Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The Argus - Albion Friendly?
- Thread starter Giraffe
- Start date
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
So that Virgo can give this reports author a good kicking ?
Storer68
New member
In case people haven't seen it (and given the Argus's lamentably poor circulation fgures, that'll be just about everyone!) - and the correct spelling of MEETING would help
I have to say its not much of a story apart from the - "ooh look prices have gone up and we've had to modify some design" - Have they never watched Property Ladder on Channel 4
Shock revamp for Falmer
8:48am Monday 15th September 2008
Comments (8) Have your say »
By Simon Barrett »
Plans for Falmer stadium face a dramatic revamp after costs soared by £10 million.
The soaring price of steel and changes to stadium building regulations during years of delays to the project have rendered Brighton and Hove Albion's approved plans useless.
The club has been forced to re-draw the proposals and is now preparing to submit another planning application to Brighton and Hove City Council.
The move raises the spectre of opponents to the 22,500 seater stadium again seeking to derail the plans.
Martin Perry, who heads the 30-strong stadium team, last night said the budget for the project has ballooned to £60million.
But he insisted the project was on track and assured fans work would begin on site as planned in December.
He said: “The budget is now a little over £60million. We have always maintained that the stadium is fundable and that has not changed.
“This application does not affect the work we are planning to begin by the end of the year. But yes, if the council rejected the application we would have to stop.”
The new plans will be discussed at the city council's major projects metting tomorrow.
The report reveals several changes to the designs which were originally logged with the council in 2002.
Two public inquires and a High Court legal challenge delayed the project until July 2007, when the Government finally granted approval.
Changes to the scheme include:
* An internal area increase from 18,189sq m to 27,796sq m.
* Grass topped chalk bunds, designed to allow the stadium to blend in with the surrounding environment, scrapped in favour of blockwork walls and a metal roof.
* Tubular steel arch replaced with a trussed design to cut costs.
* Plans for offices under the East Stand to be let to businesses replaced with more teaching space for City College.
* Chalk excavated from the Village Way site to be spread on a nearby field to save 22,000 lorry trips over four months.
Many of the changes, including larger concourses inside the stadium, have been imposed on the club by revisions to building regulations and new guidance from football authorities including FIFA and UEFA.
Others are financially motivated after the price of steel rocketed by 50% since the original plans were drawn up.
Mr Perry said the cost of the arch and roof alone had shot up from £6million to £12million in that time. With the planned changes, that figure will now be reduced to £8million.
The news will inevitably lead to fears that opponents of the scheme will again try to get the stadium scrapped.
Lewes District Council (LDC), Falmer Parish Council, the South Downs Society and the Campaign to Protect Rural England were among those originally opposed to the stadium.
Paul Samrah, chairman of the Falmer For All campaign, said: “The club has been working alongside LDC and the chances of this being called in by the Government are nil.
“The only way an opponent could seek a judicial review is if there is an error in the way planning consent was granted.
“I am very confident that will not happen and the message to fans is simply to keep the faith.”
However Lewes MP Norman Baker, who also opposed the stadium, said: “There was always a fear among my constituents that the club would be unable to fund the scheme and would have to come back for more commercial space to sell. That now appears to be the case.
“I am very concerned.”
I have to say its not much of a story apart from the - "ooh look prices have gone up and we've had to modify some design" - Have they never watched Property Ladder on Channel 4
Shock revamp for Falmer
8:48am Monday 15th September 2008
Comments (8) Have your say »
By Simon Barrett »
Plans for Falmer stadium face a dramatic revamp after costs soared by £10 million.
The soaring price of steel and changes to stadium building regulations during years of delays to the project have rendered Brighton and Hove Albion's approved plans useless.
The club has been forced to re-draw the proposals and is now preparing to submit another planning application to Brighton and Hove City Council.
The move raises the spectre of opponents to the 22,500 seater stadium again seeking to derail the plans.
Martin Perry, who heads the 30-strong stadium team, last night said the budget for the project has ballooned to £60million.
But he insisted the project was on track and assured fans work would begin on site as planned in December.
