If the plans for FF got turned down.....??? (The Only Thread) [Archive]

Interpol Shrimper

17-10-2007, 10:05 AM

I'd think to think it won't ever be an option now but say the plans for FF got rejected as well as any appeal and the only other site was out of the Borough but Uncle Ron managed the move with a lot more consideration than Jobson's Basildon United plan, what would be the general consensus from people on here? If it really as serious as "no move = no club" unless we play in say Benfleet would people be as ready to fight the move as they were 15 years ago?

Vote & let the rest of us know.

Mr. Benedict

17-10-2007, 10:28 AM

SUFC should remain in Southend. But - so long as they didn't move too far out of the borough - if all other avenues were exhausted, there were no options aside relocation and the club faced extinction if it didn't move, I'd accept the move.

SARF

17-10-2007, 10:48 AM

if SUFC moved to say Basildon then I would go and watch Manor.

shrimper dan

17-10-2007, 11:32 AM

funny enough the club is called southend united, so surely we should play in southend. we arnt called basildon united. its like man u playing their games in liverpool lol:thump:

Jam_Man

17-10-2007, 11:32 AM

Think this is all wild fantasy time but I dont know if I could live with Southend United being in another town wouldnt be the same.

Interpol Shrimper

17-10-2007, 11:44 AM

funny enough the club is called southend united, so surely we should play in southend. we arnt called basildon united. its like man u playing their games in liverpool lol:thump:

Yeah but look at Bolton.
They now play in Horwich which is a small place next to Bolton.
They didn't change their name to Horwich Wanderers did they?

Kent Shrimper

17-10-2007, 11:51 AM

I dont think Ron is as stupid as Jobson, he wouldnt even contemplate it let alone propose it to the masses!!!

BLUEBLOOD

17-10-2007, 08:35 PM

funny enough the club is called southend united, so surely we should play in southend. we arnt called basildon united. its like man u playing their games in liverpool lol:thump:

You are correct of course... but Man Utd actually play in Salford ... hence the City song....

"Manchester City, the only football team that comes from Manchester"

:thump:

leeblue

18-10-2007, 11:41 AM

I think we could be in the **** if ff turned down, what will ron do? he originaly only got involved with us to make lots of property MONEY, he admits this himself, yes he caught the bug and is committed to the cause but the original feeling of making a big wedge remains and will this feeling take over if ff refused and leave us up the creek.

Kent Shrimper

18-10-2007, 12:32 PM

Firestorm

18-10-2007, 01:12 PM

if FF goes tits up Ron will not make any money as the RH covenant will kick in and RH will not be allowed to be developed. Also the reason for refusal may have an impact as the Change to the Borough Plan is one of the reasons it was called in (In the BP B&L is specified for sports use and the retail/hotel etc aspect does not fit that).
Without FF SUFC will owe MD millions, they do not have that Money so
MD will either have to:

take us to the liquidators for a small %age of the debt (as RH without planning permission and a covenant not allowing development without the provision for another Football ground will be worthless).

Write the debt off and get out leaving us searching for another investor who can afford to put in money without any reward (and no FF site to use for training unless he wants to pay 200k per year rent)

Stay put ,Cut overheads until a suitable alternative site has been found and start all over again.

Or possibly let the club go bust/ sell up to an interest in another town who would like a pro club (Basildon maybe) then dispute the validity of the covenant through the courts so Roots Hall can be redeveloped.

Jam_Man

18-10-2007, 01:24 PM

If it doesnt go ahead I dont think the club will go under, however it will mean modiocrity is guaranteed indefinitely.

If FF isnt agreed when its been put together so well I cant see how we will ever get a ground agreed.

Its going to be the best news ever, or doom and gloom big time.

Im pretty hopeful though....

Smiffy

22-10-2007, 10:20 AM

SUFC_Al

22-10-2007, 10:45 AM

Mr. Benedict

22-10-2007, 11:01 AM

:hilarious:

What an idiot that 'Pipe Dream' chap is...
Haven't read the comments on there for a while - I was amazed how antiquated some people's views are...!

Jam_Man

24-10-2007, 01:42 PM

Don't you just love all these NIMBY's...

I particularly like the one about only having 5,661 in attendance at Saturdays game, this **** clearly doesn't even realise we was at Walsall, and not at The Hall!..

Muppets (http://www.echo-news.co.uk/sport/theblues/display.var.1764704.0.blues_army_on_the_march.php# comments)

Yep that was a beauty.

I do agree though, with attendances of 5,600 Walsall should definitely not be getting a new stadium in Southend.

