them forwards.
If the council spend £50k developing a project, then drop it that is a waste of tax payers money.
If they spent that £50k developing the idea and then passed it to an investor who was tied into an agreement that they would make it a reality then it would be a good use of funds.
I'm generally in favour of the club owning their own ground, but I think I'd be happier with a situation where the club and LA worked on making the plan a reality, and at the end of the process the football stadium were placed in the control of a supporters trust who would allow IOR free reign to develop the stadium but who would also ensure that if IOR folded the club would have a home unlike the team down the road. I do however have my pink glasses on today so am seeing the world in a funny rose tinted way.
I see the other forum has gone ballistic in its attacks on this thread. They seem obsessed with HTH.
I was reminded of another recent thread where 'Chip on his shoulder' was informed of the SCAB Coronation spoof page here and opined that (as there is no way he would check it himself) it was probably 'full of homophobia' This was promptly followed by several posts containing nothing but homophobic jokes/slurs!
Quote from: Stig of the Seaton Dump on May 22, 2012, 10: PM
What a ridiculously loaded statement. It is shameless and blinkered.
something that would never happen on here of course. ::)
failed council wannabes with a grudge against anything positive happening in hartlepool,
you only see the negatives in anything
looking forward to the vitriol against the tall ships starting again ;D
Quote from: LookslikeTORYagain on May 23, 2012, 01: PM
The Morrison site sold I am told for £4m so 100k is a giveaway.
I don't care if HUFC only wanted the pitch as long as they pay the going rate for it..
It's like you want to say well HUFC only want the ground and a tiny bit of land round it..so it's ok.. let them have it..
We it ain't ok, so tell them to pay a fair price.
the morrisons site sold for a retail unit ie morrisons to be built there so not really a good comparison as the football club isnt gonna be selling fruit and veg is it
Quote from: no6bus on May 23, 2012, 03: PM
looking forward to the vitriol against the tall ships starting again ;D
Try the "Dangerous Delusions" thread. They've titled it differently this time so that they can pretend that they're not moaning about the same old thing yet again! :)
Quote from: LookslikeTORYagain on May 23, 2012, 03: PM
Quote from: no6bus on May 23, 2012, 03: PM
the morrisons site sold for a retail unit ie morrisons to be built there so not really a good comparison as the football club isnt gonna be selling fruit and veg is it
It's not important what it was sold for.. the point is..it sold for £4m..
and that is the thing we will never agree on, the use for the land will always impact on the price, if its to build houses or a supermarket on it it will always sell for more, if its to build a skateboard park then it would obviously sell for less.
So to offer 10k or 100k for the Vic site and extra land is day dreaming on HUFC part.
As for fruit and veg... it sells Tea, coffee, Bovril, crisps, sweets, beer, pies, pasties, shirts, tracksuites, scarves, banners, flags, programmes and much much more so get along and get your hand in your pocket and buy buy buy with all your friends and then HUFC can come back with a better reasonable offer that can be taken seriously.
And we all live happily ever after..
by the way LLTA i never intended the failed council wannabe at you as i am aware you have a little more integrity than that,
mind you are still talking sh**e over pools
I want the proposed development to happen (I've been saving my chocolate buttons for weeks to invest).
I just can't see it working out. If IOR were given a cast Iron guarantee they could have the ground once the master plan was completed and the town suitably regenerated then perhaps that would be a good compromise.
The football fan in me also worries I'll lose interest in going if they develop the stadium so much that I have to sit down under a roof to watch games, standing in the cold north eastern weather, getting soaked watching a miserable 0-0 draw on a Tuesday night in February is character building and as much a part of the experience as travelling to foreign lands to be stabbed by nutters is for top level teams who reach the champions league.
Quote from: Benefitcheat on May 23, 2012, 05: PM
I want the proposed development to happen (I've been saving my chocolate buttons for weeks to invest).
I just can't see it working out. If IOR were given a cast Iron guarantee they could have the ground once the master plan was completed and the town suitably regenerated then perhaps that would be a good compromise.
The football fan in me also worries I'll lose interest in going if they develop the stadium so much that I have to sit down under a roof to watch games, standing in the cold north eastern weather, getting soaked watching a miserable 0-0 draw on a Tuesday night in February is character building and as much a part of the experience as travelling to foreign lands to be stabbed by nutters is for top level teams who reach the champions league.
no mention of the millhouse terracing going so you can still stand and get wet
As a Pools fan (and a resident of the other board) I think I prefer (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) the idea of a fans trust owning the ground rather than the council or IOR.
The council could vanish and the ground could belong to the united states of tees valley, who wouldn't care less having the Boro in their city centre, IOR could get bored and sell up to someone as feckless as the string of owners Darlington have had, but the fans will always be fans and wouldn't have any reason to take an income from the stadium just a £1 a year rental and a long term unconditional lease to whoever owns HUFC.
It isn't impossible to do and it is probably a good way to take things long term, but like all big projects egos would get in the way and you'd be left trying to pick up the crumbs from a bunfight.
Quote from: no6bus on May 23, 2012, 05: PM
no mention of the millhouse terracing going so you can still stand and get wet
Well in that case I'm a happy bunny.
They should get it free, how many companies get grants and have traded here for 104 years ?
We get £18000 a year in rent, how much would it cost the council to advertise on national TV every week, they do it free on our behalf.
I'd rather give them the ground than have the Tall stories back here..
Yes we do get tourists because of it, we had 900 visitors on 6 occasions last season and many thousands more.
Its not the point, they visit and enjoy our hospitality, many even stay overnight.
Isn't that a zero-sum calculation.
Any home benefit is cancelled by the money our supporters take to away matches?
I wasn't going to mention this but hey...........
I was on the Grand Central from York to Pool last Saturday alongside some returning 'football' supporters on who kept reminding each other (loudly)than some of them were recently ejected from a train for arguing with some people from Darlington. The bone of contention was not that they had been kicked off but that the Darlo-lovers had been allowed to stay on!
Just as a matter of interest, could someone explain why the sale/giveaway of the Pools ground has to be part of this grand scheme at all? Why can't the hotel/college accommodation and other parts of the scheme go ahead as a stand-alone scheme?
This is a genuine question as I've noticed that the emphasis seems to have changed somewhat lately in suggesting that the sale/giveaway of the ground is but a small part of the whole scheme. If IOR are chipping in financially to some sort of partnership with other organisations to fund the whole scheme, then maybe giving away the ground becomes less of an issue as IOR will be contributing in other ways financially.
For example, if handing over the ground to IOR allows them to borrow money from the banks to part-fund the larger scheme by using the ground as security then perhaps it all makes a bit more sense.
Quote from: mk1 on May 23, 2012, 07: PM
I wasn't going to mention this but hey...........
I was on the Grand Central from York to Pool last Saturday alongside some returning 'football' supporters on who kept reminding each other (loudly)than some of them were recently ejected from a train for arguing with some people from Darlington. The bone of contention was not that they had been kicked off but that the Darlo-lovers had been allowed to stay on!
But there was no football involving Pools last weekend(19th) or weekend before(12th). Some fans may have travelled back from London on 5th going through York On the Grand Central but then Darlington's season was over, so whatever they were doing cannot be associated with either set of fans from the two clubs... East Coast last train from York to Middlesbrough is designated "Dry" every Saturday, don't blame football fans all the time. I don't care either way at moment whether the ground is handed over or not there are pro's and con's
Quote from: cranky_old_sod on May 23, 2012, 08: PM
But there was no football involving Pools last weekend(19th) or weekend before(12th).
Where did I say there was?
Quote from: cranky_old_sod on May 23, 2012, 08: PM
Some fans may have travelled back from London on 5th going through York On the Grand Central but then Darlington's season was over, so whatever they were doing cannot be associated with either set of fans from the two clubs...
Well 2 of them were wearing Hartlepool shirts and were talking (loudly) about Hartlepool fixtures. Another group several seat away (who got off at Hartlepool) were singing football songs at the top of their voices.
Quote from: cranky_old_sod on May 23, 2012, 08: PM
East Coast last train from York to Middlesbrough is designated "Dry" every Saturday, don't blame football fans all the time. I don't care either way at moment whether the ground is handed over or not there are pro's and con's
I did say Grand Central didn't I.
For what its worth the conductor made an announcement reminding passengers not to shout or sing loudly.
Tell you what ask the bald 30 something year old who spent the whole journey (to Yarm) chatting up the 2 women from Yarm and the portly 40 year oldish one who made several comments (of a sexual nature) about them after they got off.
The gallant 30 year old bought the woman a bottle of wine but they refused to take it home with them so he necked the lot in one swig before informing the rest of us
'one of them was all right but the other was a bit of a dog' and bragging he got their phone numbers.
I still have the tickets if you want to continue down this road.
I remember seeing 2 woman 'bouncers' on the trian as well.
Quote from: testicles on May 23, 2012, 07: PM
Its not the point, they visit and enjoy our hospitality, many even stay overnight.
Translated into reality we have two options:
- They arrive early so that they can take advantage of the excellent shopping facilities in Hartlepool, take in the tourist spots, watch the game and then relax in our 'cafe culture' before taking in a meal before bed.
- They arrive early enough to have a skinful before the game and then top up with even more alcohol afterwards, sometimes till the early hours in order to get so paralytic that they need to pre-book a hotel room beforehand to throw up in before making their way back home.
Quote from: LookslikeTORYagain on May 23, 2012, 06: PM
Hang on..
Walking from the station to the ground with police presence and back again. any money they spend is mainly in the ground itself.
Look what happens when the go for a quiet pint..
oh do behave you little drama queen.
what trouble was there when your favourites came for the cup game, as a result of the treatment they received when they play north east teams quite a few actually stay in the town as a base eating and drinking on the marina.
there is very rarely trouble at pools games with an obvious exception
Quote from: mk1 on May 23, 2012, 07: PM
I wasn't going to mention this but hey...........
I was on the Grand Central from York to Pool last Saturday alongside some returning 'football' supporters on who kept reminding each other (loudly)than some of them were recently ejected from a train for arguing with some people from Darlington. The bone of contention was not that they had been kicked off but that the Darlo-lovers had been allowed to stay on!
you always seem to be at the events dont you, just passing pubs/grand hotels, on trains not that i would infer you talk rubbish and make things up to prove your point, its merely a coincidence ::)
Quote from: mk1 on May 23, 2012, 07: PM
I wasn't going to mention this but hey...........
