Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 6th, 2022, 12:17 pm

pembsexile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 11:54 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 6th, 2022, 9:43 am Both the Dragon's and the County rent the city's Premier stadium, as do top Football and Rugby clubs all across the UK. Why is it uniquely a problem for us if we did cement our position?

I am sure that the Dragons and some at the WRU would disagree, but all things considered, in the current Newport sporting climate, it is pretty safe to say that we (County) are the premier sporting club in Newport.

The question is, ‘how do we cement our position as the premier sports club in Newport’, not ‘why is it uniquely a problem for us if we did cement our position’.

Surely, everyone with common sense regarding the County want us to a position whereby we don’t have to fret year on year about where we will be playing this beloved game of ours in the not too distant future. To get to that (cemented) position, whether it be by rental or ownership, (and that is a slightly different argument), takes a lot of goodwill from all agencies. Something that appears to be lacking in spades at the moment. I don’t have the answer, just opinions and ideas, nothing more, nothing less.

Morning Mike,

I shouldn't worry about not having the answers. If there was an easy solution it wouldn't be a problem.

However if you look at this debate there are two general types of response. One view is that everything will be fine and we have nothing to worry about. As you will have seen, devoid of argument both GSB and Bangitinthenet choose to simply be abusive.

The rest of us see that there is a potential problem and that we are insecure. We don't know what the answers are. We do know that ignoring a very real issue will not make it go away. The first step in solving any problem is to acknowledge that the problem exists.

The first step is to acknowledge that it is purely to argue that is your driver. No one has been abusive to you at all.

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 5th, 2022, 5:17 pm How many times have we heard the same sad one, and his apocalyptic proficies?

You don't think that is abusive?

Tell me how does the above sentence advance the conversation?

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 6th, 2022, 11:04 am

We simply don't have a licence to play at Rodney Parade. The WRU were not signatories and nore were the Dragon's. What it is now, is just a framework agreement.

If we had a valid licence, it would be registered against the title by the land registry.

Of cource you stopped being a sponge for knowledge when you passed your exams, and things like placing documents at the land registry was not compulsory as part of the transaction.

A licence is not an interest in property. It is a licence is merely permission to use land for a specific purpose. So when you buy a ticket to watch a game at Rodney Parade you have a licence to be at Rodney Parade. I assure you that the names of those who attend League games are not registered at the Land Registry.

I fail though to understand your point. If we don't have a licence and we certainly don't have a lease then if you were correct our position is even more precarious.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 7:16 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 5th, 2022, 7:01 pm

County-at-the-races wrote: May 5th, 2022, 5:58 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 5th, 2022, 4:21 pm The point is the WRU or anyone won't get planning, so the idea that this is just designed around building on Rodney Parade, is a complete red herring.

How sure are you on that?
Anything can be developed on proviso it isn't a designated nature reserve or opposed to that poisoned by nuclear waste etc.
All County Councils are under huge pressure to allocate an ongoing amount of land for development and a plot of land literally in the city centre will tick a lot of boxes.

Sorry, that just isn't factual. The planning process starts with a need, and each unitary authority has to produce a 10 yearly plan detailing what development can take place, in what area's. Even then an applicant still has to show a need, and that something else that is needed more, or is of more benefit to the community is not being destroyed just for profit.

Think of Tredegar House and grounds. Ideal location for access, adjacent major roundabouts off the M4, A48, and Duffryn Way. Plenty of land for a stadium and parking..............

Think of Somerton Park.

As for your assertion that planning process starts with a need and that Newport City Council would not act in purely financial interests tell me what happened to those lovely mosaics created by Kenneth Budd?

Was it greed or was it need that destroyed the murals?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't Newport a Labour Council?

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 10:31 am

jonescmj1 wrote: May 5th, 2022, 10:17 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:55 am

George Street-Bridge wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:47 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:13 am If as you say the road access is shocking surely that applies to football crowds as much as anything else. More so in that large crowds congregate at specific times and for very short periods of time.