He said: “The budget is now a little over £60million. We have always maintained that the stadium is fundable and that has not changed.
“This application does not affect the work we are planning to begin by the end of the year. But yes, if the council rejected the application we would have to stop.”
The new plans will be discussed at the city council's major projects metting tomorrow.
The report reveals several changes to the designs which were originally logged with the council in 2002.
Two public inquires and a High Court legal challenge delayed the project until July 2007, when the Government finally granted approval.
Changes to the scheme include:
* An internal area increase from 18,189sq m to 27,796sq m.
* Grass topped chalk bunds, designed to allow the stadium to blend in with the surrounding environment, scrapped in favour of blockwork walls and a metal roof.
* Tubular steel arch replaced with a trussed design to cut costs.
* Plans for offices under the East Stand to be let to businesses replaced with more teaching space for City College.
* Chalk excavated from the Village Way site to be spread on a nearby field to save 22,000 lorry trips over four months.
Many of the changes, including larger concourses inside the stadium, have been imposed on the club by revisions to building regulations and new guidance from football authorities including FIFA and UEFA.
Others are financially motivated after the price of steel rocketed by 50% since the original plans were drawn up.
Mr Perry said the cost of the arch and roof alone had shot up from £6million to £12million in that time. With the planned changes, that figure will now be reduced to £8million.
The news will inevitably lead to fears that opponents of the scheme will again try to get the stadium scrapped.
Lewes District Council (LDC), Falmer Parish Council, the South Downs Society and the Campaign to Protect Rural England were among those originally opposed to the stadium.
Paul Samrah, chairman of the Falmer For All campaign, said: “The club has been working alongside LDC and the chances of this being called in by the Government are nil.
“The only way an opponent could seek a judicial review is if there is an error in the way planning consent was granted.
“I am very confident that will not happen and the message to fans is simply to keep the faith.”
However Lewes MP Norman Baker, who also opposed the stadium, said: “There was always a fear among my constituents that the club would be unable to fund the scheme and would have to come back for more commercial space to sell. That now appears to be the case.
“I am very concerned.”
With the latest sensational story on the front page of the Argus it makes you wonder whether they really give a toss about the Albion or not. It strikes me that most of the info is re-cycled from stuff we already knew and yet they are making this out to be some kind of exclusive seemingly just to stir up trouble.
The article would have been far more balanced, and accurate if they had a club quote as well, but yet they ask Norman Baker
Is it time to boycott the paper?
been thinking about this thread and you could also have the title:
NSC Posters - Albion Friendly?
the amount of shit & drivel on here would suggest that this site is no better than the Argus, people jumping to conclusions in the other thread and deeming the dream is over when they/we dont know the facts. Fans not getting behind the team because we cant win at home, people slating players because they had one poor game out of 10!!
Its not just the Argus.....look to YOURSELVES!
word
- Aug 8, 2005
- 27,230
- Thread starter
- #26
- Aug 8, 2005
- 27,230
- Thread starter
- #27
Not in my book. This is a complete shit stirring article for absolutely no reason. Astonishing in its lack of new facts and as insider has confirmed how they got their 50% increase when the stadium site remains the same is beyond me. Shocking journalism.
Anyone who knows the facts will find this laughable, but unfortunately most people reading the article will not, and this will undermine the confidence of supporters and public alike for no good reason. Shameful behaviour.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I'm in Giraffes CAMP on this one.
Us geeks and mongs who endlessly hang out on here have access to a bit more balanced info, and (thanks to Insider) more quickly than the average fan who just relies on the Argus for news. This story will have people having spackattacks all over Sussex, at least until a few more FACTS are circulated by the club to flesh out the sensationalist claptrap being peddled on the front page.
Disappointing if the author is indeed supposedly "one of our own" as some have said.
Us geeks and mongs who endlessly hang out on here have access to a bit more balanced info, and (thanks to Insider) more quickly than the average fan who just relies on the Argus for news. This story will have people having spackattacks all over Sussex, at least until a few more FACTS are circulated by the club to flesh out the sensationalist claptrap being peddled on the front page.