I was on the Grand Central from York to Pool last Saturday alongside some returning 'football' supporters on who kept reminding each other (loudly)than some of them were recently ejected from a train for arguing with some people from Darlington. The bone of contention was not that they had been kicked off but that the Darlo-lovers had been allowed to stay on!
now i would say you mentioned football supporters to try and prove your point but as was pointed out our season finished a fortnight previous and no fixtures till next season so you sure your not fibbing again
Quote from: no6bus on May 23, 2012, 09: PM
you always seem to be at the events dont you, just passing pubs/grand hotels, on trains not that i would infer you talk rubbish and make things up to prove your point, its merely a coincidence ::)
I travel extensively. Every weekend I use the train so I encounter a lot of baying mobs.
Perhaps the bit about the Yarm ladies will spur the memory of someone on the other site?
If you want further checkable details the 16:03 Cross Country Train from Brum to York ran 12 minutes late to Leeds and only made the time up on the Leeds-York section. If it had not then we (there were several people getting the Grand central) would have missed the Grand Central connection at 18:43
PS.
The Cross Country Timetable changed last week and the times I remember (16:03) may have changed by a minute or so.
Quote from: no6bus on May 23, 2012, 09: PM
now i would say you mentioned football supporters to try and prove your point but as was pointed out our season finished a fortnight previous and no fixtures till next season so you sure your not fibbing again
Perhaps you should check the way 'football' supporters in enclosed in quote marks.
Then you should check up on the phrase 'scare quotes'
I also should inform you that you are the easiest fish to catch bar none!
thank you i like to do my bit for care in the community
Not all football fans are thugs.
oh dont tell MK1 it will spoil his whole weekend and have to target another group, on second thoughts no he wont 8)
I imagine MK1 reads the bible all day and listens to Mozart ?
Does anyone know how much IOR will be contributing to this scheme financially?
in regards to the ground i would imagine the work proposed to the rink end and the mill house side would be a seven figure amount and i am not counting the last 2 noughts.
obviously the student acomodation would not be down to ior or the odeon redevelopment i would imagine only the costs associated with the vic
Quote from: mk1 on May 23, 2012, 09: PM
I did say Grand Central didn't I.
Yes you did, but unless your wide travelling experiences are only on Grand Central then you will understand that there is trouble on other companies trains. Why is the York to Middlesbrough last train always dry...It can't only be because of football fans.
Quote from: mk1 on May 23, 2012, 07: PM
I wasn't going to mention this but hey...........
I was on the Grand Central from York to Pool last Saturday alongside some returning 'football' supporters on who kept reminding each other (loudly)than some of them were recently ejected from a train for arguing with some people from Darlington. The bone of contention was not that they had been kicked off but that the Darlo-lovers had been allowed to stay on!
From that can I assume the so called fans from Darlington made themselves known to the Hartlepool fans first as you don't mention Darlington shirts, the Pools fans (if they were, a wearing of a shirt doesn't necessarily mean that), so the other "fans" must have started the argument. But as I have said arguments and bother on trains is because of drink not any particular sport or team.
Quote from: mk1 on May 23, 2012, 09: PMI still have the tickets if you want to continue down this road.
I remember seeing 2 woman 'bouncers' on the trian as well.
Which proves what you were on that train....nothing more, now if you have a video on your phone
Quote from: mk1 on May 23, 2012, 09: PM
If you want further checkable details the 16:03 Cross Country Train from Brum to York ran 12 minutes late to Leeds and only made the time up on the Leeds-York section. If it had not then we (there were several people getting the Grand central) would have missed the Grand Central connection at 18:43
I travel extensively as well and if that train was running on time you had about 5 minutes( could check exact amount of time if could be bothered)You plan well when doing your extensive travelling giving yourself about 5 minutes for a connection , so were pushing it anywhere if there was any sort of delay. But lets not state that just in case you were late and therefore had to blame someone.
Yeah yeah whatever............
Oh and there was a 10-12 minute 'connection time' for the GC Train at York.
Much as I would love to manage my connections so as to have a train waiting at every interchange the poor service from York to Teesside means you get 1 train an hour (besides the 4 a day by GC). My misfortune is that the service from Birmingham means a regular 40 minute wait at York (except at 18:30).
I got myself another name check at the other forum.
It is like spearing fish in a barrel.
Pavlov's dog has nothing on that lot!
no under the terms of his asbo hes not allowed camera equipment :o
debate over gentlemen the scab's have decided they are against the scheme, but quite happy to waste money resurfacing baden street, must be scuffing ones knees ;)
Quote from: LookslikeTORYagain on May 25, 2012, 02: PM
Are you saying it has been voted on No6?
Someone in the 'supporters' corner decided to email him and ask.
The reply was not what they wanted to hear.............
no but someone emailed the scabs and got the reply he/they are against the scheme and as the labour party vote en-bloc then there is no chance of the scheme being given the go ahead so no vote yet but it's a formality
Many thanks for the email. Unfortunately I do not take the view that it is in the interests of Hartlepool to hand over the ground to IOR. If I use Newcastlle for example where they do not own the ground but operate very successfully for the people of Newcastle I see no value in parting with a major asset of Hartlepool Borough Council. At the present time the ground, by being owned by the Council is ultimately in the ownership of the people of Hartlepool and as such I shall be opposing any transfer.
Kind Regards,
Christopher Akers-Belcher
Councillor for Foggy Furze
Chair Children's Services Scrutiny Forum and Chair Audit Committee
so can we expect the landlords to maintain the property instead of the tenants, after all the football club are paying rental on a football ground so surely it is the councils responsibility to keep the property fit for the purpose it is rented for
Sounds like he has a problem with young men in shorts.
Good point No 6. As the chairman has talked of running the place on a care and maintenance basis,what would become of the ground if IOR called it a day ...... I suppose our esteemed councillors could turn into a alternative venue ...... extreme maypole dancing and Thai hamster wrestling don't have the same drawing power.
They were happy to waste £2.2m on the tall stories just give them the fu**ng ground you whining git.
why do people use newcastle as an example, it is a bloody city or does he mean the council intend to expand the vic to a 50000 seater stadium if thats the case shouldnt he tell us ::)
i think its going to cost ken and russ some money in "donations" to certain charitable schemes being run in the town to get the ground.
if they give the rifty outfit £5000 (it was enough to close the hospital), mad dogs cheap fridge shop £10000 and maybe a new minibus for the blobs family outfit, they will get the labour votes needed for the ground.
one more thing, drummond will have to play devils advocate and oppose the vote for labour to go for it.
Drummond and Kath Hill will abstain because they are season ticket holders.
10 years ago half of Liverpool council voted for a new football ground until someone pointed out that they all had season tickets and cried foul play.
Sad thing is that half of the thickos at Clarence road who voted for him thought he would have done them a big favour.
Funny, but I don't recall Christopher expressing his views on the ground sale pre-election, so obviously he made his unmade up mind up after the event ....obviously. I couldn't imagine for one minute he knew he was going to vote against the sale all along without telling us. I believe everything politicians tell me. ::)
Quote from: no6bus on May 25, 2012, 09: PM
so can we expect the landlords to maintain the property instead of the tenants, after all the football club are paying rental on a football ground so surely it is the councils responsibility to keep the property fit for the purpose it is rented for
Whilst I appreciate that passions are starting to run high on the issue of Victoria Park, there is a difference between who owns what and how they manage it.
The ground upon which Victoria Park stands, is owned by HBC.
The football club owns the Stadium and the Team.
There is actually no reason for the Club to own the land at all, it just needs to ensure that it has an agreement in place that secures its operation for a reasonable period of time. The norm in these cases is a 50 to 100 years lease.
The comparison with Newcastle is in fact a fair one, Newcastle council own the land, Ashley owns the stadium and team.
Do you own your house ...?
The comparison between Pools and Newcastle is absurd, is this going to be the Labour Party standard point of reference in the debate, because if it is I'd advise a rapid reassessment of your thought process on this particular point.
When you're in a hole....etc, etc, .. ::)
I don't see what the issue is as to whether I own my house or not?
When people buy houses, they can own the house, but the land is leased, or they can own their house "freehold" which means they also own the land on which the house is built.
No different to any other business arrangement.
I think you should just calm down, wait and see what happens, you might get a shock or a surprise, depending on which side of the fence you choose to stand.
Quote from: perseus on May 26, 2012, 07: AM
ST, i'll infer from that above that you know something that int yet public knowledge? Am i right?
No your not, I genuinely mean wait and see. Expending all this energy when you don't know what the outcome is, seems a bit pointless.
Lobby by all means, nothing wrong with that - the issue will be debated at a Council meeting, get yourself along there and see what happens.
The puppets will all follow their leader and, given that we now know his thoughts, it's game over. The best thing for Drummond to do now is to go public and say that he's 100% against the sale - that should ensure a change of heart from Labour.
Quote from: Straight Talking on May 26, 2012, 07: AM
I don't see what the issue is as to whether I own my house or not?
........ of course you know why ::)
When people buy houses, they can own the house, but the land is leased, or they can own their house "freehold" which means they also own the land on which the house is built.
Yes, I know how the system works, so kindly stop the patronising.
I think you should just calm down, wait and see what happens, you might get a shock or a surprise, depending on which side of the fence you choose to stand.
Calm down... ? don't you mean don't make a fuss and draw attention to the subject .....? ....'wait and see what happens' .... that's for mugs...... but while we're on the subject, how would you know what to expect, after all, if you're to be believed, you keep telling us you know no more than anyone else. Odd that.
Amusing to see 'chip on his shoulder' busy orchestrating a political campaign/lobbying effort in order to advance the interests of the football club.
This would be the same chip who spent most of his time here denying that the supporters had the inclination or wherewithall to get Dumbo elected.
All I can say if you had originaly chosen someone with half a brain to be your stooge then you would not be in the merde when the councillors decided to ditch the donkey!
The route to success lies in more mundane options.
As has been said a 'donation' to the SCABs favourite charity (i.e. themselves) would do no harm. The usual way to channel these bungs contributions is to put them through as expenses. They have a dormant Gardening enterprise (used to get a part of the Mandelson's expenses fiddle) so how about giving them the ground care contract?
Sponsoring a BLGT 'Football against Racism' workshop at the Manor Mafia's base might be a good move as well.
Mad Dog can be bought with a lifetime supply of ping-pong balls.............
don't they already have a long lease on the ground?
It was the terms of the clubs purchase.
i think the suggestion to relocate the club to blackhall near the old seagull pub is a cracking idea, then the council can sell off the land to the other interested parties for the millions its apparently worth ::)
Lots of Chinese support Liverpool, its not unusual.