Theres a lot of comments which are clearly from non-football fans and to an extent I understand that they would be apathetic or even against the plans.

However :

1) Its not like its being paid for out of council funds, its privately funded
2)Surely they can see it creates employment
3) Even if we only get 12,000 attendances there cant they see thats a lot of people getting the benefit of the stadium every two weeks ? What else in the town will be used by so many people that isnt a cost to the council ?
4) Its only going to be used for football for 3-4 hours every two weeks.

Mr. Benedict

24-10-2007, 02:38 PM

Yep that was a beauty.

I do agree though, with attendances of 5,600 Walsall should definitely not be getting a new stadium in Southend.

Theres a lot of comments which are clearly from non-football fans and to an extent I understand that they would be apathetic or even against the plans.

However :

1) Its not like its being paid for out of council funds, its privately funded
2)Surely they can see it creates employment
3) Even if we only get 12,000 attendances there cant they see thats a lot of people getting the benefit of the stadium every two weeks ? What else in the town will be used by so many people that isnt a cost to the council ?
4) Its only going to be used for football for 3-4 hours every two weeks.

Sadly, these NIMBYs don't actually furnish themselves with the facts when they spout off rubbish like this. If they had any real, valid objections to the development why didn't they address such concerns to the inquiry?

Therefore their complaints not worth the screen they're typed on.

Interpol Shrimper

24-10-2007, 02:40 PM

I do agree though, with attendances of 5,600 Walsall should definitely not be getting a new stadium in Southend.

Quality :hilarious:
Has any kind soul added this point of view to the list of comments yet?

Mr. Benedict

24-10-2007, 04:01 PM

Quality :hilarious:
Has any kind soul added this point of view to the list of comments yet?

Indeed they have Glasgow:

Oh dear....

As said above Saturday was an away match, when our team travel to another place, in this case Walsall. The 5,600 attendance were Walsall fans and Im with you, they dont need a new stadium in Southend.

However with attendances of over 8,000 in 2005/6 and over 10,000 last season you can see there are lots of people in this town who do want this.

How many people do you think would start going to games if there were nice new facilities to make use of ?

We will get 13,000+ when it opens, there will be empty seats but thats intentional, building a stadium for what we need now is pointless and a 22,000 stadium wont take up much more space than a 15,000 stadium.

Why on earth are some people so against what is a chance for this town to have something to be proud of other than a rotting pier and chav ridden seafront ?

overseas shrimper

27-10-2007, 05:56 AM

funny enough the club is called southend united, so surely we should play in southend. we arnt called basildon united. its like man u playing their games in liverpool lol:thump:

Well, Grimsby are still called Grimsby even though they play in Cleethorpes.

Groyne Strain

28-10-2007, 03:56 PM

There isn't an option in the poll for "retreat to nearest hostelry and raise a glass to the prospect of staying at Roots Hall" so I didn't vote.

Interpol Shrimper

28-10-2007, 04:29 PM

There isn't an option in the poll for "retreat to nearest hostelry and raise a glass to the prospect of staying at Roots Hall" so I didn't vote.

That's because staying at Roots Hall in the medium/long term isn't an option and will result in no SUFC :(

mattytheshrimper

28-10-2007, 04:58 PM

what ever happens the stadium has to be in southend.

Groyne Strain

29-10-2007, 12:29 PM

That's because staying at Roots Hall in the medium/long term isn't an option and will result in no SUFC :(

Why......?

Interpol Shrimper

29-10-2007, 12:33 PM

Why......?

We cannot financially survive in such an old ground with all the limitations that go with it. As sad a day as it will be to leave Roots Hall behind (and see it raised to the ground for houses & a Sainsburys), you can't deny it won't be as sad as it would to see a proud club with over 100 years of history go to the wall!

Mr. Benedict

29-10-2007, 12:44 PM

I should think the debts we owe are the main reson for our lack of prospects in the long term, although I don't think we'd go to the wall - maybe right down the divisions though.

Groyne Strain

29-10-2007, 01:49 PM

That wouldn't happen.

Jam_Man

01-11-2007, 10:44 AM

No it wouldnt, the club would survive if we stayed at RH, however will would lose Ron Martin at some point and be confined to mediocrity with no possibility of becoming a bigger club than we are.

Whilst the club wont die I cant understand the few fans who think thats acceptable.

Whats the point of going to football if you dont want to win games and move up divisions?

