New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

Sicknote said:
The onus is now on the club to prove in the planning application, that staying at the Kassam is not a viable option. Which they would have been required to do in any event. You only get to build on green belt land in "very special circumstances". The club being homeless in less than three years was a pretty compelling circumstance.
Click to expand...

Haven't they done that already to OCC? It has been in the 'background' section to every document put together to go in front of OCC Cabinet Officers and they have accepted it, time and time again.

As I've said before, if there is a chance to stay, this doesn't just implicate the club in this but dozens of OCC councillors too who will have glossed over this detail.

I call further bullshit on the OM article. There's too little context to even discuss it.
 
Say Kassam said he wouldn't allow us to extend the lease, then has a change of heart and says we can stay, what is to stop him doing another u turn and not allowing us to stay? How is that viable for the club? Its not as if Kassam hasn't had interest to buy the ground over the years, had people from outside the club looking at doing that ten years ago but it fell through because he changed his mind.
 
Yellow River said:
Kassam has an ego, which means he would hate for somebody to make a success of the club and grow it when he wasn't able to. He is no friend of OUFC, he is quite happy to stick the knife in and make life difficult and awkward for us.

At the end of the day though he will still have his eye on the pot of gold that is housing for the current stadium site.

Fosb are making use of Kassam’s bitterness towards the club to try and score a few points in a dying local rag.

As for the OxMail this is not the first time they have gone with an anti stadium, anti Oxford United piece.
Where’s the balance? Where’s the story about FOSB plans to apply for a grant from KPC (tax payers money) to pay their legal bill?

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that the Oxford Mail is no friend of OUFC. Don’t buy it, don’t click on any articles, don’t support it in anyway.

We know that the Oxford Mail read this site, they get half their stories from here. So I challenge Liam Rice* to set the balance straight, a front page article supporting the club, supporting the move, exposing fosb’s lies and hypocrisy.

Liam, do you have the courage and journalistic skills to do it? I guess we’ll soon find out.


*Reporter covering local politics and traffic and transport. Often covering Oxford United and sport.
Click to expand...
This, could the forum have a designated screen shotter for ox fail articles, so they are not getting the clicks they so desire?
 
Where's the ignore fosb posters ??? As I said on numerous occasions, don't underestimate no-one......
 
I am unable to read the article. Is he referring to a temporary lease extension to avoid ground share or permanent? Presumably, the former.
 
LeftSideLarry said:
Wake up folks, we’re in trouble. There are 926 days left until Aug 1 2026 and we haven’t even submitted an application. There is zero chance of us playing at The Triangle in 26/27. Add a couple of years on and maybe we could.

Given that, the club should be delighted to hear that Kassam is open to us staying for a time, as ground sharing would kill the club financially.

We’ve played a high-stakes game of chicken and I think we’re going to need to blink first for the protection of the club.

None of this has anything to do with FoSB/Middleton. It’s simply a case of realism regarding logistics, bureaucracy and economics.

I understand that no one wants to hear this, let alone believe it so I’ll don the tin-hat, but above all else, OUFC must survive whilst staying close to Oxford, and that must be protected above all else.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, Kassam agreed to a new lease extending the existing one to June 2026. In return the club gave up its option to renew, something Kassam was clearly keen to avoid. He has development plans for Grenoble Road consistent with those of the local authority.
. It seems extremely unlikely that Kassam is now making an offer to the club to extend its stay beyond what has been agreed other than perhaps on outrageous terms believing he has the club over a barrel. Leopards don’t change their spots.
Among other dubious claims you make, you say that “ ground-sharing would kill the club financially”. The truth is that not ground-sharing ,if it became necessary, would put the whole existence of the club in jeopardy.
We do not know why the planning application has not yet been submitted and hopefully it will be very soon. But even if it were tomorrow the timescale is tight and it would be negligent on the part of those running our club, who of late seem reluctant to keep the fan base informed about anything, not to be already making alternative temporary arrangements if we are not able to kick off the 2026/7 season in the Triangle.
Otherwise, it might be not so much a question of no new stadium but a question of no club.
 