I would give them the land because it should stay in Hartlepool, remember what happened to Wimbledon football club ?
yes because housing in the town centre lets say the chester area has been snapped up hasnt it, oh hang on they cant give them away can they, so housing ;D ;D ;D ;D wheres the rolf smiley
or we could appoint a labour councillor to the board problem solved, free ground and lots of grants for the work to be done. thats it we've cracked it. cheers
Does anyone know if these meetings detailed on the main page are open to the public?
Not4me
The first meeting on the 18th will be a closed meeting for Councillors only.
This will enable them to speak with both the preferred developer and a representative of Hartlepool Football Club
and ask any questions they may have at that time.
The second meeting on the 28th will be an additional Council Meeting and as such it will be open to public, assuming that
no questions need to be asked/answered where this would disclose any confidential information. If not the meeting will become
a closed meeting and the public will be asked to leave.
Will it be a secret ballot ?
I very much doubt that. I can't recall any such happening before. Labour will, as always, vote en block and will follow their leader.
The last time any Labour members founds themselves out of step with Marjorie James (the real Leader) was when the Labour Cabinet members supported the budget they had helped put together - they were threatened with deselection in the run up to the council elections. So you are looking at a minimum of 21 votes and probably Cllr Ray Wells and Cllr Paul Thompson falling into line with Akers-Belcher.
I suspect some people may be underestimating the effect of a no vote.
Quote from: Riddler5 on May 29, 2012, 06: AM
Will it be a secret ballot ?
In line with Council's decision, it will be a recorded vote, so how each member votes will be known.
I don't quite figure why the first meeting will be closed to the general public - particularly given CAB's play on the fact that the ground is currently 'owned' by the public'.
There's a lot of confusion over what this 'deal' actually consists of and quite a bit of mis-information too. What better solution than to let members of the public sit in on the presentation to Councillors. There's nothing 'confidential' here, the various figures have been bounced around the town for months. If it's a public asset, which it currently is, let the public hear what all the fuss is about and let them base their opinions on the same information presented to Councillors.
Quote from: Straight Talking on May 29, 2012, 03: PM
Quote from: Riddler5 on May 29, 2012, 06: AM
Will it be a secret ballot ?
In line with Council's decision, it will be a recorded vote, so how each member votes will be known.
So have you decided how the 21 Labour Councillors will vote yet? ;D ;D
Quote from: marky on May 29, 2012, 03: PM
Quote from: Straight Talking on May 29, 2012, 03: PM
Quote from: Riddler5 on May 29, 2012, 06: AM
Will it be a secret ballot ?
In line with Council's decision, it will be a recorded vote, so how each member votes will be known.
So have you decided how the 21 Labour Councillors will vote yet? ;D ;D
I don't see any point in responding to your question, after all you seem to already know the answer.
I am aware that Councillors are being bombarded by email, I am also being told that some members have been all but threatened in the street.
Not really the way to get your point across. At the end of the day, Councillors will vote as they see fit, based on the information they receive from IOR, the developer (Gus Robinson's) and officers.
So are you suggesting that out of 21 Labour Councillors some will vote in favour and some against?
Quote from: marky on May 29, 2012, 03: PM
So are you suggesting that out of 21 Labour Councillors some will vote in favour and some against?
wait and see
;D ;D ;D yea right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD4237RO5bE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD4237RO5bE)
8) I hope you're not suggesting that our Labour councillors are like a load of Fu**ng loppy sheep ?
There seems to be a lot of comment about what the 21 Labour Councillors might or might not do.
If they don't vote in one direction it could come down to how the other 12 vote - 13 if you include Stuart.
It is very easy to take the popular view (or what is believed to be the popular view) when you don't think its going to matter.
I wonder what the outcome would be if the Labour Group abstained?
What I don't understand is where the money is coming from ....surely any sort of plan would give details of the funding arrangements.
Quote from: testing times on May 31, 2012, 12: PM
What I don't understand is where the money is coming from ....surely any sort of plan would give details of the funding arrangements.
Where the money for what is coming from?
The money for the developments to be done by GRD will come from GRD and / or their partners in any scheme.
Well that's what I assume too DK but I guess what I am saying is that if it was me, I would want to see some detailed plans as well as details of how any scheme was to be funded before I would have any confidence that the plan would actually go ahead. Otherwise we could end up with a similar situation as we have over the Wynyard hospital.
The other point I would make is that if GR do come up with a viable plan to redevelop the area, why does this have to involve IOR or is it the case that IOR will be contributing to the cost of the overall plan as one of the contributing partners and if so by how much?
Quote from: testing times on May 31, 2012, 12: PM
Well that's what I assume too DK but I guess what I am saying is that if it was me, I would want to see some detailed plans as well as details of how any scheme was to be funded before I would have any confidence that the plan would actually go ahead. Otherwise we could end up with a similar situation as we have over the Wynyard hospital.
The other point I would make is that if GR do come up with a viable plan to redevelop the area, why does this have to involve IOR or is it the case that IOR will be contributing to the cost of the overall plan as one of the contributing partners and if so by how much?
Well put TT, could be that once the plan is agreed???, the only bit that is actually delivered is the bit IOR want, the rest somehow gets caught up in undeliverable options. What happens then???
Nice gift packaging though.
Why would anyone vote against wanting to move the town forward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77y-ISnX-4E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77y-ISnX-4E)
If the town moves too far forward, it falls into the sea on 2 sides.
It is not a case of moving forward, or indeed standing still, it is about getting a decision right that is in the best interests of the whole town, not just that part of the population who go to Victoria Park now and again.
If IOR develop the club, build a new stadium - all things that they could do anyway, ownership of the land does not prevent this.
Will you be prepared to pay more to get in?
If the answer is Yes, how much more?
If the answer is No - well whats the point?
Quote from: Straight Talking on June 01, 2012, 02: PM
If the town moves too far forward, it falls into the sea on 2 sides.
Really...?
It is not a case of moving forward, or indeed standing still, it is about getting a decision right that is in the best interests of the whole town, not just that part of the population who go to Victoria Park now and again.
...or even the people who attended A&E, that was in the interests of the whole town.
If IOR develop the club, build a new stadium - all things that they could do anyway, ownership of the land does not prevent this.
Do you own the freehold of the property you live in....?
Will you be prepared to pay more to get in?
If the answer is Yes, how much more?
If the answer is No - well whats the point?
Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Quote from: Riddler5 on June 01, 2012, 03: PM
Quote from: Straight Talking on June 01, 2012, 02: PM
If the town moves too far forward, it falls into the sea on 2 sides.
Really...?
It is not a case of moving forward, or indeed standing still, it is about getting a decision right that is in the best interests of the whole town, not just that part of the population who go to Victoria Park now and again.
...or even the people who attended A&E, that was in the interests of the whole town.
If IOR develop the club, build a new stadium - all things that they could do anyway, ownership of the land does not prevent this.
Do you own the freehold of the property you live in....?
Will you be prepared to pay more to get in?
If the answer is Yes, how much more?
If the answer is No - well whats the point?
Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Sorry if I'm keeping you up!!
Keep throwing in the A & E isn't going to resolve the issue being discussed.
Still waiting for answers to the questions I have raised.
Will you be prepared to pay more to get in?
If the answer is Yes, how much more?
Whether I own my home "freehold" or not is irrelevant. unless of course you intend to take up residence in Victoria Park.
Quote from: not4me on June 01, 2012, 02: PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77y-ISnX-4E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77y-ISnX-4E)
so you think no student accomodation, housing , renovation of the odeon should take place because of a old film of hooligans, and the figures given over the last few years would seem to illustrate that this is no longer an issue at hartlepool matches should be ignored, is that correct or do you still live in a world where hooligans run riot each game?
straight talking, in answer to your question the club prior to the last 2 season ticket offers were charging £20/22 to get in which is on a par with other league 1 teams and people were paying on the day i personally feel anymore than £25 to get in the vic would be too much.
Spoke to a couple of local buisness people today who have shops in the area and they cannot wait for it to be passed.
Give em the ground ST you tight c**t.
Quote from: testicles on June 01, 2012, 06: PM
Give em the ground ST you tight c**t.
If you have to swear to get your point across, you obviously lack a clear grasp of the english language.
I have already said a number of times on this website in response to a number of posters,
wait and see what happens.
Quote from: no6bus on June 01, 2012, 04: PM
straight talking, in answer to your question the club prior to the last 2 season ticket offers were charging £20/22 to get in which is on a par with other league 1 teams and people were paying on the day i personally feel anymore than £25 to get in the vic would be too much.
So at best, you expect IOR to invest in the stadium, improve the team, for what an additional income of 2k a year. Even if they got the land for nothing - I cant imagine that they are going to invest anything if that is their financial return.
I would be surprised if gate tickets didn't go up by at least 50% if not more with Season tickets going up by something similar.
Don't wish for something, if you are going to be excluded by the outcome.
Quote from: Straight Talking on June 01, 2012, 06: PM
If you have to swear to get your point across, you obviously lack a clear grasp of the english language.
Show your 'grasp' and explain the comma in the quoted sentence.
Yet another SADDO
If you are going to criticise the grammar of others then at least ensure your own is up to scratch.
It must be difficult for you to function in a 'debate' where you do not have the support of fawning cyphers or the last word..............
Quote from: Straight Talking on June 01, 2012, 06: PM
Quote from: no6bus on June 01, 2012, 04: PM
straight talking, in answer to your question the club prior to the last 2 season ticket offers were charging £20/22 to get in which is on a par with other league 1 teams and people were paying on the day i personally feel anymore than £25 to get in the vic would be too much.
So at best, you expect IOR to invest in the stadium, improve the team, for what an additional income of 2k a year. Even if they got the land for nothing - I cant imagine that they are going to invest anything if that is their financial return.
I would be surprised if gate tickets didn't go up by at least 50% if not more with Season tickets going up by something similar.
Don't wish for something, if you are going to be excluded by the outcome.
and you get your figure of £2k from where?.
increased capacity means increased takings from programmes, food sales drink sales as well as if for example the away end capacity is increased by 1000 thats potentialy £25 k extra in some games. gate tickets of £30 is unrealistic at league 1 level
There's nothing wrong with my grammar, i called him a tight c**t and i meant it.
"......increased capacity means increased takings from programmes, food sales drink sales as well as if for example the away end capacity is increased by 1000 thats potentialy £25 k extra in some games. gate tickets of £30 is unrealistic at league 1 level."
