Stanley turn down Freedom of the Borough

g jones · 14-12-2006, 20:36

I know this site is read by Clr Britcliffe & Co as well as officers of the Council. I had the temerity to post something controversial and was reported by the Tories.

Stanley; There are several issues going on here.

1) Secondly, the development money. The Council owns the land. Stanley have a 25 year lease which they have legally an option to renew. Stanley want a new ground and know the Council can only get a receipt if Stanley agree. Stanley want a proportion. 'Rumours' suggest half. The receipt would be £millions. The Crown ground has no protectve covenant on it. Problems are mounting around the ground and there seems to be an tipping point where Stanley would prefer to invest good money into a good facility, not patch up the current one. A very active Accrington Stanley Residents group has been set up that monitors the clubs activities in the neighbourhood.

2) Firstly, politically. Clr Britcliffe views Stanley as a vote winner. It demonstrates how well the twon is thriving under his stewardship. It gves a feel good factor agianst, in reality, a lot of disncontent with his/the Council. In order to cash in on Stanley's success politically, they were given the freedom of the Borough. One of 10 only. All this came with front page headlines just before an election and promises of more headlines and celebrations later. Maybe Eric Whalley has worked out he is just a pawn?

3) The main reason. Censored. Legal reasons. ... Eric Whalley has taken offence at the Council for the way it has conducted some financial affairs. I believe Eric Whalley and the club are wrong and for once, Clr Britcliffe is right to take a stand, though I heard he was going to back off until the legal department stepped in.

4) Stanley served alcohol against the Football Grounds Act in a pre-season friendly... rest is censored.... The Council got involved, there was a 'difference of opinion'. And as a by product, the Licensing Manager resigned. This was on the back of an illegal fair that took place in the summer whch the Council should have closed down because Stanley didn't bother to acquire a licence and there were serious doubts that the public were actually insured who entered. The Council is the responsible body for Public Enterainment Licences as well so there was another issue there.

This is a our own local 'cash for peerages' scandal. The Freedom of the Borough was offered as a way to buy votes. Bill Turner said as much in the Telegraph.

The new ground situation should have started back in April with informal, sensible, all interested parties, discussions on feasabilities. It didn't. Stanley were short sighted, Clr Britcliffe politically motivated. 'Other issues' over took (that's issue 3 plus the ASRA). Two big ego's, no long term thinking and the net result is one having a go at the other. Neither can say what it is really about for legal reasons so the ground and lesser issues are being battered about, genuine, but not the main reasons.

Sorry I can't post the full story...

sparkie · 14-12-2006, 21:01

A lot of this started with the council signing a 3 year sponsorship deal for the front of stanleys shirts in the 03/04 season, a deal they then renaged on after only 1 season, when discontent was shown at the council putting their money into the football club and not into the town.

I'll hold my hands up and say I know very little about the current wranglings but sufficed to say, most councils do all they can for their local football clubs as it brings in new revenue streams for the town, when their football club is successful. Our council however seem too interested in arguing and not at all interested in doing to help the forward movement of the town as well as the football club.

As far as the residents association near the ground is concerned, I understand what most of the residents are complaining about, traffic congestion, parking ect. But what I don't understand is their persistant complaints about noise coming from the football ground on match days.

The ground has been there since 1968, granted the crowds have never been as big as they are now, and recently musical instruments have been used to help improve the atmosphere at the ground. I can understand the noise from the drum being a problem on evening matches, parents with kids ect, but on saturdays at three o'clock in the afternoon I don't see how this is a problem. At the end of the day unless you moved into your home prior to 1968, you moved into your house knowing that you were moving in next to a football ground. What were you expecting?!!! Or were you just part of the apathy that this town shows towards one of its biggest heritage attractions?

Most of these problems (apart from the apathy) would be eased by the relocation of the football club to more suitable premises with better access.

These are just my thoughts on what little I know about the current situation, and you're right the ego's on display here are larger than the borough itself!!!

Oh and just one more question, will peter britcliffe ever pay to come onto the ground for a football match or will he continue to filch free tickets for as long as he is able? Just a thought.

g jones · 14-12-2006, 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparkie

A lot of this started with the council signing a 3 year sponsorship deal for the front of stanleys shirts in the 03/04 season, a deal they then renaged on after only 1 season, when discontent was shown at the council putting their money into the football club and not into the town.

I'll hold my hands up and say I know very little about the current wranglings but sufficed to say, most councils do all they can for their local football clubs as it brings in new revenue streams for the town, when their football club is successful. Our council however seem too interested in arguing and not at all interested in doing to help the forward movement of the town as well as the football club.

As far as the residents association near the ground is concerned, I understand what most of the residents are complaining about, traffic congestion, parking ect. But what I don't understand is their persistant complaints about noise coming from the football ground on match days.

The ground has been there since 1968, granted the crowds have never been as big as they are now, and recently musical instruments have been used to help improve the atmosphere at the ground. I can understand the noise from the drum being a problem on evening matches, parents with kids ect, but on saturdays at three o'clock in the afternoon I don't see how this is a problem. At the end of the day unless you moved into your home prior to 1968, you moved into your house knowing that you were moving in next to a football ground. What were you expecting?!!! Or were you just part of the apathy that this town shows towards one of its biggest heritage attractions?

Most of these problems (apart from the apathy) would be eased by the relocation of the football club to more suitable premises with better access.

These are just my thoughts on what little I know about the current situation, and you're right the ego's on display here are larger than the borough itself!!!

