Revised Stadium Plans - Chairman Criticises Argus Reporting

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Dick Knight is spot on. What was your first reaction to reading the "story".. it was oh no, here we go again wasn't it? It was irresponsible and scare mongering, pure and simple. Dick Knight absolutely within his rights to have his say.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

What was your first reaction to reading the "story".. it was oh no, here we go again wasn't it?

Absolutely.

Reckon if the diggers don't go in by the end of the year, the fans should go up there with shovels on New Year's Day and start symbolically building the damn thing ourselves. Well, at least until the pubs open

 

[ROSM]

Argus Ploughing Dangerous Furrow
Posted on: Tue 16 Sep 2008


And, while i'm here / awake - it's a bit rude for Knight to say that, considering the amount that the Argus actually do for the club, Knight is shooting himself in the foot methinks

I know that NSC can be naive at the best of times but in the same way that the argus cannot be expected to the communication mouthpiece of the club, it would be entirely wrong to claim that the argus 'do things for the club'. They do things that improve their sales - in many cases this means working with the club. In other cases it means creating a story that will sell papers.

The response by Knight will, likely, have no bearing on whether the Argus write supportive or negative comments in the future.

Having said which, judging by the rather concerning level of reaction on NSC on the morning that the story broke, I think the supporters deserve to see and read a response from the chairman.

You can bet your bottom dollar that some of the usual suspects like Withdean wanderer would be complaining he had not personally heard from the chairman otherwise.

 

[dazzalewis1968]

My mate Adrie sayz it"s because the repporter at your paper hates genitals such as Dick Knite and all other non Jewss

Can someone please tell me what he is trying to say? no call for anti-semitic posts .

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Dick Knight

Albion Hero and Legend.

Yet Again.

 

[S'hampton Seagull]

Hang on - isn't work supposed to have started by then? How long will it take the councillors to approve the new plans (if they do decide to approve them)? Aaggh! More delays!

FFS: LDC, you utter f***ing mingbags

Work will start, just on the other infrastructure.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

Dick sounds extremely pissed off with the Argus.

Quite right too.

 

[Curious Orange]

I know that NSC can be naive at the best of times but in the same way that the argus cannot be expected to the communication mouthpiece of the club, it would be entirely wrong to claim that the argus 'do things for the club'. They do things that improve their sales - in many cases this means working with the club. In other cases it means creating a story that will sell papers.

The response by Knight will, likely, have no bearing on whether the Argus write supportive or negative comments in the future.

Having said which, judging by the rather concerning level of reaction on NSC on the morning that the story broke, I think the supporters deserve to see and read a response from the chairman.

You can bet your bottom dollar that some of the usual suspects like Withdean wanderer would be complaining he had not personally heard from the chairman otherwise.

Well, some members of NSC always have had a tendency to panic/run around like headless chickens/shit-stir/snipe whenever any story like this appears - its the "only read the headline" mentality, most of the rest of us who actually bother to get a bit more background are usually more level-headed... and post fewer replies (which probably get lost in the deluge of bollocks).

 

[Brovion]

Well, some members of NSC always have had a tendency to panic/run around like headless chickens/shit-stir/snipe whenever any story like this appears - its the "only read the headline" mentality, most of the rest of us who actually bother to get a bit more background are usually more level-headed... and post fewer replies (which probably get lost in the deluge of bollocks).

"When's this deluge of bollocks coming? Michael Fish never mentioned it! Quick, get me an umbrella!"

No, I take your point about headless chickens, but I DID read the whole story, and like THPP and Sneaky George I DID think "Oh no, not again." I was well aware a lot of it had been discussed at Hove Town Hall and I knew that some of the article was misleading and parts of it were complete crap, e.g the sentence: "The Albion's plans have now been rendered USELESS."

However we did make the point during the planning process that the stadium would 'blend in' and the new design appears (I say 'appears') to be a lot more obtrusive. I am not a planning expert, but given all the setbacks we've had I think it was fair enough for people to voice their concerns. We've all heard the stories of people who've had planning permission to build something, and have then got into trouble because the finished product didn't match the submitted plans. And I'm 100% sure that at this moment the South Downs scum and ther miserable cohorts are poring over every bit of arcane planning legislation in an attempt to find something to derail these 'housekeeping' planning applications.

Also I'm not in any way reassured by the club saying "There's nothing to worry about." Yesterday Insider was saying that the 'footprint' was going to be the same size, and today we learn that it will indeed be bigger. Only 6% bigger (currently) but again, something that the scum MAY be able to use.