You've lost me there No6 - how often is the present ground full to capacity? You seem to be suggesting that a larger ground automatically leads to more attendance. As I recall, last season the club rarely managed to attract a large chunk of its own season ticket holders.
One of the main problems with the ground is the away capacity in the Rink End which is restricted by it's limited size and a could be filled many times over with fans from the bigger clubs who visit.Lost revenue.
As for not all the season ticket holders going last year, that happens, football isn't a science and of if it's poor, some of the punters don't turn up. Nowt new there.
Quote from: Straight Talking on June 01, 2012, 04: PM
Quote from: Riddler5 on June 01, 2012, 03: PM
Quote from: Straight Talking on June 01, 2012, 02: PM
If the town moves too far forward, it falls into the sea on 2 sides.
Really...?
It is not a case of moving forward, or indeed standing still, it is about getting a decision right that is in the best interests of the whole town, not just that part of the population who go to Victoria Park now and again.
...or even the people who attended A&E, that was in the interests of the whole town.
If IOR develop the club, build a new stadium - all things that they could do anyway, ownership of the land does not prevent this.
Do you own the freehold of the property you live in....?
Will you be prepared to pay more to get in?
If the answer is Yes, how much more?
If the answer is No - well whats the point?
Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Sorry if I'm keeping you up!!
Really?
Keep throwing in the A & E isn't going to resolve the issue being discussed.
Of course it is because it's relevant to what YOU stated. You said it was about getting a decision right that affects the whole town, so what happened with A&E then? So do excuse me if I have no faith whatsoever in your rather selective thought process.
Still waiting for answers to the questions I have raised.
.....and you'll wait till the cows come home for a answer as they fall into the how long is a piece of string category, as you well know. What I will do is ask you how will the people of Hartlepool will lose out if the ground is sold? How will the life of the ordinary citizen be made worse, what will be the perceptible change ....?
Whether I own my home "freehold" or not is irrelevant. unless of course you intend to take up residence in Victorwellia Park., No it isn't irrelevant at all, if YOU'RE not prepared to rent or be a leaseholder, why criticise anyone else for it... ?
Quote from: marky on June 01, 2012, 10: PM
"......increased capacity means increased takings from programmes, food sales drink sales as well as if for example the away end capacity is increased by 1000 thats potentialy £25 k extra in some games. gate tickets of £30 is unrealistic at league 1 level."
You've lost me there No6 - how often is the present ground full to capacity? You seem to be suggesting that a larger ground automatically leads to more attendance. As I recall, last season the club rarely managed to attract a large chunk of its own season ticket holders.
the riddler5 answered this but just incase you missed the point, ior want to build a bigger stand at the rink end so it can take advantage of the away fans who want to come to pools, for example the pre season friendly with sunderland, if the rink end had a 3000 seat capacity instead of the current 1000 even at £10 entry theres an extra £20000 plus into the pot and as the league is putting a cap on wages to a % of the clubs turnover it makes the need for more income even greater to maintain if not push on from our current status. we had a average attendance in 2010 -11 of 2933 this increased to 4960 last season so a 2000+ rise in attendance suggests that infact quite a large chunk of season ticket holders did attend and if it hadnt been for our record breaking run of home losses the average would have been higher still. still waiting for straight talking to explain his 2k.
Your maths doesn't stack up either, more away fans means more police, more stewards, more costs.
Also, where are they going to park all those buses, the train only has 2 carriages.
Why would anyone build a 3,000 capacity away end, for a league 1 club?
Most weeks that end will be just as empty as the others.
Its a dream, that IOR have sold to footy fans, who haven's asked any questions.
RIDDLER - Whether I own my own home freehold or not is irrelevant, because I didn't ask someone else to give it to me. I bought it at the market rate.
Forget what happens on the pitch, it's what happens off it that is important.
Quote from: Straight Talking on June 02, 2012, 09: AM
Your maths doesn't stack up either, more away fans means more police, more stewards, more costs.
Also, where are they going to park all those buses, the train only has 2 carriages.
Why would anyone build a 3,000 capacity away end, for a league 1 club?
Most weeks that end will be just as empty as the others.
Its a dream, that IOR have sold to footy fans, who haven's asked any questions.
ok i'll make it easy for you, at no point in this debate has outgoing costs been mentioned, you came up with a figure of £2k which i asked where you arrived at that figure. you still havent answered have you?.
on a match day clarence road is normally closed to through traffic and buses parked outside the ground, when there is a bigger attendance coaches park at agreed places to enable them to return to the ground to pick up their passengers.
the capacity of the away end in most league 1 clubs will be will be reached only a couple of times a season, using that style of argument why do we have so many pay and display parking places in hartlepool town centre as most days they are mostly empty?.
you are making out the millhouse proposal is all about the football club, are you prepared to tell the local businesses that you dont think it should go ahead and why?.
It isn't me that is making out the Millhouse development is all about Victoria Park at all.
It is the majority of contributors on this website.
eg. Bob Cross etc.
and your figure of £2k?
I can understand the bit about the Rink End and thanks for the reply Riddler/No 6. Still not sure about any extra income to the town from away fans though. After each match, don't the Police do everything to steer them straight to their buses/trains as a means of avoiding trouble?
I think IOR's PR on this whole matter has been really rubbish. I remember reading on HTH ages ago that IOR had offered £10,000 for the ground. This was rubbished by The Mail, Drummond, the people on the Bunker and everyone else as I recall
It turned out to be true.
Personally, I see no reason why a deal can't be done, but everyone needs to be a bit more honest and a lot more objective. We don't have much of either at the moment and as for ST - that's all about getting one over on Drummond and part of a wider campaign.
Quote from: marky on June 02, 2012, 12: PM
I can understand the bit about the Rink End and thanks for the reply Riddler/No 6. Still not sure about any extra income to the town from away fans though. After each match, don't the Police do everything to steer them straight to their buses/trains as a means of avoiding trouble?
I think IOR's PR on this whole matter has been really rubbish. I remember reading on HTH ages ago that IOR had offered £10,000 for the ground. This was rubbished by The Mail, Drummond, the people on the Bunker and everyone else as I recall
It turned out to be true.
Personally, I see no reason why a deal can't be done, but everyone needs to be a bit more honest and a lot more objective. We don't have much of either at the moment and as for ST - that's all about getting one over on Drummond and part of a wider campaign.
DON'T assume what my motives are!!
I actually want the best for all concerned, I'm just not accepting the information being provided at face value.
See below:
ALL TAKEN OFF HARTLEPOOL FC. WEBSITE
League Clubs Choose Financial Fair Play
Posted on: Wed 25 Apr 2012
The Football League is to implement Financial Fair Play regulations in all three of its divisions, after Championship clubs voted in favour of a breakeven approach based on UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations.
From the beginning of next season, the Championship will join League One and League Two clubs in applying rules that exert greater control over club expenditure with each division having the flexibility to determine their own specific approach.
The decision to adopt Financial Fair Play regulations follows a strategic review by The Football League Board which identified the state of club finances as the organisation's greatest challenge. League Chairman, Greg Clarke, said: "On the pitch we have three exciting, competitive divisions with crowds at their highest levels for 50 years. But that success isn't necessarily being reflected on our clubs' balance sheets and we have to remedy that situation or face an uncertain future.
Financial Fair Play in League 1 and League 2:
- League 1 and League 2, clubs have chosen to implement the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) first used in League 2 in 2004/05, although it will operate at different thresholds in each division.
- The SCMP broadly limits spending on total player wages to a proportion of each club's turnover, with clubs providing budgetary information to The League at the beginning of the season that is updated as the campaign progresses.
- Any club that is deemed to have breached the permitted spending threshold will be subject to a transfer embargo. Wherever possible, The League will seek to tackle the issue 'at source' by refusing player registrations that take clubs beyond the threshold.
- At the beginning of the current season, League 2 clubs reduced the permitted spending threshold to 55% from 60% and this figure will continue to be operated next season.
- League 1 clubs are currently operating a 'pilot' of the SCMP with clubs complying with a 75% threshold but with no sanctions being applicable this season. This threshold will reduce to 65% in 2012/13 and 60% in 2013/14 with sanctions (transfer embargoes) being applicable in both seasons.
Adult Season Tickets will cost just £155 for the 2012/13 season - working out at an impressive £6.74 per match.
Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11
13 5170 3 5152 1 6800
16 5506 17 5343 15 5421
25 5200
29 5333
Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12
26 4604 17 4029 2 5289
29 4156 7 4663
28 5995
Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12
11 4548 3 4955 9 4292
18 4718 17 4484 14 4004
20 4109 28 4502
31 5825
Av. Gate 4961 2/3 home 3307 1/3 away 1654
split 2/1 x £22
Season 2000 x 23 games
Tickets £155 310,000 836,924
1307
x £22 661,342
TOTAL 1,808,266
Salaries Max £'s Squad 30
Player 1,175,373 Av Salary £1,758 pm
I am aware that the club gets a cut of away match income, but it's impossible to estimate.
So based purely on home income, including away fans – the club is in trouble under the new income/expenditure split.
It is what happens on the pitch that gets fans through the turnstiles. So it needs to dramatically increase income. Based on the 65% for player salaries, (60% next year) it isn't going to work.
A bigger stadium is not necessarily going to be the saviour here.
IOR will undoubtedly borrow the money to build it anyway. So the rest of the income will have to service debt as well as pay for everything else.
Quote from: marky on June 02, 2012, 12: PM
I can understand the bit about the Rink End and thanks for the reply Riddler/No 6. Still not sure about any extra income to the town from away fans though. After each match, don't the Police do everything to steer them straight to their buses/trains as a means of avoiding trouble?
I think IOR's PR on this whole matter has been really rubbish. I remember reading on HTH ages ago that IOR had offered £10,000 for the ground. This was rubbished by The Mail, Drummond, the people on the Bunker and everyone else as I recall
It turned out to be true.
Personally, I see no reason why a deal can't be done, but everyone needs to be a bit more honest and a lot more objective. We don't have much of either at the moment and as for ST - that's all about getting one over on Drummond and part of a wider campaign.
the away supporters who arrive by coach/train tend to be away straight after the game, its the ones who come in cars who are the ones who will contribute to the local economy pre match food/pint etc and the ones who stay over either the night before or the night after the game.
Quote from: Straight Talking on June 02, 2012, 02: PM
Quote from: marky on June 02, 2012, 12: PM
I can understand the bit about the Rink End and thanks for the reply Riddler/No 6. Still not sure about any extra income to the town from away fans though. After each match, don't the Police do everything to steer them straight to their buses/trains as a means of avoiding trouble?