Last edited:
arthurturner said:
As I understand it, Kassam agreed to a new lease extending the existing one to June 2016. In return the club gave up its option to renew, something Kassam was clearly keen to avoid. He has development plans for Grenoble Road consistent with those of the local authority.
. It seems extremely unlikely that Kassam is now making an offer to the club to extend its stay beyond what has been agreed other than perhaps on outrageous terms believing he has the club over a barrel. Leopards don’t change their spots.
Among other dubious claims you make, you say that “ ground-sharing would kill the club financially”. The truth is that not ground-sharing ,if it became necessary, would put the whole existence of the club in jeopardy.
We do not know why the planning application has not yet been submitted and hopefully it will be very soon. But even if it were tomorrow the timescale is tight and it would be negligent on the part of those running our club, who of late seem reluctant to keep the fan base informed about anything, not be already making alternative temporary arrangements if we are not able to kick off the 2026/7 season in the Triangle.
Otherwise, it might be not so much a question of no new stadium but a question of no club.
Click to expand...
“Dubious”.

There’s none so blind as those that will not see.
 
Oslernorth said:
The article is only 26 words long, and nothing more than a headline.
Why has this been printed without a source, or any other additional information??
Are the Oxford Mail claiming they spoke to Kassam directly?
Click to expand...

It appears to be taken from yesterday's FoSB update to their members.

Club statement needed.
 
Can imagine the power's of FOSB, with their feet up on the desk , smoking a big fat cigar today , laughing at us ..
 
Orkney Islands Yellow said:
It appears to be taken from yesterday's FoSB update to their members.

Club statement needed.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is. The club have brushed off all claims by FOSB so far and just keep going about their business in a professional and let’s be honest, how far have all these articles got FOSB? They have failed at every attempt and have been shown up multiple times for their lies. This will be no different either.
 
Steve Gilbert said:
I don’t think it is. The club have brushed off all claims by FOSB so far and just keep going about their business in a professional and let’s be honest, how far have all these articles got FOSB? They have failed at every attempt and have been shown up multiple times for their lies. This will be no different either.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The club's approach has to ignore the whining of FOSB and it has worked so far.

What do we think the impact of this 'article' will be? Tomorrow's chip paper, most likely.

A club statement on the planning permission application would be the best option all round.

Scrongo said:
Can imagine the power's of FOSB, with their feet up on the desk , smoking a big fat cigar today , laughing at us ..
Click to expand...

I did that yesterday as their grant to KPC was withdrawn (albeit sipping a lovely mug of tea rather than smoking a cigar). They haven't scored any victory here unless they have a smoking gun that says the club could be forced to stay at the Kassam.

Another thing, what does 'stay' mean from FK? He won't sell it to the club so I presume he means lease it, knowing the club have literally nowhere else to go, to whatever terms he wants.
 
Steve Gilbert said:
I don’t think it is. The club have brushed off all claims by FOSB so far and just keep going about their business in a professional and let’s be honest, how far have all these articles got FOSB? They have failed at every attempt and have been shown up multiple times for their lies. This will be no different either.
Click to expand...

I think the club need to respond, their are rumours going around, now FOSB and the Oxford Mail are reporting those rumours, its out there so just ignoring it, even if its very specious what the actual facts are will just add fuel to the fire.

If the club intends to push on with the stadium and can not come to a deal with Kassam, essentially being made homeless (which is what the council have had proven to them to get to the stage we are at now) then all the club needs to do is state those facts and this all becomes more gossip and nonsense, a spurious statement by Kassam in the local rag means nothing without any hard facts and evidence behind it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Land Deal
722 723 724
Replies
14K
Views
931K
Northstandboy
Northstandboy
brightonyellow
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - Stratfield Brake
304 305 306
Replies
6K
Views
415K
ljs
L
MarkG
What will happen to the Kassam stadium?
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Concretebob
C
OUSP
Call to Action Stadium Planning
Replies
4
Views
686
OUSP
OUSP
OUFCwaffle
Study: New stadium location of safe standing model.
Replies
14
Views
1K
ljs
L
Back
Top Bottom