• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

I accept we don't own it anymore. But the ownership can be a bargaining chip/reward for the waver of the covenant. Do you not feel the lifeblood of the club is worth haggling for?

Sorry Im not sure at what you are getting at.

What is it you are looking to haggle for?
 
I think the trampling was done many years ago. The club has already made money out of Roots Hall and it would be unfair for the club to profit twice from it.

The issue would be more with what was done with that money - we shouldn't have ******* it on Peter Clarke, Richie Foran and Billy Paynter etc but there were few dissenting voices when this money was being invested in the team instead of saved for the new stadium.
 
I think the trampling was done many years ago. The club has already made money out of Roots Hall and it would be unfair for the club to profit twice from it.

The issue would be more with what was done with that money - we shouldn't have ******* it on Peter Clarke, Richie Foran and Billy Paynter etc but there were few dissenting voices when this money was being invested in the team instead of saved for the new stadium.

Perhaps you are right. We may have lost our way over this many years ago but the club profiting has really meant the owners and the frittering of monies has been at their behest. Maybe I am suffering a bout of righteous indignation or am pampering to my romantic version of right and wrong but what I see I do not like.
Rh has a covenant, even Boots and Laces ground had a covenant but it appears the well meaning of people means nothing to world of business or southend council. The very least we should have is a covenant on FF for if not then the original RH covenant really has been torn up and thrown away. It was not just about where to play but the essence was to insure that southend united football club always had a place to play.
I am more fearful now about FF than ever I was. I have always thought it necessary but now feel like it is a part of the sacrificial rite carried out in order to obtain the retail park and if push comes to shove the club can then go and whistle.

That would taint the memory of all those people that gave up so much so that we can be watching football at our ground today.
 
A covenant, if they are worth anything would be nice at FF.

I guess for the medium term the stadium is pointless without a team to play there. The retail park is obviously part of RM's 'legacy' but Im sure he doesnt want an unused stadium so whoever owns the stadium has it in their own interest for there to be a club there.
 
Back
Top