More Moans Re New Stadium

[OiRef]

Today’s Evening Echo has once again given prominence to a moan about the new stadium by highlighting exaggerated arguments ( A mini Lakeside indeed !) with a photo of the proposed development. So once gain we need to respond with letters supporting the stadium otherwise the Jan 24th decision could go against us.

Interesting to note that the new B& Q store had none of these problems, possibly because the Echo decided there was not a story in it. Equally the expansion of Southend Hospital, with all its traffic and parking problems, went through last week on a quick nod and a wink !

 

[Hawkwell Blue]

Most of the objectors who live nearby to the new stadium clearly have no problem with Waitrose, the Wellesley Hospital and the main roads because they use these. As they presumably will not be using the new ground they don't like it!

Typical NIMBYs

 

[Jam_Man]

Its ignorance on the complainers part.

In fairness the thought of 22,000 people coming into your neighbourhood on a regular basis is enough to make most people wary. After all the projects listed above wont have such the same effect. 22,000 people wont go to B&Q all at once after all.

What these people need is some perspective, the attendances wont be 22,000 every week (if at all !) and the impact to their lives will be a couple of hours once every other Saturday and an evening here and there.

It wont actually be the apocalypse they possibly imagine.

 

[Joolz]

Quote[/b] (Jam_Man @ Jan. 15 2007,12:57)]What these people need is some perspective, the attendances wont be 22,000 every week (if at all !) and the impact to their lives will be a couple of hours once every other Saturday and an evening here and there.

Agreed. As I've stated many times before, they probably won't even know a game is going on most of the time.

 

[mattytheshrimper]

my uncle lives right on vic avenue right by the ground and he says he rarely notices much problems with traffic etc

 

[shrimperman]

What I don't get is the Echos stance in all this. A few months back they were promoting a campaign to get behind the stadium. Now surely that would make them pro-stadium. So why now are they allowing objectors to highlight their objections? I know that they 'should' have an equal perspective with an unbiased arguement but if you are going to clearly highlight that you support the stadium, is it not madness to allow this to happen? You're either for or against, right?

 

[Tilly hates yellow boots]

Quote[/b] (shrimperman @ Jan. 15 2007,13:34)]What I don't get is the Echos stance in all this. A few months back they were promoting a campaign to get behind the stadium. Now surely that would make them pro-stadium. So why now are they allowing objectors to highlight their objections? I know that they 'should' have an equal perspective with an unbiased arguement but if you are going to clearly highlight that you support the stadium, is it not madness to allow this to happen? You're either for or against, right?

The Echo are more interesting in selling papers, and for the day they highlighted the plans, they would sell more papers to the southend fans as we want to hear about it, but for today they have appealed to a larger audience as southend fans would want to see what people have said, and the people against would want to see how many people have said bad stuff.

At the end of the day it makes no odds to the echo if the stadium gets the go ahead or not, all they are interested in is selling newspapers.

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (shrimperman @ Jan. 15 2007,13:34)]What I don't get is the Echos stance in all this. A few months back they were promoting a campaign to get behind the stadium. Now surely that would make them pro-stadium. So why now are they allowing objectors to highlight their objections? I know that they 'should' have an equal perspective with an unbiased arguement but if you are going to clearly highlight that you support the stadium, is it not madness to allow this to happen? You're either for or against, right?

Surely it's the job of a local paper to have opinions about local issues, either for or against (and obviously in our case we want them in favour of the stadium)? They should be running a vigorous campaign at every opportunity to show they're fully behind the club and as RM says, Southend as a town needs this facility.

 

[Joolz]

Quote[/b] (jcrcr @ Jan. 15 2007,13:38)]At the end of the day it makes no odds to the echo if the stadium gets the go ahead or not, all they are interested in is selling newspapers.