On a separate point - if we'd built Falmer 10 years ago would we now be looking at an expensive refit, or perhaps even another planning battle, to bring it into line with these new regulations? Maybe the delay was a blessing in disguise after all!

 

[Seagullible]

when the story first came up, people were crying out for the club to say something. The club duley responds as is slated for it. I give up on some of you

 

[Knotty]

"When's this deluge of bollocks coming? Michael Fish never mentioned it! Quick, get me an umbrella!"

No, I take your point about headless chickens, but I DID read the whole story, and like THPP and Sneaky George I DID think "Oh no, not again." I was well aware a lot of it had been discussed at Hove Town Hall and I knew that some of the article was misleading and parts of it were complete crap, e.g the sentence: "The Albion's plans have now been rendered USELESS."

However we did make the point during the planning process that the stadium would 'blend in' and the new design appears (I say 'appears') to be a lot more obtrusive. I am not a planning expert, but given all the setbacks we've had I think it was fair enough for people to voice their concerns. We've all heard the stories of people who've had planning permission to build something, and have then got into trouble because the finished product didn't match the submitted plans. And I'm 100% sure that at this moment the South Downs scum and ther miserable cohorts are poring over every bit of arcane planning legislation in an attempt to find something to derail these 'housekeeping' planning applications.

Also I'm not in any way reassured by the club saying "There's nothing to worry about." Yesterday Insider was saying that the 'footprint' was going to be the same size, and today we learn that it will indeed be bigger. Only 6% bigger (currently) but again, something that the scum MAY be able to use.

On a separate point - if we'd built Falmer 10 years ago would we now be looking at an expensive refit, or perhaps even another planning battle, to bring it into line with these new regulations? Maybe the delay was a blessing in disguise after all!

Building regs are being changed, updated and added to all the time. Once a building project has these passed and it is built according to the regs, they can't demand that things are changed with every new reg - you'd be rebuilding every week!

I suppose some very major piece of legislation might impose something on building regs but generally, once it's built, that's it. I live in an old railway station that was built in 1889. Most of it does not conform in any way to current building regs, but I don't have to change anything. If I wanted to build an identical building next door it would look nothing like the original due to building regs!

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

when the story first came up, people were crying out for the club to say something. The club duley responds as is slated for it. I give up on some of you

What he said

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Rather hypocritical for Knight & Perry to accuse the Argus of bullshit.

What bullshit (from Knight and Perry) are you referring to?

 

[Curious Orange]

Brovian, my previous post was a generalisation and not aimed at any posters specifically... and maybe I'll downgrade the "deluge of bollocks" comment to "guff".

I think your point about the footprint is interesting, as far as I'm aware (like you I'm not a planning expert) I think it relates to a volume - ie, this area on the ground and up to this height, so I guess the the increase in size is purely where the bunds were, so the stadium is still in the same volume.

On your point about the upgrade, I don't think you can retrospectively apply all regulations, otherwise I can think of many grounds that would need demolition right now - and that clearly isn't happening.

 

[110%]

I think your point about the footprint is interesting, as far as I'm aware (like you I'm not a planning expert) I think it relates to a volume - ie, this area on the ground and up to this height, so I guess the the increase in size is purely where the bunds were, so the stadium is still in the same volume.

QUOTE]

In planning terms "footprint" usually means just that - the area covered on the ground - and doesn't relate to the overall volume.

 

[Brovion]

Brovian, my previous post was a generalisation and not aimed at any posters specifically... and maybe I'll downgrade the "deluge of bollocks" comment to "guff".

I think your point about the footprint is interesting, as far as I'm aware (like you I'm not a planning expert) I think it relates to a volume - ie, this area on the ground and up to this height, so I guess the the increase in size is purely where the bunds were, so the stadium is still in the same volume.

On your point about the upgrade, I don't think you can retrospectively apply all regulations, otherwise I can think of many grounds that would need demolition right now - and that clearly isn't happening.

It's ok, I didn't take it personally; and I agree there WAS a lot of 'guff'. Just put me down as 'Slightly Concerned of Fiveways' as opposed to 'Doom and Gloom of Fiveways'.

Fair point about the upgrade otherwise I'm sure we'd have heard by now from clubs like Millwall, Northampton, Scunthorpe, etc.; i.e clubs that built new grounds in the 90s.

 

[Albion Rob]

I think that in the circumstances, DK would have been within his rights to ask for a page lead length right of reply on pages 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9 so that he could set the record straight. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the story, there was a major factual error in the printed edition I read that said the capacity would rise to 30,000. I understand that was not the reporter's fault and was a mistake made by the subs but it is still a big enough clanger to demand a proper right of reply.

I don't read the Argus every day but to my knowledge that hasn't happened.