I think IOR's PR on this whole matter has been really rubbish. I remember reading on HTH ages ago that IOR had offered £10,000 for the ground. This was rubbished by The Mail, Drummond, the people on the Bunker and everyone else as I recall
It turned out to be true.
Personally, I see no reason why a deal can't be done, but everyone needs to be a bit more honest and a lot more objective. We don't have much of either at the moment and as for ST - that's all about getting one over on Drummond and part of a wider campaign.
DON'T assume what my motives are!!
I actually want the best for all concerned, I'm just not accepting the information being provided at face value.
See below:
ALL TAKEN OFF HARTLEPOOL FC. WEBSITE
League Clubs Choose Financial Fair Play
Posted on: Wed 25 Apr 2012
The Football League is to implement Financial Fair Play regulations in all three of its divisions, after Championship clubs voted in favour of a breakeven approach based on UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations.
From the beginning of next season, the Championship will join League One and League Two clubs in applying rules that exert greater control over club expenditure with each division having the flexibility to determine their own specific approach.
The decision to adopt Financial Fair Play regulations follows a strategic review by The Football League Board which identified the state of club finances as the organisation's greatest challenge. League Chairman, Greg Clarke, said: "On the pitch we have three exciting, competitive divisions with crowds at their highest levels for 50 years. But that success isn't necessarily being reflected on our clubs' balance sheets and we have to remedy that situation or face an uncertain future.
Financial Fair Play in League 1 and League 2:
- League 1 and League 2, clubs have chosen to implement the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) first used in League 2 in 2004/05, although it will operate at different thresholds in each division.
- The SCMP broadly limits spending on total player wages to a proportion of each club's turnover, with clubs providing budgetary information to The League at the beginning of the season that is updated as the campaign progresses.
- Any club that is deemed to have breached the permitted spending threshold will be subject to a transfer embargo. Wherever possible, The League will seek to tackle the issue 'at source' by refusing player registrations that take clubs beyond the threshold.
- At the beginning of the current season, League 2 clubs reduced the permitted spending threshold to 55% from 60% and this figure will continue to be operated next season.
- League 1 clubs are currently operating a 'pilot' of the SCMP with clubs complying with a 75% threshold but with no sanctions being applicable this season. This threshold will reduce to 65% in 2012/13 and 60% in 2013/14 with sanctions (transfer embargoes) being applicable in both seasons.
Adult Season Tickets will cost just £155 for the 2012/13 season - working out at an impressive £6.74 per match.
Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11
13 5170 3 5152 1 6800
16 5506 17 5343 15 5421
25 5200
29 5333
Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12
26 4604 17 4029 2 5289
29 4156 7 4663
28 5995
Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12
11 4548 3 4955 9 4292
18 4718 17 4484 14 4004
20 4109 28 4502
31 5825
Av. Gate 4961 2/3 home 3307 1/3 away 1654
split 2/1 x £22
Season 2000 x 23 games
Tickets £155 310,000 836,924
1307
x £22 661,342
TOTAL 1,808,266
Salaries Max £'s Squad 30
Player 1,175,373 Av Salary £1,758 pm
I am aware that the club gets a cut of away match income, but it's impossible to estimate.
So based purely on home income, including away fans – the club is in trouble under the new income/expenditure split.
It is what happens on the pitch that gets fans through the turnstiles. So it needs to dramatically increase income. Based on the 65% for player salaries, (60% next year) it isn't going to work.
A bigger stadium is not necessarily going to be the saviour here.
IOR will undoubtedly borrow the money to build it anyway. So the rest of the income will have to service debt as well as pay for everything else.
a non league team like hartlepool fc would do well with them figures.
Hartlepool UNITED fc on the other hand, please read through your posts before posting it saves making schoolboy errors.
£2k?
Pools get nothing from away matches apart from the Cup competitions.
I didn't include any cup matches, as Hartlepool usually get shot out after 1 match.
So they'd better sell a hell of lot of pies.
It is usual practice for someone wanting to achieve planning permission for a business venture, to have to open their books,
so lets see if IOR are prepared to do the same. If they've got nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem. If they want to keep secrets,
it could be that financially it just doesn't stack up.
Footballers playing for an average of £2K a month, they could get that working at TESCO.
is that right, tesco are short changing my missus then.
regarding pools cup record i hope your council records are more accurate lets look at the last 10 seasons shall we,
2011/12 12-Nov-2011 R1 Stevenage (H) 0-1 2744
2010/11 08-Jan-2011 R3 Watford (A) 1-4 8950
2010/11 14-Dec-2010 R2 Yeovil Town (H) 4-2 1914
2010/11 16-Nov-2010 R1 Vauxhall Motors (A) 1-0 2406
2010/11 06-Nov-2010 R1 Vauxhall Motors (H) 0-0 2381
2009/10 07-Nov-2009 R1 Kettering Town (H) 0-1 2645
2008/09 24-Jan-2009 R4 West Ham United (H) 0-2 6849
2008/09 03-Jan-2009 R3 Stoke City (H) 2-0 5367
2008/09 29-Nov-2008 R2 Fleetwood Town (A) 3-2 3280
2008/09 18-Nov-2008 R1 Brighton and Hove Albion (H) 2-1 3288
2008/09 08-Nov-2008 R1 Brighton and Hove Albion (A) 3-3 2545
2007/08 01-Dec-2007 R2 Hereford United (A) 0-2 3801
2007/08 11-Nov-2007 R1 Gainsborough Trinity (A) 6-0 2402
2006/07 02-Dec-2006 R2 Macclesfield Town (A) 1-2 1992
2006/07 20-Nov-2006 R1 Rochdale (H) 0-0 2788
2006/07 11-Nov-2006 R1 Rochdale (A) 1-1 2098
2005/06 03-Dec-2005 R2 Tamworth (H) 1-2 3786
2005/06 05-Nov-2005 R1 Dagenham & Redbridge (H) 2-1 3655
2004/05 12-Feb-2005 R4 Brentford (H) 0-1 7580
2004/05 29-Jan-2005 R4 Brentford (A) 0-0 8967
2004/05 19-Jan-2005 R3 Boston United (A) 1-0 3653
2004/05 08-Jan-2005 R3 Boston United (H) 0-0 5342
2004/05 04-Dec-2004 R2 Aldershot Town (H) 5-1 4556
2004/05 13-Nov-2004 R1 Lincoln City (H) 3-0 4533
2003/04 03-Jan-2004 R3 Sunderland (A) 0-1 40816
2003/04 07-Dec-2003 R2 Burton Albion (A) 1-0 3132
2003/04 08-Nov-2003 R1 Whitby Town (H) 4-0 5294
2002/03 26-Nov-2002 R1 Southend United (H) 1-2 4080
lets move onto league cup for last 10 seasons,
2011/12 09-Aug-2011 R1 Sheffield United (H) 1-1 2774
2010/11 24-Aug-2010 R2 Wigan Athletic (H) 0-3 3196
2010/11 11-Aug-2010 R1 Sheffield United (H) 2-0 2520
2009/10 25-Aug-2009 R2 Burnley (H) 1-2 3501
2009/10 12-Aug-2009 R1 Coventry City (A) 1-0 6055
2008/09 23-Sep-2008 R3 Leeds United (A) 2-3 14599
2008/09 26-Aug-2008 R2 West Bromwich Albion (H) 3-1 3387
2008/09 12-Aug-2008 R1 Sc*n*horpe United (H) 3-0 2076
2007/08 28-Aug-2007 R2 Sheffield Wednesday (A) 1-2 8751
2007/08 14-Aug-2007 R1 Sc*n*horpe United (A) 2-1 2965
2006/07 19-Sep-2006 R2 Hull City (A) 0-0 6392
2006/07 22-Aug-2006 R1 Burnley (A) 1-0 3853
2005/06 20-Sep-2005 R2 Charlton Athletic (A) 1-3 10328
2005/06 23-Aug-2005 R1 Darlington (H) 3-1 6163
2004/05 21-Sep-2004 R2 Crystal Palace (A) 1-2 4233
2004/05 24-Aug-2004 R1 Macclesfield Town (H) 2-1 2883
2003/04 23-Sep-2003 R2 West Bromwich Albion (H) 1-2 5265
2003/04 13-Aug-2003 R1 Sheffield Wednesday (A) 2-2 13410
2002/03 10-Sep-2002 R1 Tranmere Rovers (H) 1-2 2778
mmm not too many first round knockouts there,
i presume by the financial records you mean for hartlepool united and if so the records are on the agm minutes from december last year, unlike some they have nothing to hide.
Quote from: Straight Talking on June 02, 2012, 07: PM
I didn't include any cup matches, as Hartlepool usually get shot out after 1 match.
Footballers playing for an average of £2K a month, they could get that working at TESCO.
Hmmmmm...... a sneeringly sarcastic first line and an embarassingly out of touch second line. Nowt new there then.
Quote from: Straight Talking on June 02, 2012, 07: PM
Footballers playing for an average of £2K a month, they could get that working at TESCO.
One would think such a devout Socialist would know better but given the amount of money the present lot are awarding themselves what did we expect.
ST/SCAB lives in world where
filthy rich businessmen queue at your door to buy
effluence influence.
A world where you have your own private
slush charidee fund where you can reward your mates/relatives with your largese and then keep their 'loyalty' with threats to remove the funding.
A world where you can claim many thousands of pounds if someone calls you names.............
There is no connection between the bloated (physically as well as metaphorically) self-serving councillors and the real people of Hartlepool.
Can anyone remind me of the combined SCAB household income?
I bet it is a lot more that a TESCO worker's '500' (muffled laughter) a week!
Hello.
Having lived in Hartlepool but originating from Middlesbrough, my allegiance towards my smoggy superstars will never waver, its interesting to note that this guy with the double barreled surname seems to be on a crusade to ensure this whole scheme fails not matter what the advantages it may bring to the town.
He seems quite an amusing guy, one who surely could normally not be taken seriously but holding the powers to the golden gate of the civic centre must make his chest swell with pride.
Our own chairman (Steve Gibson) has in recent years a very healthy relationship with his local councillors, both parties bending over backwards to ensure a smooth ride is had by all.
Not knowing a lot about this company called IOR, but having visited the Victoria Ground in the 70s and 80's (yes i'm getting on a bit now) it seems the improvements made to the ground in the last 10-15 years seems quite substantial.
Hopefully, common sense will prevail, but if the leader of the council suggests a TESCO worker could earn £2000 a month then I suggest he is hardly the person to have a say in such an important decision for the people of Hartlepool.
