TV Ground Debate

[RedRobbo]

Debate on TV ( BBC ) @ 11.00am today re new ground ( councils putting their points of view I believe ). :ubique:

 

[Randy Bumgardener]

Excellent. About time. No doubt there will be a for and against side. Unfortunately here we don't get east mids !

 

[Barbus]

Excellent. About time. No doubt there will be a for and against side. Unfortunately here we don't get east mids !

Do you have Sky? Channel 981 is BBC1 East Mids. (all the regions are there, 971 onwards)

 

[Randy Bumgardener]

Nope, freeview, but thanks anyway. can someone post up a brief transcript ?

 

[sebs]

no debate, just a summary of the situation

apparently councils are meeting.

for some reason eddie izzard was asked for his opinion, what the hell?

kenny burns reckons we should move. tory leader of the county council reckons we shouldn't. bid leader for nottingham says we need 45000 seats and you can't get them on the city ground site. rushcliffe borough council and nottingham city council refused to be included in the piece.

 

[Randy Bumgardener]

no debate, just a summary of the situation

apparently councils are meeting.

for some reason eddie izzard was asked for his opinion, what the hell?

kenny burns reckons we should move. tory leader of the county council reckons we shouldn't. bid leader for nottingham says we need 45000 seats and you can't get them on the city ground site. rushcliffe borough council and nottingham city council refused to be included in the piece.

Doesn't that say everything ! How the hell can a council for and against be trying to get support for each's motions through the public ?

So far any public information has been disgracefully spoon fed through the media. Lack of reason, lack of any subsidence or anything worthwhile has been portrayed to the people who matter. the fans and people of the City !

How can they justify not expanding the CG when Trent Bridge has seen numerous vast projects undertaken to advance the size and facilities of the place when it's only yards away ! I may have more sympathy of more info was made publicly available.

This feels like one huge money making agreement between councils at the moment. They have lost rediculous sums of money recently through incompetence. Now they appear to be trying to destroy the sporting heart of the city as with the long ignored legend of Robin hood to attract tourism.

If anyone relevent is reading this I pray this matter won't be held as a purely internal agreement and all details will be made available. It is owed to the fans and the city to make this agreement public and to listen to public opinion. I am frankly disgusted with how it has been dealt with so far, and until more reasoning unto why the CG cannot be developed is made available I will be against this project and continue to see it as a way for the local agencies to get their hands on prime development land for profit !

 

[It's Baggio]

How can they justify not expanding the CG when Trent Bridge has seen numerous vast projects undertaken to advance the size and facilities of the place when it's only yards away ! I may have more sympathy of more info was made publicly available.

It's not really comparable.

A 'World Cup ready' CG would need to hold around 3 times as many people as Trent Bridge. You've only got to walk around the CG to realise that as it stands it just isn't possible.

The County Council and Coun. Cutts seem keen for us to stay at the CG site but I wonder how keen they'll be when they realise a raft of houses and other buildings need knocking down. I get the impression that they're somewhat out of the loop.

 

[Bernie]

How can they justify not expanding the CG when Trent Bridge has seen numerous vast projects undertaken to advance the size and facilities of the place when it's only yards away ! I may have more sympathy of more info was made publicly available.

Along with struggling to physically fit the extra seats the major stumbling block with the City Ground site will always be security.

All the venues at the World Cup in Germany had perimiters of up to half a mile. Primarily this is done for security to minimize conjestion at Turnstiles. By having a perimeter where tickets are needed for access it means the searches that are made on every individual are made well away from congesting the turnstiles.

These areas also provided space for all the sponsers of the tournament to pitch tents etc. Unfortunately this is likely to be another requirement that cannot be fulfilled given how tight the area around the stadium is.

The extra regulations for FIFA governed events will ultimately be the stumbling block in my opinion.

 

[WNYForest]

for some reason eddie izzard was asked for his opinion, what the hell?

What did he add to the debate, the proposal that we should build the new stadium out of jam?

 

[Ravi]

It's not really comparable.

A 'World Cup ready' CG would need to hold around 3 times as many people as Trent Bridge. You've only got to walk around the CG to realise that as it stands it just isn't possible.

The County Council and Coun. Cutts seem keen for us to stay at the CG site but I wonder how keen they'll be when they realise a raft of houses and other buildings need knocking down. I get the impression that they're somewhat out of the loop.