I'd argue shocking access 365 days a year is a bigger issue than shocking access on maybe 40-45 match days.

Yes George. But if Rodney Parade can cope with an influx of 8,000 people at quarter to three on a Saturday afternoon I suspect it's not quite as big a problem as you imagine.

I’m more than happy to consider Stan’s proposal for a stadium development plan, when he puts it forward.

Morning Colin,

My plan is really simple.

First step is that we acknowledge the problem.

Second step is that we politely explain to those who wish to bury their heads in the sand, that that is no longer an option.

Third step is that we speak to all the clubs who have developed their own stadiums and ask them how they managed to do it. What worked and as importantly what didn't.

Step four is to engage with the fan base and start to work towards our aim, together.

Step five is we listen to everyone who wants to help.

Step 6. We ignore those who are so narrow minded that they believe nothing can be done.

I don't know what the answers are Colin. I do know that ignoring a very real problem and contenting ourselves by making smart arse comments is not the answer.

Stan, you said and I quote "smart arse comments is not the answer". who is making a smart arse comment?

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 6th, 2022, 1:05 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 6th, 2022, 11:04 am

We simply don't have a licence to play at Rodney Parade. The WRU were not signatories and nore were the Dragon's. What it is now, is just a framework agreement.

If we had a valid licence, it would be registered against the title by the land registry.

Of cource you stopped being a sponge for knowledge when you passed your exams, and things like placing documents at the land registry was not compulsory as part of the transaction.

A licence is not an interest in property. It is a licence is merely permission to use land for a specific purpose. So when you buy a ticket to watch a game at Rodney Parade you have a licence to be at Rodney Parade. I assure you that the names of those who attend League games are not registered at the Land Registry.

I fail though to understand your point. If we don't have a licence and we certainly don't have a lease then if you were correct our position is even more precarious.

We don't have a licence, and we don't have a lease, as the licence agreement - that hasn't been signed by the new owners - is not valid upon change of title. What the agreement is now, is simply a framework agreement.

I have written numerous licences for land use, and you can write what you like on them, and both parties can sign, simply doesn't make them enforceable in the real world.
They are signed because both parties agree to the terms, but unless you can refer to an act of Parliament, as in a lease, most are just agreements.
A marriage certificate is signed by two people, doesn't necessarily make it any better that just living by agreement.

We are there because we are able to use the facility more than the Dragon's and thus make it viable.

Nothing has changed since the WRU took over, so our position is still one of making the Stadium viable. Without us and the Dragon's, the WRU don't have a viable stadium, and as any landlord will tell you, it's having a reliable tenant that is important. That's how you achieve stability.
You have already stated that you don't think the regions will be cut, but even if they did the WRU would either have to continue with Newport County as the sole occupant, and therefore look to sign a lease, or look to sell.

Torquay Exile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 2:26 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 10:31 am

jonescmj1 wrote: May 5th, 2022, 10:17 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:55 am

George Street-Bridge wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:47 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:13 am If as you say the road access is shocking surely that applies to football crowds as much as anything else. More so in that large crowds congregate at specific times and for very short periods of time.

I'd argue shocking access 365 days a year is a bigger issue than shocking access on maybe 40-45 match days.

Yes George. But if Rodney Parade can cope with an influx of 8,000 people at quarter to three on a Saturday afternoon I suspect it's not quite as big a problem as you imagine.

I’m more than happy to consider Stan’s proposal for a stadium development plan, when he puts it forward.

Morning Colin,

My plan is really simple.

First step is that we acknowledge the problem.

Second step is that we politely explain to those who wish to bury their heads in the sand, that that is no longer an option.

Third step is that we speak to all the clubs who have developed their own stadiums and ask them how they managed to do it. What worked and as importantly what didn't.

Step four is to engage with the fan base and start to work towards our aim, together.

