Desso Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Is it still going on? This is the 8th day of the meeting and I am beginning to fear the worst. After a couple of days in, I thought the signs were good: both sides were willing to talk and I felt that a compromise could be agreed. Now, because of the protracted arbitration, there has to be a MAJOR stumbling block and the longer it goes on I fear that there will be an unsurmountable impasse. Hope I am wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 YOu never never know, they could have reached a compromise and now need to see if it is feasable? I would have thought that if the residents werent budging against the stadium, it would have been called off by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 I think we all realise that bottom line is that the 'village greeners' don't want a stadium spoiling their view at any cost and I fear that they will be rigidly resistant to any compromise which leads to the stadium getting built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 The clubs allready compromised. Theres going to be a huge managed wetlands area as part of the development which will be vastly more useable and pleasant than the shit tip thats there at the moment. Just underlines they're not interested in a green area to walk dogs etc. They just dont want a stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillzider Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 The talks have not been ongoing for 8 days. After the initial days discussion it was agreed that thay would continue at a later date. Not sure if these further discussion have yet taken place yet or if a date has been fixed. Hopefully the fact that the two sides have agreed to meet again is a positive sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCAGFC Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 The talks have not been ongoing for 8 days. After the initial days discussion it was agreed that thay would continue at a later date. Not sure if these further discussion have yet taken place yet or if a date has been fixed. Hopefully the fact that the two sides have agreed to meet again is a positive sign. Thought the council wanted it sorted ASAP, don't think they will want a long delay. If the 'anti-stadium' brigade refuse to compromise then that could go against them when it goes to appeal. BCAGFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty-H Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 And the wheels of democracy continue to turn at a dead snails pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezo Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 The clubs allready compromised. Theres going to be a huge managed wetlands area as part of the development which will be vastly more useable and pleasant than the shit tip thats there at the moment. Just underlines they're not interested in a green area to walk dogs etc. They just dont want a stadium. This is what I don't get, They seem to want us to compromise the stadium out of the plans - so we will never come to an agreement. What is there left to compromise over other than the stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargent Pepper Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 i think i remember reading somewhere that the council will decide on the next step at the end of Feb. I'm sure im not alone in saying im thoroughly pi$$ed off with this now. City have done everything to appease the locals, from excepting a big hole in the funding with the Southlands housing being rejected which means they will still have open fields for their dogs to shit on, to the inclusion of the wetlands. Yet we are asked to comprimise! Where are the locals compromises???? As people have mentioned they are not interested in a village green and they are just using that law as an excuse to block the stadium after already losing the planning permission decsion. A fact a number of these NIMBYs have admitted to, yet this is still rumbling on! How is this still in debate? What a waste of the councils time and money, let alone SL's. How's this for a compromise? SL should halve the wetland area and build a proper small village green. I mean a little bandstand with a maypole and a few seats for the elderly (sorry no ice skating rink) and say there you go, theres your *******g Village green! Anything else than a glad acceptance should be met with the council throwing their appeal out and court action taken for wasting everyones time and even loss of earnings for the club and any businesses that may have agreed to use the site. They won't mind paying out whats owed as theyve wasted £42k (i believe) on this pathetic VG application.... Oh hang on that was puplic money not there own...... *******! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark43 Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 The talks have not been ongoing for 8 days. After the initial days discussion it was agreed that thay would continue at a later date. Not sure if these further discussion have yet taken place yet or if a date has been fixed. Hopefully the fact that the two sides have agreed to meet again is a positive sign. Yep as you say they've not been ongoing all this time, they agreed to meet again after the first meeting. I'm not totally sure but I think when they mentioned it on the radio after the meeting they said that they had agreed to meet again 'next week', which would be this week. I dont hold much hope, when I heard one of the people talking about it on the radio last week before the meeting he suggested that the compromise was for us to redevelop Ashton Gate.... Hopefully something can be resolved though, probably our only hope of getting things moving quickly, if at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezo Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Yep as you say they've not been ongoing all this time, they agreed to meet again after the first meeting. I'm not totally sure but I think when they mentioned it on the radio after the meeting they said that they had agreed to meet again 'next week', which would be this week. I dont hold much hope, when I heard one of the people talking about it on the radio last week before the meeting he suggested that the compromise was for us to redevelop Ashton Gate.... Hopefully something can be resolved though, probably our only hope of getting things moving quickly, if at all. Surely our rebuttal to this would have to be - OK we need £160m (or whatever) to make up the shortfall are you going to pay in cash or cheque? