General New Stadium Plans - Stratfield Brake

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really don’t think that anything has gone wrong or that it won’t happen. This just part of the process. Did anyone seriously think that this would just sail through without any objection or need for a consultation? The questions/concerns raised all have decent answers, and those answers will be given in due course. Unfortunately in these matters even ignorant fucknuts get to speak up. But money and investment talks louder. We’ll be fine.
 
yellowbow said:
And that they carried so much weight that they lead to the council bottling it? I struggle to believe that from what Im understanding he said. Isnt it more likely that it was always going to be deferred today regardless of what was said.
Click to expand...
Yes, the proposal to defer had already been drafted by the councillor that proposed it. It wasn't done on the basis of what was said by one ill informed man.
 
This initial skirmish is largely irrelevant in the big scheme - think of it as a box ticking exercise, a pleasantry if you wish.

Regardless of what OCC decide to do or not do in regard to the development at SB, the club can still submit plans and engage with whomsoever they wish and it is the district council who have the initial decision to accept or reject the proposal. If they refuse, then the plan will almost certainly go to appeal and (from my experience) most likely won.

Of course it would give the district council less grounds to refuse if the county council were behind the plan, but as far as decisions go, they have no say.

The worse that can happen is for the timescale to be elongated but we have a legal right to renew the playing license at the Kasssm, so we won't need to worry about ground sharing!
 
Oxymoron said:
Regardless of what OCC decide to do or not do in regard to the development at SB, the club can still submit plans and engage with whomsoever they wish and it is the district council who have the initial decision to accept or reject the proposal.
Click to expand...
Is that true? The land is owned by OCC and the club would therefore need to lease it from them.
 
Yellowmania said:
I think the one thing we’ve got missing at the club is a real good front man PR’ing all the good stuff that’s going to come out of this project for the local community. Tiger is just not visible as will the new owners be I guess.
Karl does his best but it’s not in his job description.
We need a bit of an antedote to Mr Hill and I’m not sure who’s going to provide it. Club statements don’t really cut it in local press, TV etc, etc.
MK Dons had Winkleman do this on their project and trust me he was everywhere and all over it!
Click to expand...

If only we had a fan who has had a career in PR, even better if they’d had experience in football? Does such a fan exist?
 
OX14 said:
Challenged by who though, we didn't have a representative in the meeting. Hopefully oufc board send a few more details in about how much money they have and how it will benefit the existing sports clubs. Will also help if the takeover completes before the next meeting too as that will be in the public eye.
Click to expand...
Challenged by others at the meeting who do have more knowledge.
 
ZeroTheHero said:
Is that true? The land is owned by OCC and the club would therefore need to lease it from them.
Click to expand...
They would be one of the parties the club would need to engage with to see the scheme through, but you do not need to own or otherwise occupy land to submit a planning application to build on it.

However, I doubt the club would have proceeded to this stage without some sort of pre-agreement with OCC to lease (or even purchase?) the land.
 
Foley said:
Challenged by others at the meeting who do have more knowledge.
Click to expand...

3:49pm

Raises point made earlier about the owners - says must look at Thohir etc's past at DC United and Inter Milan.

3:48pm

New speaker now, who seems to be a Kidlington resident and a Utd season-ticket holder: "United have only got one shot at this, they must get it right


This one did. I think it was Councillor Nigel Simpson who is Kirtlington and North Kidlington Con. Rest of them who spoke said not enough time to look over and ask feedback of community. Just one bell peice John Hill made it sound like everyone was.against it.
 
Foley said:
Challenged by others at the meeting who do have more knowledge.
Click to expand...

It was to a certain extent by Cllr Nigel Simpson(?), i think he mentioned Inter and DC United and that
despite agreeing with the need for more time to consult with the public work with the club would
continue in the meantime.
 
Upthecowboys said:
If only we had a fan who has had a career in PR, even better if they’d had experience in football? Does such a fan exist?
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that person hasn't supported us since 2018 after his betting activities of the time came to light and subsequent involvement with a train set.
 
OxfordYankee said:
I think many of us hoped that things were more progressed than it seems they are. I fully expected this to be passed today, after all it is simply the first of many thresholds to cross.

Oxfordshire's local government has never, in the entirety of its history, done well by OUFC and I was foolish to think that they would now.

It's not dead, of course and as Fanatica points out, there'll be plenty more frustration to come, however, I had hoped that the councillors would show support at a stage that commits them to nothing. It's given oodles of encouragement to every naysayer and anti and left us with a sense of 'we've seen it all before'.

When will I ever learn?
Click to expand...
Perhaps scotch egg can clarify what ground work has taken place over the last three years if we have no stadium design or detailed plans, and no tacit support to get past the first hurdle.
 
oxajh said:
A couple of people outside each stand, someone by the away end. Let’s get thousands of signatures
Click to expand...
I wold think someone outside the away end would pick up quite a few signatures, after what they have been through in recent years.
 
WaldenSaffronYellow said:
If this falls at the first hurdle do we have other location options? I know it has been identified as the best site but if it’s simply too difficult to get past the nimbys surely we should have a plan b and c.