Oh and just one more question, will peter britcliffe ever pay to come onto the ground for a football match or will he continue to filch free tickets for as long as he is able? Just a thought.

The Council has two season tickets. These are normally taken up my Conservative Party members attending matches. I pay to go on though one or two Labour colleagues have used the tickets. I thought you couldnt transfer season tickets, may be it is a Council one?

The Council sponsored a game early season. I did go on that. I think there were about 7 councillors there. Myself and Bernard Dawson from our side of the politial fence. It's a difficult situation, using public money for councillors enjoyments and by and large I am against it. Stanley are important so it's which way do you go with these things.

I did say back in March we should be making some attempt to look at feasabilities of a new ground as these things can take several years before a brick is laid. Eric nor anyone was interested. Why now, what's different? A location has been mentioned. The reporter told me that the new location doing the rumours was 'Whitebirk'. This apparently came from a 'very reliable source'.

When you see the town being run by big ego's and nothing really improving (4 years talking about a bus station - 3 years talking about trafic in front of the town hall) it is sad.

KIPAX · 14-12-2006, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

Sorry I can't post the full story...

So why bother at all other than to stir it... dont use accrington stanley for politics fella

its a football club ..

Read Rob Heys response in the Observer... Thats it.. stop using the club

John_Timmins · 14-12-2006, 23:35

How low can you get!!!! give us a little bit of information which puts the club in a bad light and then cause its ""censored"" you cant say anymore!!! bollox, you realise why the club dont want anything to do with the politics!!

Well done eric on not taking the award, Mr Jones and Britcliffe and the rest of your chums, get back on your free lunches as thats the only thing you seem to be good at!!!

g jones · 14-12-2006, 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by KIPAX

So why bother at all other than to stir it... dont use accrington stanley for politics fella

its a football club ..

Read Rob Heys response in the Observer... Thats it.. stop using the club

As a fan I want to see Stanley progress. It won't while there is this type of bickering and it also drags the borough down.

g jones · 15-12-2006, 00:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by John_Timmins

How low can you get!!!! give us a little bit of information which puts the club in a bad light and then cause its ""censored"" you cant say anymore!!! bollox, you realise why the club dont want anything to do with the politics!!

Well done eric on not taking the award, Mr Jones and Britcliffe and the rest of your chums, get back on your free lunches as thats the only thing you seem to be good at!!!

Well your entitled to your opinion. Just wish you had thought a bit more before typing out a meaningless contribution.

Doug · 15-12-2006, 00:18

I’m not sure I want to see this type of politicking affecting the club, particularly one that sets the Club against the borough are the reverse, if there is anything of merit in this then it should be settled behind closed doors in a professional manner, if it is to be discussed in the open then don’t place restrictions on your comments, same goes for the club.

You should all be working to raise public standards and the image of Accrington and that of the borough in general, both parties should be doing their utmost to bring in money and prosperity rather than drag the name of the club and the Borough through the ****. Isn’t there enough ****e thrown about as it is.

This is a time for the Borough to get behind the Club that brought Pride back to the people of Accrington,, by the same token Accrington Stanley Football Club should be doing its utmost to promote the town that give it it’s existence. For **** sake grow up and work together.

cashman · 15-12-2006, 00:37

exactly what i was thinking,but you put it much better doug.

g jones · 15-12-2006, 00:51

I would suggest sending a letter to the Council under the Freedom of Information Act asking whether Accrington Stanley had any outstanding invoices owed to the Council older than 90 days, 180 days, 365 days, 550 days and 730 days.

g jones · 15-12-2006, 00:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

This is a time for the Borough to get behind the Club that brought Pride back to the people of Accrington,, by the same token Accrington Stanley Football Club should be doing its utmost to promote the town that give it it’s existence. For **** sake grow up and work together.

The last bit is good advice Doug. The reality of the situation is somewhat different unfortunately. Most people can see both sides locking horns for a good while.

I wish we were in control, all the stupidity would be brought to a swift end.

KIPAX · 15-12-2006, 01:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

As a fan I want to see Stanley progress. It won't while there is this type of bickering and it also drags the borough down.

Now your saying stanley wont progress.. how long have you been a fan... they have progressed every year.

As a fan you shouldn't be using accrington stanley as a stick for your own ends.. your despicable

you want people on your side then slag off the biggest thing in accy...

KIPAX · 15-12-2006, 01:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

I would suggest sending a letter to the Council under the Freedom of Information Act asking whether Accrington Stanley had any outstanding invoices owed to the Council older than 90 days, 180 days, 365 days, 550 days and 730 days.

why would we want to.. why are you muck spreading?

chav1 · 15-12-2006, 03:46

err if accrington stanley move to whitebirk accrington may eventualy loose their football team

teh way blackburn keep tryingto snatch up the surrounding areas trying to be a city it will eventualy happen that they snatch whitebirk so in teh long run accrington may well loose their team

just a thought that came into my head when somone said they are looking at whitebirk

i know the boarders say whitebirk is accrington but every person i know classes whitebirk as blackburn already anyway

not that i give two hoots about football especialy accrington stanley ( no offence ) but they way i see it is that in teh long run accrington stanley may only be accrington by name

ok if anyone would like to take us back on topic iem sur eit will be appreciated , just thinking out loud

WillowTheWhisp · 15-12-2006, 07:54

Very well put Doug.

I must say I agree wth you about Whitebirk too Chav, it feels far more like part of Blackburn. It certainly isn't Accy even if it is in Hyndburn. I'd really like Stanley to stay here in Accrngton.