Step five is we listen to everyone who wants to help.

Step 6. We ignore those who are so narrow minded that they believe nothing can be done.

I don't know what the answers are Colin. I do know that ignoring a very real problem and contenting ourselves by making smart arse comments is not the answer.

Stan, you said and I quote "smart arse comments is not the answer". who is making a smart arse comment?

For the answer to your question I suggest you look at your own post on this thread at 1.59 pm today.

pembsexile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 2:31 pm

Torquay Exile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 2:26 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 10:31 am

jonescmj1 wrote: May 5th, 2022, 10:17 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:55 am

George Street-Bridge wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:47 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:13 am If as you say the road access is shocking surely that applies to football crowds as much as anything else. More so in that large crowds congregate at specific times and for very short periods of time.

I'd argue shocking access 365 days a year is a bigger issue than shocking access on maybe 40-45 match days.

Yes George. But if Rodney Parade can cope with an influx of 8,000 people at quarter to three on a Saturday afternoon I suspect it's not quite as big a problem as you imagine.

I’m more than happy to consider Stan’s proposal for a stadium development plan, when he puts it forward.

Morning Colin,

My plan is really simple.

First step is that we acknowledge the problem.

Second step is that we politely explain to those who wish to bury their heads in the sand, that that is no longer an option.

Third step is that we speak to all the clubs who have developed their own stadiums and ask them how they managed to do it. What worked and as importantly what didn't.

Step four is to engage with the fan base and start to work towards our aim, together.

Step five is we listen to everyone who wants to help.

Step 6. We ignore those who are so narrow minded that they believe nothing can be done.

I don't know what the answers are Colin. I do know that ignoring a very real problem and contenting ourselves by making smart arse comments is not the answer.

Stan, you said and I quote "smart arse comments is not the answer". who is making a smart arse comment?

For the answer to your question I suggest you look at your own post on this thread at 1.59 pm today.

I didn't know that you are all so-known as "Stan A. Einstein"?

Torquay Exile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 1:59 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 7:16 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 5th, 2022, 7:01 pm

County-at-the-races wrote: May 5th, 2022, 5:58 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 5th, 2022, 4:21 pm The point is the WRU or anyone won't get planning, so the idea that this is just designed around building on Rodney Parade, is a complete red herring.

How sure are you on that?
Anything can be developed on proviso it isn't a designated nature reserve or opposed to that poisoned by nuclear waste etc.
All County Councils are under huge pressure to allocate an ongoing amount of land for development and a plot of land literally in the city centre will tick a lot of boxes.

Sorry, that just isn't factual. The planning process starts with a need, and each unitary authority has to produce a 10 yearly plan detailing what development can take place, in what area's. Even then an applicant still has to show a need, and that something else that is needed more, or is of more benefit to the community is not being destroyed just for profit.

Think of Tredegar House and grounds. Ideal location for access, adjacent major roundabouts off the M4, A48, and Duffryn Way. Plenty of land for a stadium and parking..............

Think of Somerton Park.

As for your assertion that planning process starts with a need and that Newport City Council would not act in purely financial interests tell me what happened to those lovely mosaics created by Kenneth Budd?

Was it greed or was it need that destroyed the murals?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't Newport a Labour Council?

It was. 30 of the 50 councillors were members of the Labour party. I suspect they will be returned. At present the council is prorogued. So technically you are wrong but not being a smart arse I won't labour the point.

Tell me, what on earth is your question to do with the topic under discussion?

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 6th, 2022, 3:19 pm

Torquay Exile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 1:59 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 7:16 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 5th, 2022, 7:01 pm

County-at-the-races wrote: May 5th, 2022, 5:58 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 5th, 2022, 4:21 pm The point is the WRU or anyone won't get planning, so the idea that this is just designed around building on Rodney Parade, is a complete red herring.