Quote from: alanattees on June 04, 2012, 01: PM
Hello.
Having lived in Hartlepool but originating from Middlesbrough, my allegiance towards my smoggy superstars will never waver, its interesting to note that this guy with the double barreled surname seems to be on a crusade to ensure this whole scheme fails not matter what the advantages it may bring to the town.
He seems quite an amusing guy, one who surely could normally not be taken seriously but holding the powers to the golden gate of the civic centre must make his chest swell with pride.
Our own chairman (Steve Gibson) has in recent years a very healthy relationship with his local councillors, both parties bending over backwards to ensure a smooth ride is had by all.
Not knowing a lot about this company called IOR, but having visited the Victoria Ground in the 70s and 80's (yes i'm getting on a bit now) it seems the improvements made to the ground in the last 10-15 years seems quite substantial.
Hopefully, common sense will prevail, but if the leader of the council suggests a TESCO worker could earn £2000 a month then I suggest he is hardly the person to have a say in such an important decision for the people of Hartlepool.
The comment you refer to was made by me, I am not the leader of the council. In fact the Mayor is. Just for clarity, I am not the leader of the labour group either. Are you also trying to say that there are no workers at Tesco, earning what amounts to £12.50 an hour??
checkout operators at tesco are on £7.00 per hour managers may be on £12.50 but your post infers workers at tesco doing a full time job would be paid £500 per week, unless you think all footballers are capable of managing in tesco
I think you will find, that check out operators are on more than £7 an hour.
There are also, shop floor and warehouse staff on more, not just management.
The real point of my statement was that footballers will not work for this amount of money.
which seems to have been lost in your determined effort to look at the pay of TESCO workers.
Question, do you think Hartlepool Footballers will accept £12.50 an hour as their average gross pay?
i think you will find that checkout operators are indeed paid £7 per hour as it says so on the payslip in front of me which is from the wifes wages in may 2012.
i think a lot of the younger ladsat pools on first contracts will be paid around that amount yes.
more experienced players will be on more money.
as for me looking at the pay of tesco workers, it was you who introduced them into the equation not i, i am merely trying to point out your inability to grasp the actual wages of the people you used.
i can prove my figure for checkout operators can you substantiate your claims.
a bit like your failure to explain the £2k you initially posted.
Ok, I accept you have more knowledge of checkout operators pay, than me. I am surprised though as TESCO were always a higher paying company,
So their wage rates must have dropped in real terms - as they are now less than a £1 an hours about minimum wage.
The figures I gave about potential income, and the fact that football owners can only spend 65% of income generated on the team.
This means that they will not have much money to spread across the team.
So, if we accept that junior/trainee players will be on £12.50 or thereabouts as an hourly rate, where are they going to get the money from to pay higher amounts.
Shirts, pies, drinks - I doubt that this will be sufficient, to meet the wages bill + run everything else out of 35% of income, including any borrowings or accumulated debt. A new stadium is not going to be cheap. If fans are only prepared to pay a few more £'s a game to get in, there is a huge hole in the finances a hole which is going to get bigger, year on year.
I don't want Hartlepool to go the same way as West Rugby Club or Darlington FC - I would rather see them stay as they are than risk losing everything.
The town is better off with a football team, than without it - but not at any price
the income will also include advertising boardings, tv money, money if sky show a live game, winnings from cup matches the further you get the more money you get, sponsorship money from the league money from the executive boxes, money from the matchday lottery, money from the new weekly lottery.
IOR have been subsidising the club to the extent of 1,000,000 a year wether this continues who knows?
Quote from: no6bus on June 05, 2012, 05: PM
the income will also include advertising boardings, tv money, money if sky show a live game, winnings from cup matches the further you get the more money you get, sponsorship money from the league money from the executive boxes, money from the matchday lottery, money from the new weekly lottery.
IOR have been subsidising the club to the extent of 1,000,000 a year wether this continues who knows?
All of the money you highlight is already part of the clubs income, and IOR still have to subsidise it. So unless they are prepared to confirm that this is an ongoing commitment, the club is 1million short every year. I might also suggest that if IOR were to walk away they could demand that the club repays the debt accrued which would by then include any additional borrowings to build a stadium, so bankrupting the club overnight.
Potentially another Darlington.
Quote from: Straight Talking on June 05, 2012, 11: PM
Quote from: no6bus on June 05, 2012, 05: PM
the income will also include advertising boardings, tv money, money if sky show a live game, winnings from cup matches the further you get the more money you get, sponsorship money from the league money from the executive boxes, money from the matchday lottery, money from the new weekly lottery.
IOR have been subsidising the club to the extent of 1,000,000 a year wether this continues who knows?
All of the money you highlight is already part of the clubs income, and IOR still have to subsidise it. So unless they are prepared to confirm that this is an ongoing commitment, the club is 1million short every year. I might also suggest that if IOR were to walk away they could demand that the club repays the debt accrued which would by then include any additional borrowings to build a stadium, so bankrupting the club overnight.
Potentially another Darlington.
You really are clueless when it comes to football finances. Most football clubs are financial basket cases relying on some sugar daddy to play out their fantasy in one form or another, especially the way game is 'financed' today.
As for IOR walking away, if your finances dried up overnight you'd be in the clarts as well, it aint rocket science.
Pools, like any other club, could be a potential Darlington, just as you could be a shunned, shuffling individual howling at the moon if you lost your job and home .. .but I repeat myself. ::)
I don't want to appear rude but I think ST's understanding of how a successful football club generates income nowadays is as limited as his grasp of how, and why, IOR have put money into Pools.
As well as gate money, TV money, matchday food and drink and so on, diversification into revenue streams from much wider areas of hospitality such as bars, hotels and restaurants, gyms and so on is becoming the only way of sustaining a club. Office space is another possibility. These wider opportunities are only open to clubs with a ground of sufficient standard to house the necessary facilities which is in surroundings that customers would want to visit. It seems likely that IOR's commitment to improve the Vic and the surrounding area stems, at least partly, from a desire to increase turnover by developing the club's activities in some of these areas.
You could ask why they would do that and the answer isn't hard to work out. Under the new financial rules IOR's current subsidy to the club wouldn't allow them to pay higher wages but an increase in turnover would. With other clubs struggling in the current financial climate that would create a real chance of achieving promotion to the Championship. This might in turn boost turnover further and possibly even reduce the annual losses but I don't think that is IOR's main concern.
As far as I can judge IOR bought Pools because they decided ownership of a football club was a better way of promoting themselves, and offering hospitality, within the oil industry than paying a fortune for executive boxes at Premier league clubs. Given that they are extremely profitable in most areas of their business and that some tax advantages might be gained from allowing losses in other areas, owning and running Pools probably costs them much the same as buying boxes in other people's grounds would. The boost in status and profile if they could run a Championship side for the same annual investment would be considerable and probably represents good value for them.
Finally, the large sum invested in Pools since they bought the club has been invested and has come from their wider company funds. They haven't borrowed in the club's name and the club do not owe IOR the money. If IOR walked away they would leave a club that would soon be in trouble because of the ongoing losses but that was free of debt. To insinuate that they are in anyway similar to the bunch of safe-crackers, ne'erdowells and opportunists that have destroyed Darlington FC is entirely bogus.
I'm an exile from the town but I visit as often as I can for family and football reasons and I find the idea that the proposed scheme might be allowed to fail quite depressing. If the council votes against handing over the ground, and I do understand that caution with public assets is a good thing, then they must surely work hard to find a compromise with IOR and the other partners in the scheme. Allowing caution, no matter how understandable, to prevent urgently needed investment in a run down area of the town would be a massive mistake. After all, the regeneration funds aren't going to be made available by local or national government so, without this scheme, the future holds no prospect of growth but a very real threat of rapid stagnation.
Well said... Im in complete agreement with you, butominously the rapid rejection of a sale prior to the presentation smacks of made up minds.
Quote from: From a distance on June 06, 2012, 09: AM
I don't want to appear rude but I think ST's understanding of how a successful football club generates income nowadays is as limited as his grasp of how, and why, IOR have put money into Pools.
As well as gate money, TV money, matchday food and drink and so on, diversification into revenue streams from much wider areas of hospitality such as bars, hotels and restaurants, gyms and so on is becoming the only way of sustaining a club. Office space is another possibility. These wider opportunities are only open to clubs with a ground of sufficient standard to house the necessary facilities which is in surroundings that customers would want to visit. It seems likely that IOR's commitment to improve the Vic and the surrounding area stems, at least partly, from a desire to increase turnover by developing the club's activities in some of these areas.
You could ask why they would do that and the answer isn't hard to work out. Under the new financial rules IOR's current subsidy to the club wouldn't allow them to pay higher wages but an increase in turnover would. With other clubs struggling in the current financial climate that would create a real chance of achieving promotion to the Championship. This might in turn boost turnover further and possibly even reduce the annual losses but I don't think that is IOR's main concern.
As far as I can judge IOR bought Pools because they decided ownership of a football club was a better way of promoting themselves, and offering hospitality, within the oil industry than paying a fortune for executive boxes at Premier league clubs. Given that they are extremely profitable in most areas of their business and that some tax advantages might be gained from allowing losses in other areas, owning and running Pools probably costs them much the same as buying boxes in other people's grounds would. The boost in status and profile if they could run a Championship side for the same annual investment would be considerable and probably represents good value for them.
Finally, the large sum invested in Pools since they bought the club has been invested and has come from their wider company funds. They haven't borrowed in the club's name and the club do not owe IOR the money. If IOR walked away they would leave a club that would soon be in trouble because of the ongoing losses but that was free of debt. To insinuate that they are in anyway similar to the bunch of safe-crackers, ne'erdowells and opportunists that have destroyed Darlington FC is entirely bogus.
I'm an exile from the town but I visit as often as I can for family and football reasons and I find the idea that the proposed scheme might be allowed to fail quite depressing. If the council votes against handing over the ground, and I do understand that caution with public assets is a good thing, then they must surely work hard to find a compromise with IOR and the other partners in the scheme. Allowing caution, no matter how understandable, to prevent urgently needed investment in a run down area of the town would be a massive mistake. After all, the regeneration funds aren't going to be made available by local or national government so, without this scheme, the future holds no prospect of growth but a very real threat of rapid stagnation.
Who's howling at the moon now??????????????
Well you've certainly won me over with that reply.
Quote from: From a distance on June 06, 2012, 02: PM
Well you've certainly won me over with that reply.