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 How's this for a compromise? SL should halve the wetland area and build a proper small village green. I mean a little bandstand with a maypole and a few seats for the elderly (sorry no ice skating rink) and say there you go, theres your *******g Village green! Anything else than a glad acceptance should be met with the council throwing their appeal out and court action taken for wasting everyones time and even loss of earnings for the club and any businesses that may have agreed to use the site. They won't mind paying out whats owed as theyve wasted £42k (i believe) on this pathetic VG application.... Oh hang on that was puplic money not there own...... *******! That's not a bad idea! How many acres was set aside for the wetlands? Using some of it for a VG, with some facilities, would be a good compromise. (Although the environmentalists would probably argue against it.) Perhaps that is why there is a pause in the arbitration, while the club put together a draft proposal. Would give the Council the grounds to reject designating the whole area as a VG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCAGFC Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 I would have thought the 'starting point' of any compromise would be "is there any way we build the stadium but make you happy at the same time?". If they said no, then no need for further talks, if they said yes, then the serious talking begins. They could also delay things further by saying yes, when they mean no. BCAGFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalonred Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Anybody seen this load of old tosh? Sainburys Store link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grove park city Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Anybody seen this load of old tosh? Sainburys Store link The whole project is stinking like a barrel of dead fish any excuse to hold things back extra traffic , negative impacts, benefits not great enough ,Traders under threat by giant super stores........ The World cup farce has cost Bristol dearly from wasted money in bidding to business losing interest the countrys 1st cycle city spend cash on cycle lanes ,one person road lanes ,bring in bendy-buses and charge more for job parking........ But build anything that will make a major difference like a new ground or arena can't do that .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCAGFC Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Perfect ammunition for Mr Rayner & his Lib Dem buddies I'm afraid..... Let's hope Cllr Benyon doesn't give up his chair so easily this time and conducts the meeting as it should be and not totally biased towards Dyer's Green Army. BCAGFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 How could that **** raynor argue the validity of one report only to accept another as gospel because it suits his argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Boy Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Because that's what politicians tend to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCAGFC Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 How could that **** raynor argue the validity of one report only to accept another as gospel because it suits his argument? It's called having a vested interest.........helping his buddies either way. Cllr Benyon has to chair the meeting otherwise it will be another farce.... BCAGFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 The whole thing is a total farce, i.e exactly how Bristol City Council has been in my entire living memory. If they really wanted to make this happen they could, or actually perhaps they couldnt even manage that, such is the incompetance of the whole affair it just leaves you puzzled as to if they are for the stadium or against it. Grant planning permission but then accept that an independent report classifies the 42acre area as a village green and they dont have the balls to ignore it? Sainsburys was always just as key to making this happen and that was one of the dodgy areas for me, whilst in my mind it makes sense to move the supermarket down the road as opposed to building another one, i can understand much stronger resistance to it than the stadium itself. People in LA get something they dont want on the horizon whilst the new supermarket could possibly cost people their business and if that is the case its certainly not fair just for a new football stadium, i wouldnt want to loose my income just to see us playing in a new home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowley Birkin Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 It'd of probably been cheaper to buy up the properties of all ll those dissenting N.I.M.B.Y.S. as other clubs have done, to develop their grounds, then sold them off to people who don't mind a 21st century stadium in their back garden. But it really beggars belief with Ashton Court a mere stones throw away that this saga rambles on, and is typical I'm afraid of the straw sucking, hand wringing mentality of our area. If it does fall through, I really, really hope our delightful travelling friends descend on the land, and they can all take their dogs for a lovely walk around their quaint picturesque village green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuedgeRed Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Arbitration is a dead duck! They don't really give a **** about a village green. It's all about not having a stadium in their back yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Perfect ammunition for Mr Rayner & his Lib Dem buddies I'm afraid..... Let's hope Cllr Benyon doesn't give up his chair so easily this time and conducts the meeting as it should be and not totally biased towards Dyer's Green Army. BCAGFC That is only a small section of the report printed by Tony Dyers mate and edited to seem bad. The previous reort was similar in it's findings. It also mentioned that the local retail trade was strong and any drop in trade was expected to recover. Of course this publication does not print that portion of the report. It does say that the council will have to consider the overall benefits over any loss in trade. Well, we all know that the overall benefits to Bristol are massive and far reaching. So it aint all so cut and dried as they'd like us to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Re the Town Green, am I the only one that thinks the talks must be good for us. If City didn't have new good evidence re the last 20 years of the fields then why would the 22 agree to talks? If I was in the 22 and nothing had changed since the inspector ruled in there favour I'm 100% sure I would NOT have entered into any talks with City. The big question is, why have they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciderup Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 My understanding Bill, is that the NIMBY's HAD to show interest in the mediation talks to show the council that they were supposedly looking for a solution. It is pretty certain that any decision made by the council would end up in the courts. If they refused to attend mediation talks, surely it would have reflected badly on the NIMBY's once the legal processes started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I suspect they've been advised to by what ever legal council hey have, so they can't be accused of trying. I suspect that's why the club have done it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 My understanding Bill, is that the NIMBY's HAD to show interest in the mediation talks to show the council that they were supposedly looking for a solution. It is pretty certain that any decision made by the council would end up in the courts. If they refused to attend mediation talks, surely it would have reflected badly on the NIMBY's once the legal processes started. Thanks for that mate, what you say makes good sense.Let's hope we did get some good new evidence anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.