How sure are you on that?
Anything can be developed on proviso it isn't a designated nature reserve or opposed to that poisoned by nuclear waste etc.
All County Councils are under huge pressure to allocate an ongoing amount of land for development and a plot of land literally in the city centre will tick a lot of boxes.

Sorry, that just isn't factual. The planning process starts with a need, and each unitary authority has to produce a 10 yearly plan detailing what development can take place, in what area's. Even then an applicant still has to show a need, and that something else that is needed more, or is of more benefit to the community is not being destroyed just for profit.

Think of Tredegar House and grounds. Ideal location for access, adjacent major roundabouts off the M4, A48, and Duffryn Way. Plenty of land for a stadium and parking..............

Think of Somerton Park.

As for your assertion that planning process starts with a need and that Newport City Council would not act in purely financial interests tell me what happened to those lovely mosaics created by Kenneth Budd?

Was it greed or was it need that destroyed the murals?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't Newport a Labour Council?

It was. 30 of the 50 councillors were members of the Labour party. I suspect they will be returned. At present the council is prorogued. So technically you are wrong but not being a smart arse I won't labour the point.

Tell me, what on earth is your question to do with the topic under discussion?

Well, you are always saying how good and great the Labour party is. And now I believe that you are criticizing them. Am I right in saying that?

Torquay Exile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 3:29 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 6th, 2022, 3:19 pm

Torquay Exile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 1:59 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 7:16 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 5th, 2022, 7:01 pm

County-at-the-races wrote: May 5th, 2022, 5:58 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 5th, 2022, 4:21 pm The point is the WRU or anyone won't get planning, so the idea that this is just designed around building on Rodney Parade, is a complete red herring.

How sure are you on that?
Anything can be developed on proviso it isn't a designated nature reserve or opposed to that poisoned by nuclear waste etc.
All County Councils are under huge pressure to allocate an ongoing amount of land for development and a plot of land literally in the city centre will tick a lot of boxes.

Sorry, that just isn't factual. The planning process starts with a need, and each unitary authority has to produce a 10 yearly plan detailing what development can take place, in what area's. Even then an applicant still has to show a need, and that something else that is needed more, or is of more benefit to the community is not being destroyed just for profit.

Think of Tredegar House and grounds. Ideal location for access, adjacent major roundabouts off the M4, A48, and Duffryn Way. Plenty of land for a stadium and parking..............

Think of Somerton Park.

As for your assertion that planning process starts with a need and that Newport City Council would not act in purely financial interests tell me what happened to those lovely mosaics created by Kenneth Budd?

Was it greed or was it need that destroyed the murals?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't Newport a Labour Council?

It was. 30 of the 50 councillors were members of the Labour party. I suspect they will be returned. At present the council is prorogued. So technically you are wrong but not being a smart arse I won't labour the point.

Tell me, what on earth is your question to do with the topic under discussion?

Well, you are always saying how good and great the Labour party is. And now I believe that you are criticizing them. Am I right in saying that?

As a socialist I am often critical of the Labour Party. I don't recall ever being particularly enthusiastic about the Labour Party. Perhaps you would quote any of the posts which you say I am always saying how good or great the Labour Party are.

Torquay Exile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 3:17 pm

pembsexile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 2:31 pm

Torquay Exile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 2:26 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 10:31 am

jonescmj1 wrote: May 5th, 2022, 10:17 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:55 am

George Street-Bridge wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:47 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:13 am If as you say the road access is shocking surely that applies to football crowds as much as anything else. More so in that large crowds congregate at specific times and for very short periods of time.

I'd argue shocking access 365 days a year is a bigger issue than shocking access on maybe 40-45 match days.

Yes George. But if Rodney Parade can cope with an influx of 8,000 people at quarter to three on a Saturday afternoon I suspect it's not quite as big a problem as you imagine.

I’m more than happy to consider Stan’s proposal for a stadium development plan, when he puts it forward.

Morning Colin,

My plan is really simple.

