Anyone voting for any of the definite options is a clown.
Don, its coming across as you having a bit of an agenda here.
I can't vote for this because its far too black and white, life doesn't work that way. Reading the threads the majority seem to support it as a viable option, which may or may not happen. That's all we can do, whether we think fisher is bullshitting or not. You seem to have a problem saying it's a potential viable option, and keep pressing people to say whether they think it will happen.
Is it a viable option? Yes, potentially.
Will it definitely happen? Who knows, only time will tell.
We need to keep our options open, because if we get left with Ricoh or nothing then we leave ourselves open to being shafted. Or worse still get moved back to Northampton.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
This is agenda based - close thread.
Why can't we have a 'dunno' option?
I dunno.Push the boat out go with your gut instict, is it more or less likely to happen purely in your opinion
We used to have a dunno, but we sold him the January transfer window.Why can't we have a 'dunno' option?
The only opportunity would be when planning permission is applied for and any objection would have to be on valid planning grounds not just 'we don't want them next door'.These would ensure delay at every opportunity in the planning process
If Fisher says it's "On", then it's a definite No!Anyone voting for any of the definite options is a clown.
The only opportunity would be when planning permission is applied for and any objection would have to be on valid planning grounds not just 'we don't want them next door'.
It will be a lot easier to get planning permission to expand an existing stadium which they have chosen to move next door to than if one was being built from scratch.
Noise is pretty much a non starter. There will be an acoustic assessment, with that data it will be hard to argue against it.Valid planning grounds would be noise and access issues.
Depending on how any development would take place, the blocking of natural light could also be an issue.
Been lurking on here for a while, decided to add my thoughts.
I work for the organisation that owns the Earlsdon Park Retirement Village behind the BPA.
The residents in there would not take this lying down.
This is agenda based - close thread.
Don, its coming across as you having a bit of an agenda here.
Only just?
Noise is pretty much a non starter. There will be an acoustic assessment, with that data it will be hard to argue against it.
One issue will be how they establish the likely noise, the usual way for an application like this is to take readings at the existing stadium. The crowd at the Ricoh isn't exactly deafening. Then they will take readings at the Butts as it is now. They will also largely ignore any peaks, such as the noise of a goal being scored. Add in that they then consider it is 2 hours out of the week and there's very little chance of a noise objection standing up.
We already have late night firework displays at the Butts so I fail to see how evening games would be a problem.
How often?
A few times a year. We have evening rugby games too and as far as I know no one has complained.How often?
A few times a year. We have evening rugby games too and as far as I know no one has complained.
Been lurking on here for a while, decided to add my thoughts.
I work for the organisation that owns the Earlsdon Park Retirement Village behind the BPA.
The residents in there would not take this lying down...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?