Straight Talking is to charm what Oscar Wilde is to non ferrous welding. Don't worry, he'll grow on you, much like head lice. ;)
You fellas and football. ::)
2,780 views and 143 replies. Is that a record? For football! :'(
The aspects that REALLY matter to the town...the on-going story of wasteful councillors, extensions to tips, alleged planning irregularities, alleged mis-appropriation of funds etc. etc. average around 25 replies and 250 views.
No the wonder this town doesn't move forward...all you appear to think about is beer, sex and football and not necessarily in that order! :(
The comrades in the Kremlin must be laughing all the way to the bank, to have you all so distracted.
Still, if it makes you happy. 8)
errr excuse me, its Football, beer then sex, we have standards you know ??
Quote from: Julie noted on June 07, 2012, 09: AM
You fellas and football. ::)
2,780 views and 143 replies. Is that a record? For football! :'(
The aspects that REALLY matter to the town...the on-going story of wasteful councillors, extensions to tips, alleged planning irregularities, alleged mis-appropriation of funds etc. etc. average around 25 replies and 250 views.
No the wonder this town doesn't move forward...all you appear to think about is beer, sex and football and not necessarily in that order! :(
The comrades in the Kremlin must be laughing all the way to the bank, to have you all so distracted.
Still, if it makes you happy. 8)
or possibly because the town moving on will be kickstarted by the millhouse masterplan, wasteful councillors is something that has been going on for years, and nothing has been done, if planning irregularities are happening then this forum will not really be the ones to whom it should be reported now is it, same with missapropriation of funds but the mill house master plan has yet to be decided and people are being proactive rather than waiting until after the vote and then whingeing about how unfair everything is, as to your stereotypical views about men perhaps if you spent a bit more time tidying up and washing and ironing you wouldnt have the time to post such rubbish on here ;)
Masterplan? What Masterplan?
Where are the detailed costings and schematic drawings? How much are IOR planning to contribute to this 'masterplan'? Why can't Gus Robinson, HCFE, Camerons etc go ahead with their plans without any IOR involvement at all - that involvement at the moment seems to be limited to 'give us the ground for free'.
Here's a suggestion.
A new company is established consisting of a group of partners whose shareholding is proportional to the value of the financial committment that they make to it i.e. HBC, Camerons, Gus Robinson, HCFE and IOR. HBC's committment will amount to the full value of the land.
I was going to reply to no6bus but it's starting to rain and I've got to get the washing in.
And no, that wasn't MY house in the Mail tonight!!! :o
I think it was intended tounge in cheek
Quote from: for fawkes sake on June 07, 2012, 11: AM
Masterplan? What Masterplan?
Where are the detailed costings and schematic drawings? How much are IOR planning to contribute to this 'masterplan'? Why can't Gus Robinson, HCFE, Camerons etc go ahead with their plans without any IOR involvement at all - that involvement at the moment seems to be limited to 'give us the ground for free'.
Here's a suggestion.
A new company is established consisting of a group of partners whose shareholding is proportional to the value of the financial committment that they make to it i.e. HBC, Camerons, Gus Robinson, HCFE and IOR. HBC's committment will amount to the full value of the land.
being presented to councillors on 18th june then a roadshow at 6 locations throughout the town to allow the public to see what is being proposed. possibly ior are currently occupying or paying rent for part of the land which will be needed for the develpoment, i believe they currently lease the land where the barriers are and include the drive area that runs alongside the mill house side of the ground, so following your suggestion heres one for you, attend one of the roadshows or the millhouse pub next thursday where daniel robinson is to give information about the plans.
The plans look detailed enough to me given the stage that proceedings are at. You can't expect IOR, Gus Robinson Developments and HCFE to devote the time and money needed to produce detailed costings and structural drawings when the council haven't even given the go ahead. Obviously they should have some approximate working figures and I would think they would be sharing these at the meetings with the council and probably at the action group meetings too.
It looks to me like all three partners are expecting to put a considerable amount of money into the scheme and that they are asking the council to 'chip in' by relinquishing what would very probably soon become a liability if the scheme doesn't come to fruition. It might even already be a liability if we looked at those figures in detail. Why would the companies concerned want to form a joint company with the very people who have allowed the decay to set in in the first place?
It isn't unusual for councils of all political persuasions to sign over buildings and land that are drains on the public coffers, very low sale prices aren't unusual either. They usually do it because the investing companies offer a real chance of growth, jobs and a boost to the local economy. Even if these gains prove to be fleeting not having to maintain derelict and semi-derelict areas usually provides enough of a saving to justify disposing of a public "asset" at below some notional market price.
It would be very hard to understand if HBC turned their backs on such an opportunity, particularly when all three partners have long standing business interests in the town. I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, and I certainly don't believe that all local politicians are corrupt, but I'd be looking very closely at the relationship between the Labour group and the Mayor for an explanation. That said, I remain optimistic that the councillors who have already lined up against the scheme will see sense during the consultation process and do what is best for the area and town.
quote:"You can't expect IOR, Gus Robinson Developments and HCFE to devote the time and money needed to produce detailed costings and structural drawings when the council haven't even given the go ahead."
I think perhaps that is the crux of the current confusion because I would say the converse is also true in that you can't expect HBC to give the go-ahead until they have sight of some detailed costings and structural drawings. There are some who would seem to be suggesting that HBC should walk blind into this, giving away the ground in the process, before receiving any guarantees that any regeneration would actually take place. I'm not against the whole scheme but the idea that stage one is for HBC to give away the ground without any real guarantee that any regeneration scheme would actually go ahead is fanciful.
It is too early for anything to be set in stone but the partners involved have put a reasonably detailed proposal to the council. The next step would be for the council to agree that, providing all is as it seems at this stage, they agree. Then a lot more work would have to take place adding the level of detail that would be needed for any provisional agreement to become a full agreement. I was assuming that anything voted on in the near future would be to empower council officers and the developers to proceed with further work on the scheme but would also include a get out clause in case of any serious problems emerging. A yes with no protection or guarantees built in would of course be ridiculous.
I'd like to see it go ahead but it would have to be on a sound basis. Some of the rhetoric surrounding this subject really isn't helping matters and it's interesting that we're now being told that the transfer of the ground to IOR is only a small part of the scheme - you don't have to step back in time many weeks to see that at the time it was all people were interested in. A change of tactics perhaps or maybe reality has finally stepped in.
Does anyone know the URL of IOR's website - buggered if I can find it?
The Pool's supporters do not care in the least about anything other than getting the ground.
If you read the threads on The Bunker you will see warnings where the more 'excitable' members were told to push the regeneration bits and tone down the 'football' side of the development.
Quote from: mk1 on June 07, 2012, 03: PM
The Pool's supporters do not care in the least about anything other than getting the ground.
If you read the threads on The Bunker you will see warnings where the more 'excitable' members were told to push the regeneration bits and tone down the 'football' side of the development.
in your opinion.
whereas some of us are actually hoping this scheme goes ahead, i for 1 would rather see a revamped odeon than the run down site it is today.
so are you in favour of the proposed plans ?
Given some of the things that have been said about HTH on the bunker and about the posters on this forum, I'm surprised admin has allowed this thread to continue - or perhaps not - I guess it says much about the differences between the two forums.
I have a feeling that if these plans do go ahead then it will be inspite of the 2-dimensional rantings on the bunker and not because of them.
When 'the plans' for Naviagtion Point were first announced there was to be a Tall Ships Exhibition Centre, a Hotel, a Garden Centre and a row of high class cafe-culure restaurants. We ended up with 100 pigeon-loft flats, a builders yard, a fish and chip shop, a newsagents, a smattering of half-decent restaurants and the relocation of the Church Street wine-bar binge drinkers.
All we have at the moment is a half-baked wish list for Mill house - when we have some proper plans I'll let you know.
I think you should bear in mind that The Bunker is basically a forum where the sort of humour you might hear in a pub with your mates is expected. People on there exaggerate and rant for comic effect. The fact that they got a Mayor elected and got a single into the charts should give you a clue that they aren't thick and that they have a decent range of skills at their disposal. The action group is putting some of those skills to use and I think they'll probably run a good campaign that won't include any daft rants which would allow politically adept opponents to sidetrack the debate. What you've noticed is a shift between online individuals expressing a bit of outrage to a proper single issue campaign. If I was part of the Labour Group I'd be thinking very carefully about whether rejecting the plan before it is even fully discussed was a foolish course of action.
As far as Navigation Point is concerned it hasn't turned out well but it is still better than derelict docks. The council would be sensible to ensure that they have a watertight agreement but scuppering the scheme just to be on the safe side makes no sense at all.
Quote from: marky on June 07, 2012, 04: PM
Given some of the things that have been said about HTH on the bunker and about the posters on this forum, I'm surprised admin has allowed this thread to continue - or perhaps not - I guess it says much about the differences between the two forums.
I have a feeling that if these plans do go ahead then it will be inspite of the 2-dimensional rantings on the bunker and not because of them.
oh the irony of that post.
of course nothing has been posted on here that could be construed as anti bunker ::)
why shouldnt the debate be allowed to continue any bickering is between the usual hth members
and accusing the bunker of 2 dimensional rantings when members are banned from this forum on a more regular basis than since the bunker started is priceless.
thank you you have brightened up an otherwise boring day, no cricket due to rain , no holiday this week because tesco havent been paying my wife her full £12.50 per hour wages and no olympics for another 50 days, i hope someone is going down to count the crowds in london we dont want another tall ships fiasco ;D
Quote from: marky on June 07, 2012, 04: PM
Given some of the things that have been said about HTH on the bunker and about the posters on this forum, I'm surprised admin has allowed this thread to continue - or perhaps not - I guess it says much about the differences between the two forums.
I have a feeling that if these plans do go ahead then it will be inspite of the 2-dimensional rantings on the bunker and not because of them.
The opinions of a knot of posters on the Bunker are hardly representative of the typical Pools supporter, I'm sick to death of people assuming because a minute group of posters like to express their views, all fans are tarred with the same brush.
A thought's just occured, if this is rejected, this could do more harm to the Labour Party locally than they bargained for .... one thing a Pools supporter has is a long memory.
The URL for IOR (Increased Oil Recovery Ltd)
is/was www.ior.co.uk
but it doesn`t work/
It used to. Perhaps it has been hit by a bug?
Quote: "Racism, sexism, homophobia and rose coloured glasses about the past will not be tolerated unless you're a member."