Either that or there is truth in the alleged rumour that Cutts (what a perfect name for a Tory ;D) and her cronies have a vested interest in the Gamston land being used for another development.

 

[Bridgfordred79]

Isnt Manchester stonewalled to be picked to host the WC though?

With Old Trafford, the City of Manchester stadium isnt it obvious who is going to be picked?

 

[cknu]

Irrespective of the World Cup this will be the debate even if we wanted to try and bodge something like a new main stand at the City ground.

For: Local retailers and Fans who travel via train/tram etc.. One of the councils
Against: Local Residents (again in the local rag I get letters to MPs etc about parking in the surrounding roads), the Police, the club, the other councils..

 

[cknu]

Isnt Manchester stonewalled to be picked to host the WC though?

With Old Trafford, the City of Manchester stadium isnt it obvious who is going to be picked?

Your allowed two per city so I think the givens would be:

Wembley
Emirates

Old Trafford
City Of Manchester

New Anfield
Villa Park

and then the rest from these cities: Bristol, Derby, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Milton Keynes, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Sunderland

 

[Matt90]

I thought it was...your only allowed 2 in one city/area and then one it each?

Wembley
Emrites/New Chelsea/ Spurs

Liverpoo's new 1/ Evertons New 1

Old Trafford

Villa

Newcastle

Us/Derby/Leicester

 

[Rigler]

I thought it was...your only allowed 2 in one city/area and then one it each?

Correct.
Only one City can have two stadia. I'd assume this honour would go to London.
Other than that it's a maximum of one stadium per city

 

[sedgred]

Rule out a new stadium for Liverpool, they are still in enormous debt and if Plattini gets his way, will be in the serious financial mire ;D Oh Joy lol lol :cheers:

 

[incident]

Your allowed two per city so I think the givens would be:

Wembley
Emirates

Old Trafford
City Of Manchester

New Anfield
Villa Park

and then the rest from these cities: Bristol, Derby, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Milton Keynes, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Sunderland

What? That's way off.

The exact requirement for 2018/2022 hasn't been officially disclosed, but in the past few years they've insisted on a geographical spread of both stadiums and matches, with a minimum of 10 stadiums and 9 cities. If they were ever going to make an exception, then South Africa would've been it.

You could try and be cute about it, claiming that Old Trafford isn't technically in Manchester, Evertons new ground won't be in Liverpool, and that all the London boroughs are separate entities, etc, but I doubt that'd fly with FIFA.

 

[dellaroc]

kenny burns reckons we should move. tory leader of the county council reckons we shouldn't.

Hmmm.....who to agree with..... :think:

 

[Bridgfordred79]

Hmmm.....who to agree with..... :think:

haha

 

[Tutts]

What did he add to the debate, the proposal that we should build the new stadium out of jam?

lol

"You want to build a new stadium? Here? Have you got a flag?"

 

[winnits]

Eddie Izzard got caught short on his marathon escapades outside the BBC centre in Nottingham and popped in there to take a leak - I reckon they interviewed him about everything in exchange for use of the facilities lol

 

[incapable hulk]

Either that or there is truth in the alleged rumour that Cutts (what a perfect name for a Tory ;D) and her cronies have a vested interest in the Gamston land being used for another development.

I think shes just determined to fight the labour council, and undermine everything they do. I dislike both, and its ridiculous that everything they do comes off as a points scoring excercise- than actually of being of benefit to the community.

Councillor cutts got elected by lying, im sure the city councillors did the same.

Its a shocking state of affairs, and both should spend more time trying to sort out whats genuinely best for the people of this city and county and the supporters of nottingham forest football clubs. Rather than thier own silly agendas.

 

[Flaggers]

Its a shocking state of affairs, and both should spend more time trying to sort out whats genuinely best for the people of this city and county and the supporters of nottingham forest football clubs. Rather than thier own silly agendas.

They could try asking us, for example....

 

[incapable hulk]

Exactly. If they want to fill a big new stadium, the best way is to get the fans, and people in the city as involved as possible from the get go. Make it a real community project.

It could really boost the support for the club within the area, and bring a few of the cynics back. Maybe it wont, but its worth a try.

Us fans need to be involved

 

[Flaggers]

...or they could ask us and realise that the majority want to stay at the CG....