First step is that we acknowledge the problem.

Second step is that we politely explain to those who wish to bury their heads in the sand, that that is no longer an option.

Third step is that we speak to all the clubs who have developed their own stadiums and ask them how they managed to do it. What worked and as importantly what didn't.

Step four is to engage with the fan base and start to work towards our aim, together.

Step five is we listen to everyone who wants to help.

Step 6. We ignore those who are so narrow minded that they believe nothing can be done.

I don't know what the answers are Colin. I do know that ignoring a very real problem and contenting ourselves by making smart arse comments is not the answer.

Stan, you said and I quote "smart arse comments is not the answer". who is making a smart arse comment?

For the answer to your question I suggest you look at your own post on this thread at 1.59 pm today.

I didn't know that you are all so-known as "Stan A. Einstein"?

Don’t shout, it’s rude. I am all so-known (sic) by a lot of names. I think on the odd occasion (quizzes sometimes) I have been called Einstein. Never Stan though!!

[/quote]

It was. 30 of the 50 councillors were members of the Labour party. I suspect they will be returned. At present the council is prorogued. So technically you are wrong but not being a smart arse I won't labour the point.

Tell me, what on earth is your question to do with the topic under discussion?
[/quote]

35 out of 51 now. Tories almost wiped out in Newport, with just 7 councillors left. Happy days.

pembsexile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 4:45 pm

Torquay Exile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 3:17 pm

pembsexile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 2:31 pm

Torquay Exile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 2:26 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 10:31 am

jonescmj1 wrote: May 5th, 2022, 10:17 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:55 am

George Street-Bridge wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:47 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 5th, 2022, 9:13 am If as you say the road access is shocking surely that applies to football crowds as much as anything else. More so in that large crowds congregate at specific times and for very short periods of time.

I'd argue shocking access 365 days a year is a bigger issue than shocking access on maybe 40-45 match days.

Yes George. But if Rodney Parade can cope with an influx of 8,000 people at quarter to three on a Saturday afternoon I suspect it's not quite as big a problem as you imagine.

I’m more than happy to consider Stan’s proposal for a stadium development plan, when he puts it forward.

Morning Colin,

My plan is really simple.

First step is that we acknowledge the problem.

Second step is that we politely explain to those who wish to bury their heads in the sand, that that is no longer an option.

Third step is that we speak to all the clubs who have developed their own stadiums and ask them how they managed to do it. What worked and as importantly what didn't.

Step four is to engage with the fan base and start to work towards our aim, together.

Step five is we listen to everyone who wants to help.

Step 6. We ignore those who are so narrow minded that they believe nothing can be done.

I don't know what the answers are Colin. I do know that ignoring a very real problem and contenting ourselves by making smart arse comments is not the answer.

Stan, you said and I quote "smart arse comments is not the answer". who is making a smart arse comment?

For the answer to your question I suggest you look at your own post on this thread at 1.59 pm today.

I didn't know that you are all so-known as "Stan A. Einstein"?

Don’t shout, it’s rude. I am all so-known (sic) by a lot of names. I think on the odd occasion (quizzes sometimes) I have been called Einstein. Never Stan though!!

Who is shouting? Not I. I'm just drawing attention to it (in bold). You think that you are Stan A. Einstein. Are you Stan A. Einstein? Are you now trying to tell me how I should write? Am I not allowed to have an opinion?

Torquay Exile wrote: May 6th, 2022, 5:12 pm

Who is shouting? Not I. I'm just drawing attention to it (in bold). You think that you are Stan A. Einstein. Are you Stan A. Einstein? Are you now trying to tell me how I should write? Am I not allowed to have an opinion?

Of course you are allowed to have an opinion.

Instead of boring me and I suspect others, by coming out with inane comments about my political views, or asking me and Pembs daft questions why not tell us what your opinions are?

Just look at what you have written on this thread. Silly insults but nothing about Newport County.