We are a league one club at the moment and we have no way of improving that staying at the Hall....

sufcintheprem

01-11-2007, 12:59 PM

I actually think that (and it's a big) if we maintained the levels of attendace above 7,000 on average, we'd probably break even or close to it. We've got a nice wad from the sale of Freddy too.

Football's a fickle mistress though - look at the state Bradford find themselves in.

Groyne Strain

01-11-2007, 05:55 PM

Whats the point of going to football if you dont want to win games and move up divisions?

To enjoy the day out. I know I'm in a minority here but bar a handful of games per season the result is secondary to me - how good the day was for everybody I go along with as well as myself is my primary motivation.

When I first started going we were either a good 4th Division team or a poor 3rd Division side. It sort of gets ingrained into you and you get to enjoy the days out as a whole rather than concerntrating on the result.

I found the enjoyment level vastly reduced last season in the presence of overbearing police forces and stewarding as well as the overbearing egos of supporters of so-called 'big' clubs. It spoilt the day out entirely.

Given the choice I'd prefer to stay in the lower divisions as a football club than in the higher league as just another money-making exercise.

If I just wanted to go to football I'd be a season ticket holder at Basildon United and listen out for Southend results on BBC Essex.

And that's the reason why.

WickfordShrimper

03-11-2007, 01:19 PM

If I just wanted to go to football I'd be a season ticket holder at Basildon United and listen out for Southend results on BBC Essex.

And that's the reason why.

Im starting to wish u had.....

Groyne Strain

04-11-2007, 02:04 PM

And there we have it, the voice of reason. Being a Southend United supporter does not automatically mean being in favour of what those running the admin side of the club do. I support the team and enjoy the day out.

It's a pity that constructive comment on both sides has to be slightly tarnished by one daft comment but hey, that's life.

If, however, you wish to see a detailed resume of why I'd rather Southend United remain at Roots Hall I'd be delighted to send you a copy of the letter I sent to Rochford and Southend councillors as well as Ron Martin.

Spaceman Spiff

04-11-2007, 10:03 PM

Erm, hate to be picky Groyne Strain, but you havent actually given a single reason why we shouldnt move stadiums?

You've said how much the results dont matter to you and how much you like being a non-achieving lower division team - we could do that in any stadium, and probably will. None of that is 'because of' Roots Hall. Having a new stadium wont necessarily change that either, but it will mean the club has more chance of covering its costs and stay in existence, whatever the level of football.

Seems a bit odd that you feel so strongly about this that you wrote 3 letters to detail your love of the lower divisions as a reason why a stadium move should be resisted at all costs...

:confused: :thump:

mattytheshrimper

04-11-2007, 10:38 PM

js has got ya there

Groyne Strain

05-11-2007, 04:47 PM

Well, as I'm on a library pc at the moment, so can't actually access the letters I've sent, if you can hang on until I can waste time at work I will be happy to give you the transcript of why I am in favour of staying at Roots Hall.

Please note, though, that staying at Roots Hall does not actually mean being against a new stadium, just that I am much more in favour of staying where we are. I would also be interested to know, too, where I've actually stated in record a change of ground "should be resisted at all costs." Certainly not when I've spoken to other Southend supporters about it and I'm not sure it was a phrase I've used on any forum.

You can certainly point a finger at me for a little skullduggery, mind, when I amended the car flags and had one adorning a Southend drinking establishment and, perhaps, a little leg-pulling on here occasionally.

My sentiments, however, are borne of good intention. I will get my transcript up on here but in summary I made my views known based on tradition, local identity, comparitive successes or oytherwise of clubs that have moved stadia and, well, just a gut feeling.

Let us enjoy the trip to Forest tomorrow and then perhaps I can put my views forward in full and constructively.

(PS - I hate you all ;) )

Jam_Man

08-11-2007, 10:17 AM

[I][COLOR="Navy"]To enjoy the day out. I know I'm in a minority here but bar a handful of games per season the result is secondary to me - how good the day was for everybody I go along with as well as myself is my primary motivation.

Really ? Find that really strange.

Whilst its not just about the result I personally dont see the point in going to a football match if getting the win isnt the primary motive. For me games where the result doesnt matter, ie friendlies and most cup games I actually dont particularly enjoy.
Of course going to a match with your mates and the build up and the debates afterwards add to the day, but if I just wanted a day out Id go to the zoo :)

[I][COLOR="Navy"]

Please note, though, that staying at Roots Hall does not actually mean being against a new stadium, just that I am much more in favour of staying where we are.

Again that surprises me, so if they built the exact same stadium on Roots Hall would you be for it ?

I really dont see why it matters whether its at Roots Hall or half a mile away?