Actually, I think it would matter to them, my logic being:

New Stadium = More Fans = More People Buying The Echo For Reports/News

 

[shrimperman]

Quote[/b] (glasgowsufc @ Jan. 15 2007,13:39)]

Quote[/b] (shrimperman @ Jan. 15 2007,13:34)]What I don't get is the Echos stance in all this. A few months back they were promoting a campaign to get behind the stadium. Now surely that would make them pro-stadium. So why now are they allowing objectors to highlight their objections? I know that they 'should' have an equal perspective with an unbiased arguement but if you are going to clearly highlight that you support the stadium, is it not madness to allow this to happen? You're either for or against, right?

Surely it's the job of a local paper to have opinions about local issues, either for or against (and obviously in our case we want them in favour of the stadium)?  They should be running a vigorous campaign at every opportunity to show they're fully behind the club and as RM says, Southend as a town needs this facility.

Agreed, in that they should be broadcasting opinions about local issues. I just don't understand how one week you start a campaign to support something, and the next, issue an article thats against. It just seems contradictory, maybe jcrcr has a point, in that they are only interested in day on day sales

 

[Tilly hates yellow boots]

Quote[/b] (Joolz @ Jan. 15 2007,13:53)]

Quote[/b] (jcrcr @ Jan. 15 2007,13:38)]At the end of the day it makes no odds to the echo if the stadium gets the go ahead or not, all they are interested in is selling newspapers.

Actually, I think it would matter to them, my logic being:

New Stadium = More Fans = More People Buying The Echo For Reports/News

But does new stadium garentee new fans ?
Plus i believe its only the more 'handcore' fans that buy the echo just for southend news.

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

I thought it was only people who own budgies with diarrhoea who buy the Echo.

 

[Fred]

Where's Murkey when you need him. Haven't heard from him for a while.

 

[TMWLT]

using the media for ones own purposes, is normally the sign of a regime that is in some trouble.

Good press should always be free of any interference

 

[steveo1]

Quote[/b] ]22,000 people wont go to B&Q all at once after all.

But if they did, I bet they would still only have one till open

 

[Jam_Man]

Quote[/b] (shrimperman @ Jan. 15 2007,13:34)]What I don't get is the Echos stance in all this. A few months back they were promoting a campaign to get behind the stadium. Now surely that would make them pro-stadium. So why now are they allowing objectors to highlight their objections? I know that they 'should' have an equal perspective with an unbiased arguement but if you are going to clearly highlight that you support the stadium, is it not madness to allow this to happen? You're either for or against, right?

No thats not right, its not down to the Echo to tell Southend whether its right or not.

It would be irresponsible of the Echo to totally support the stadium and ignore the community's concerns for the project.

Im not a regular reader of it but on the occassions Ive bought it and checked the letters about the ground they seem to have a balanced spread of those in support and those against. (Funnily no-one posts on here every time a positive letter is printed!)

The fact they have devoted so many front pages and pullouts to the ground only helps in raise the profile of the ground. Ive always got the impression they support it but is happy to give objectors their say.

 

[Jam_Man]

Quote[/b] (steveo1 @ Jan. 15 2007,15:18)]

Quote[/b] ]22,000 people wont go to B&Q all at once after all.

But if they did, I bet they would still only have one till open

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Jam_Man @ Jan. 15 2007,15:52)]No thats not right, its not down to the Echo to tell Southend whether its right or not.

It would be irresponsible of the Echo to totally support the stadium and ignore the community's concerns for the project.

spot on. The Echo is never going to sell a millio copies, so it has to serve its community as one of its aims, and fairness and transparency have to be part of this.

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

I know of the author of said letter and it does not surprise me. Anyway i am now penning my response and picking up about his own back yard so to speak.

 

[Einstein]

Quote[/b] (Bob Cratchitt @ Jan. 15 2007,17:54)]I know of the author of said letter and it does not surprise me. Anyway i am now penning my response and picking up about his own back yard so to speak.

Can't you just send the boys round to deal with him then?!

After all, SUFC fans are all violent aggressive thugs!