This is how the bunker currently introduces itself - it's all just for a laugh, of course, which is the normal excuse for bigotry. I don't think the bunker represents in any way the typical pools supporter; my auntie goes to Pools and she's 76! In a way that's my point when I say that if the scheme goes ahead it will be in spite of the rantings of the bunker posters and not because of them. They represent no one. Not the genuine Pools supporter and certainly not the other 87,000 people that live in the town.
As for comparing the two forums...you're having a laugh, surely.
Quote from: marky on June 07, 2012, 11: PM
Quote: "Racism, sexism, homophobia and rose coloured glasses about the past will not be tolerated unless you're a member."
This is how the bunker currently introduces itself - it's all just for a laugh, of course, which is the normal excuse for bigotry.
Sorry, but you wouldn't get away with any of the above if you tried it and would be quickly barred if you did ... actually, it is said tongue in cheek, if you don't believe me, give it a try.
yes your right i shouldnt compare the 2 forums, the bunker has organised things which have actually happened whereas this forum is merely somewhere people talk about their vision of the utopia that hartlepool would be if the council admitted only 37 people turned up for the tall ships, the mayor was a long gone memory and people were not voting labour in every election.
Careful, your new tactics are showing. Of course it's all tongue in cheek as were the threats to beat up people in the Hillcarter for daring to wear Man Utd shirts, the idea that The Mail should be stopped from printing any letters which opposed giving away the ground for free etc etc.
The obvious question is that if you think so little of this forum then why bother posting on it - p**s off to the two-dimensional world of the bunker and rejoin your your neanderthalic colleagues.
Remember Plan B now - play down the football and push the regeneration.
thank you so much i couldnt have proven my point any better if i had tried.
and obviously i forgot that the bunch of neanderthalic collesgues have the power to determine the editing of the letters page of the mail.
was there any violence actually shown to the glory seekers sorry man u fans or was it just like the behaviour of some posters on here who seem to resort to abuse when losing an argument?
i also didnt realise i am required to follow a stereotypical posters way, am i meant to focus on tall ships, wasting our money, nepotism or can i continue to post things which are my own thoughts.
now calm down dear and have a cup of tea, mind make sure its decaff.
i forgot that the bunch of neanderthalic collesgues have the power to determine the editing of the letters page of the mail.
You need to tell your mates then because they seem to be under the impression that they have.
was there any violence actually shown to the glory seekers sorry man u fans
So lets dump the law against threatening behaviour, shall we, as long as the perpetrators don't actually carry out their threats.
It's all just a laugh isn't it? Racism, sexism, homophobia, violent threats - but, remember lads, if anyone asks, we don't really mean it. If the regeneration plans at Mill House depend on the efforts of people like you and your mates then you may as well give up the ghost now - remember lads, forget the football - make out it's all about regeneration. FOOTBAAAAAL.....FOO TBAAAAAAL!
expected so much better in your reply
theres nothing wrong in people being passionate about their beliefs. however in the case of the manure fans some people WRONGLY in my opinion posted things without thinking what they were posting, does this make it right, no.
and you maintain the bunker does this but not this forum no homophobic postings? are you sure.
you seem obsessed with the bunker to such an extent i am beginning to wonder if you are a councillor or somebody who is concerned that the bunker is actually doing something and showing that when a group work together rather than just waffle on they may just achieve something.
and remember the plans being proposed to the council are entitled the mill house master plan rather than the hartlepool united master plan.
There is no reason why the transfer of the ground to the football club should form any part of plans to redevelop the Mill House site which can be done just as easily as a standalone project.
As for the 'Masterplan', you may as well call it Mickey Mouse's Diary because it's the sale/ giveaway of the football ground to IOR that has occupied space in the local rag for years not the development of the Mill House site and now it's merely the means to piggy back the same flawed obsession through to reality.
If IOR want to contribute financially to the complete Mill House scheme then fine and maybe HBC's contribution could be the value of the ground, including the football ground but at the moment all you and your mates seem to think is that they are entitled to it for nothing, that Hartlepool consists of nothing more than a football team and anyone outside of the tribe is fair game.
I would suggest that if your mates on the bunker really want the sale of the football ground to go through then the best thing they can do for the next few months is to shut the f*c* up because their greatest football expertise at the moment appears to be how to score own goals.
I didn't see Darlington Council tripping over themselves to save their local club. Weren't they worried about the hundreds of jobs lost, the drop in visitors to the town or the millions lost to their town's economy? Apparently not.
Quote from: marky on June 08, 2012, 08: PM
There is no reason why the transfer of the ground to the football club should form any part of plans to redevelop the Mill House site which can be done just as easily as a standalone project.
As for the 'Masterplan', you may as well call it Mickey Mouse's Diary because it's the sale/ giveaway of the football ground to IOR that has occupied space in the local rag for years not the development of the Mill House site and now it's merely the means to piggy back the same flawed obsession through to reality.
If IOR want to contribute financially to the complete Mill House scheme then fine and maybe HBC's contribution could be the value of the ground, including the football ground but at the moment all you and your mates seem to think is that they are entitled to it for nothing, that Hartlepool consists of nothing more than a football team and anyone outside of the tribe is fair game.
I would suggest that if your mates on the bunker really want the sale of the football ground to go through then the best thing they can do for the next few months is to shut the f*c* up because their greatest football expertise at the moment appears to be how to score own goals.
selective reading of my posts on this forum i see.
i think if you could be bothered to actually do a little bit of checking out i have actually given a figure i believe the club should pay ( yes pay) for the ground.
but dont let facts get in the way of sprouting rubbish as usual
Quote from: not4me on June 08, 2012, 10: PM
I didn't see Darlington Council tripping over themselves to save their local club. Weren't they worried about the hundreds of jobs lost, the drop in visitors to the town or the millions lost to their town's economy? Apparently not.
Darlington Council were obstructive from the start and now they've got the fruits of their labours. All they have is a huge testament to failure on the ring road to remind them every day.
Well, that's breakfast over with. Washing & ironing done.
I thought I'll leave the vacuuming until later in the morning.
If that's OK with no6bus. ;)
I thought I'd see if I could help get this football page up to 1,000 replies and 1 million views (1 for every person that attended the Tall Ships?). ::)
I think the council is right to be VERY cautious about this proposed deal.
Hpool Utd. 'fans' are very up and down. When it's going well, 4,000 might turn out. When they are struggling, you're lucky if they get 1,500 through the gates...and lots of them walk out halfway through the match.
Sell the ground and IOR could use the poor attendance as the reason for pulling the plug on the team and using the ground for other uses.
Put 'conditions' on the sale? If the council did that, IOR would probably change its mind about the purchase.
Are we at 1,000 replies yet? :-*
Quote from: Julie noted on June 09, 2012, 09: AM
I think the council is right to be VERY cautious about this proposed deal.
Funny that, for a board that in general slags off councillors and Labour councillors in particular, suddenly they're portrayed as astute stalwarts of the community, reflecting the highest ethical standards of municipal endeavor ... it just goes to show how Pools can bring communities together ... even if they are strange bedfellows.
Hpool Utd. 'fans' are very up and down. When it's going well, 4,000 might turn out. When they are struggling, you're lucky if they get 1,500 through the gates...and lots of them walk out halfway through the match.So you're a regular then, or do you spend time rushing from exit to exit with an abacus and stopwatch counting the departing fans as they leave .....that makes trainspotting, or even ironing sound positively riveting ;)
Sell the ground and IOR could use the poor attendance as the reason for pulling the plug on the team and using the ground for other uses.
What other sport related activiites would they be .....?
I hope everyone who is debating on here goes to the meetings that are planned to discuss this in person.
Quote from: Julie noted on June 09, 2012, 09: AM
Well, that's breakfast over with. Washing & ironing done.
I thought I'll leave the vacuuming until later in the morning.
If that's OK with no6bus. ;)
I thought I'd see if I could help get this football page up to 1,000 replies and 1 million views (1 for every person that attended the Tall Ships?). ::)
I think the council is right to be VERY cautious about this proposed deal.
Hpool Utd. 'fans' are very up and down. When it's going well, 4,000 might turn out. When they are struggling, you're lucky if they get 1,500 through the gates...and lots of them walk out halfway through the match.
Sell the ground and IOR could use the poor attendance as the reason for pulling the plug on the team and using the ground for other uses.
Put 'conditions' on the sale? If the council did that, IOR would probably change its mind about the purchase.
Are we at 1,000 replies yet? :-*
not even at 200 yet mind when you have done the tea and washed up afterwards you can have 30 mins at the pc as a reward and the reply count may even have gone up ;)
oh and prob 1000 too low for the high and about 2000 too low for the low. ;D
@Julie noted - 'A man's place is in the wrong'... 8)
Quote from: marky on June 08, 2012, 01: PM
i forgot that the bunch of neanderthalic collesgues have the power to determine the editing of the letters page of the mail.
You need to tell your mates then because they seem to be under the impression that they have.
was there any violence actually shown to the glory seekers sorry man u fans
So lets dump the law against threatening behaviour, shall we, as long as the perpetrators don't actually carry out their threats.
It's all just a laugh isn't it? Racism, sexism, homophobia, violent threats - but, remember lads, if anyone asks, we don't really mean it. If the regeneration plans at Mill House depend on the efforts of people like you and your mates then you may as well give up the ghost now - remember lads, forget the football - make out it's all about regeneration. FOOTBAAAAAL.....FOO TBAAAAAAL!
Its a fact the bunker has actually banned people whose views are different to those of the bullying majority on there. People who support the same football club, so much for free speech. The bunker and the clique behind it have no credibility. PS. Some of them have vested interests as well.
so the bunker has banned people,
wheres looksliketoryagain oh yes he's been banned from here, so your point is?
clique bit like on here then.
vested interest well thats a new one, care to provide any factual evidence or should we all resort to just making things up?
unless you mean the PA announcer oh my god i never thought of that surely its a conflict of interest ::)
or the landlord of the millhouse pub who may get a new pub out of it, oh hang on thats not the football club so it doesnt count.
You have made my point for me. Thank you
Just for accuracy. LLTA has not been banned from this forum.
so somebody who posted such a large amount has disappeared from the members list and his posts have gone mmmmmm
ok admin if you say he isnt banned then he isnt banned.
can you clarify then "have you banned anybody since the forum started" as the posting previously made infered that the bunker bans people but this forum would never resort to that.
Quote from: no6bus on June 10, 2012, 01: PM
ok admin if you say he isnt banned then he isnt banned.
If I remember correctly (not always a given!) Fraser has posted a couple of times in his new (new since his latest removal)identity.