It’s worrying that this once in a lifetime opportunity (for the club, city and county) this hugely exciting plan could be dead in the water (if the backers walk away).
Click to expand...
We struggle on the pitch to have a plan B, so to have a plan C would be monumental.
 
Is it not worth the club/OU Supporters group/Oxvox consulting other personnel at other clubs that have been through this process. Brighton for example have a ground deep in the green belt. The key was unity between the club and supporters every step of the way. There were always key supporters that led the way when it came to liaising with the club, press, organising marches. Even bringing in old managers like Micky Adams for marches. They always got great coverage.

Paul Samra, was one of the representatives. He always seemed to be on TV/in contact with a John Williams type club representative.
Celebrity fans were also encouraged to get involved, aka Timmy Mallet.

It's the best blueprint available, actually asking questions as to how issues were tackled and opposition was responded to, from people who have been through this exact same process.
 
Ricky Otto said:
Perhaps scotch egg can clarify what ground work has taken place over the last three years if we have no stadium design or detailed plans, and no tacit support to get past the first hurdle.
Click to expand...
I think that is stretching things a bit too far, looking at this afternoons meeting in a calmer mood, it becomes clear that the decision was never going to happen today. The leaked letter put that to bed. The original agenda had all the details exempted from the public eye. All that was to be seen was an application titled "Outline proposal to lease Council Land". - This was first noted on 15/12/2021* long before it came into the public eye. Had it remained so I fully expect that the decision would have been passed and we would now be moving towards planning.

As it transpired, the councillors were put on the spot, ignore the electorate or take a pause, agree a consultation period and reset. They went with the politically safe route. No big deal, nothing was going to happen without a public consultation but, it would have been easier with the lease details sorted first.

I came to this conclusion taking into account the absence of any petitioner from the club or any representative of the majority shareholders and the ease at which a solution was presented to the Cabinet (and passed without discussion)

I don't know any of this 100% but, I'm guessing that I'm not that far off the truth. The support is there amongst the council but they cannot be seen to "rubber stamp" a decision like this, no matter how much sense it makes - not me saying that, Cabinet member for finance and Corporate director - Commercial development, assets and investment for the County Council Steve Jorden made the recommendation to accept to the Cabinet.
*See here for detail:
Reference to Council agenda



​

 
Manorlounger said:
I think that is stretching things a bit too far, looking at this afternoons meeting in a calmer mood, it becomes clear that the decision was never going to happen today. The leaked letter put that to bed. The original agenda had all the details exempted from the public eye. All that was to be seen was an application titled "Outline proposal to lease Council Land". - This was first noted on 15/12/2021* long before it came into the public eye. Had it remained so I fully expect that the decision would have been passed and we would now be moving towards planning.

As it transpired, the councillors were put on the spot, ignore the electorate or take a pause, agree a consultation period and reset. They went with the politically safe route. No big deal, nothing was going to happen without a public consultation but, it would have been easier with the lease details sorted first.

I came to this conclusion taking into account the absence of any petitioner from the club or any representative of the majority shareholders and the ease at which a solution was presented to the Cabinet (and passed without discussion)

I don't know any of this 100% but, I'm guessing that I'm not that far off the truth. The support is there amongst the council but they cannot be seen to "rubber stamp" a decision like this, no matter how much sense it makes - not me saying that, Cabinet member for finance and Corporate director - Commercial development, assets and investment for the County Council Steve Jorden made the recommendation to accept to the Cabinet.
*See here for detail:
Reference to Council agenda



​

Click to expand...
I think if that were the case the tone of statements and questions would have been very different including the balance of those presenting . I used to work in local politics as a research and media officer
So I have plenty experience of meeting tone and management and that did not go well. An opening pitch and tone has been set.

Let me course correct my question . Do we have a local government public relations team to manage this process on our behalf given it’s potentially fractious nature for local residents who choose not to see the benefits?
 
Last edited:
Ricky Otto said:
I think if that were the case the tone of statements and questions would have been very different including the balance of those presenting . I used to work in local politics as a research and media officer
So I have plenty experience of meeting tone and management and that did not go well. An opening pitch and tone has been set.

Let me course correct my question . Do we have a local government public relations team to manage this process on our behalf given it’s potentially fractious nature for local residents who choose not to see the benefits?
Click to expand...

There is a company in place for this, yes. I found them yesterday, a good record too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Northstandboy
  • Sticky
  • Poll
New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning
654 655 656
Replies
13K
Views
661K
Dillon
D
B
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Land Deal
722 723 724
Replies
14K
Views
923K
Northstandboy
Northstandboy
OUSP
Call to Action Stadium Planning
Replies
4
Views
506
OUSP
OUSP
OUFCwaffle
Study: New stadium location of safe standing model.
Replies
14
Views
1K
ljs
L
OUFCwaffle
Unofficial Name for the New Stadium
2 3
Replies
54
Views
6K
Emilio
Emilio
Back
Top Bottom