Disappointing if the author is indeed supposedly "one of our own" as some have said.
However the people who are positive, don't see the negative side of every story and often correct the misinterpretations of the Doom and Gloom brigade are often slagged off as club brown-nosers and arselickers with rose-tinted specs. Those who do the slagging-off see themselves as fearless individuals who don't buy the Knight/Perry bullshit.
Sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I think they're being negative for the sake of it; likewise sometimes I agree with the Argus and sometimes I don't. I DO agree with Easy that, whilst the Argus have been extremely supportive over the years, this article could have been written by Norman Baker. To say that this has renderded the Albion's plans 'useless' without even a weasly 'could have' sounds to me like the gloating of the anti-Falmer brigade.
As it was Simon I blame the sub-editors.
Seasider78
Well-known member
- Nov 14, 2004
- 6,011
Have to say South Today have done a fairly balanced piece on this at the top of their lunchtime news along with a lovely new pic of the design to drool over!!
The Argus are looking for a headline so always overcook these types of story
Hopefully this serves a reminder to all of us of the importance of writing in support of these applications when they land with the council
The Argus are looking for a headline so always overcook these types of story
Hopefully this serves a reminder to all of us of the importance of writing in support of these applications when they land with the council
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
It'll also hopefully serve as a reminder not to be completely taken in by some of the outlandish bullshit published by the Argus in an effort to make a sensational headline out of very little.
Garage_Doors
Originally the Swankers
Just as sample poll, how many on here buy/ read the Argus ?
I'm approaching mid century having lived in Brighton all my life and do not ever consider buying or reading it, i though it was a small minority local paper which few people read ?
Appears from this thread people hold it in high regard ?
I'm approaching mid century having lived in Brighton all my life and do not ever consider buying or reading it, i though it was a small minority local paper which few people read ?
Appears from this thread people hold it in high regard ?
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I get the Argus every day, without fail. The kids have a paper round delivering it, and there's always a couple spare.
*result*
*result*
The Large One
Who's Next?
It's there to serve a purpose and serve the community, while making money for Gannett.
But when it comes to Falmer-related issues, I think on balance, where there's a discrepancy in the stories, I'll accept the word of the club over the Argus a lot more readily.
But when it comes to Falmer-related issues, I think on balance, where there's a discrepancy in the stories, I'll accept the word of the club over the Argus a lot more readily.
Mendoza
NSC's Most Stalked
its going to become a weekly paper soon anyway, so we wont be misguided as much
Storer68
New member
This from UK Press Gazette last march
Relaunch fails Brighton Argus,
11 March 2005
By Dominic Ponsford
Plummeting sales at the Evening Argus in Brighton may provide a warning about the wisdom of embarking on radical relaunches.
Last February, Newquest invested heavily in an upmarket relaunch of the Argus with a Daily Mail-style redesign aimed at luring in more upmarket younger readers. Much of the community news and news in briefs was dropped and reporters were told to aim their stories at a 35-year-old mother of two with a businessman husband.
The result has been a 9.7 per cent drop in Monday to Friday circulation to 38,361. Twelve months ago year-onyear decline at the paper was running at 5.8 per cent.
- Aug 7, 2003
- 8,090
Can't we just bring John Vinicombe (a) Out of Retirement * (b) back to life *
* delete as appropriate
* delete as appropriate
Banning the Argus would be an absolutely ridiculous idea. I can't think of anything more counter-productive to what the club is trying to achieve.
If you don't like what the Argus does / says, then don't buy it. Its really that simple. From the club's perspective, the 15 pages a week of free advertising to their target local audience, is probably not something they are going to risk losing just to score points.
If you don't like what the Argus does / says, then don't buy it. Its really that simple. From the club's perspective, the 15 pages a week of free advertising to their target local audience, is probably not something they are going to risk losing just to score points.
Seasider78
Well-known member
- Nov 14, 2004
- 6,011
...and will no doubt result in far more of the same sort of s**t that graced the front pages today.