Stadium updates .......

[rockerlad]

27 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

There you are just thinking about reds again.

Current SL requirements are 5000 capacity and 2000 seats, in March they will/may lift that to separate the "A" cat teams [saints/Wigan/Leeds etc] from the "B" cat teams will will probably mean we will have to stay as a "C" team forever because the current requirements will be standard  for "B"

Who "hopefully" will want to invest in a Town team where a tiny [but partially new] ground only suitable for soccer may stop future prospects and promotion.

Now I know you only car about reds but what about the rest of us.

It also should not go ahead unless its 50/50 shares and votes

I didnt/don't have a clue what the SL requirements are, I was just stating what the requirements for national league are as I know what they are. I 2000 seats are required for super league as you state then derwent park doesn't meet that standard either as someone said above there is 1100 seats. 

and new stand on one side of bp with say 1500 seats on would take the total in BP over the 2000 mark. 

and yes I agree voting rights should be 50/50. why don't you submit a question about this via the website? 

 

also I pay my money to watch town and sponsor a game every season with work mates, so you are way off the mark saying I don't care about town.

Edited February 5, 2023 by rockerlad

[Davo5]

1 hour ago, Jacksonville said:

I agree about a terrace in front. Why is Whitehaven's horrendous to watch from?

It isn’t & certainly not from the grandstand.

[Davo5]

48 minutes ago, rockerlad said:

I didnt/don't have a clue what the SL requirements are, I was just stating what the requirements for national league are as I know what they are. I 2000 seats are required for super league as you state then derwent park doesn't meet that standard either as someone said above there is 1100 seats. 

and new stand on one side of bp with say 1500 seats on would take the total in BP over the 2000 mark. 

and yes I agree voting rights should be 50/50. why don't you submit a question about this via the website? 

 

also I pay my money to watch town and sponsor a game every season with work mates, so you are way off the mark saying I don't care about town.

Now don’t be introducing actual facts into this discussion.

[Mr Frisky]

1 hour ago, Jacksonville said:

I agree about a terrace in front. Why is Whitehaven's horrendous to watch from?

Open to the elements, poor view into the corners of the pitch and seats are at pitch level so poor views for most of the lower rows with people standing on the touch line infront of the stand (subs, trainers etc)

Saying that when it's busy you can't even see the touch line from the popular side - add in that pitch and DP is miles better.

[The Voodooguru]

2 hours ago, Davo5 said:

It isn’t & certainly not from the grandstand.

Bit of a contradiction in terms calling it a grandstand isn't it? Sorry couldn't help it...

[town blue]

7 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

I read it somewhere that it was the reason Town left and built DP as the managers and directors could not agree [risman/shankley]

My understanding of the previous sharing, regarding managers, was Shankly always complaining about the state of the pitch after rugby. There should be no problem on this issue with the proposed synthetic pitch.

[Derwent Parker]

19 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

You do know this a RL forum don't you?

Hes from Jam land - he doesn't know very much

[Derwent Parker]

7 hours ago, rockerlad said:

how many times do the town directors need to come out and tell you that they need a new stadium for the future of the club?

Yes i agree we all need a new stadium - but not a cheap botch up - that isn't up to standards required - that also gives reds the voting majority and shares and therefore final say.  How will town be able to stop them taking roof off when it springs a leak???

[rockerlad]

34 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Yes i agree we all need a new stadium - but not a cheap botch up - that isn't up to standards required - that also gives reds the voting majority and shares and therefore final say.  How will town be able to stop them taking roof off when it springs a leak???

you need to put your questions to the people on the committee, and you might get your answers.

[rockerlad]

I cant find anything on companies house about voting rights? unless I'm looking in the wrong place

 

 

 

[Route66]

Just read through the last couple of pages, lots of good varied points and questions raised ,would urge anyone with concerns to go to the website and use the contact page to put their views accross, the people driving the scheme are giving you the opportunity, so instead of negativity put your opinions to those in charge 

 

 

 

[rockerlad]

3 minutes ago, Route66 said:

Just read through the last couple of pages, lots of good varied points and questions raised ,would urge anyone with concerns to go to the website and use the contact page to put their views accross, the people driving the scheme are giving you the opportunity, so instead of negativity put your opinions to those in charge 

 

 

 

exactly 

[Neutralfan7]

I thought it was supposed to be a new joint stadium? Is it now just a development of reds ground using the funds from selling DP?

[rockerlad]

30 minutes ago, Neutralfan7 said:

I thought it was supposed to be a new joint stadium? Is it now just a development of reds ground using the funds from selling DP?

5.5m goverment funding, 1m allerdale funding

[town4me]

37 minutes ago, Neutralfan7 said:

I thought it was supposed to be a new joint stadium?

It is a joint stadium. You never give up do you.

[dkw]

Ah good old Neutralfan, just asking questions.....no doubt he will just go crying to the admin again if anyone questions him though. Pathetic from an "adult".

[JMB]

3 hours ago, dkw said:

Ah good old Neutralfan, just asking questions.....no doubt he will just go crying to the admin again if anyone questions him though. Pathetic from an "adult".

The area is crying out for a new sporting stadium, and I'm sure that the RFL will be able to attract funding through sport England by making this stadium a centre of excellence for Cumbria RL,  this should help the funding from the FA, also make it a joint venture between both clubs and the local council. 

[Derwent Parker]

3 minutes ago, JMB said:

The area is crying out for a new sporting stadium, and I'm sure that the RFL will be able to attract funding through sport England by making this stadium a centre of excellence for Cumbria RL,  this should help the funding from the FA, also make it a joint venture between both clubs and the local council. 

I wouldn't put money on it - RFL are only bothered about SL

[JMB]

3 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

I wouldn't put money on it - RFL are only bothered about SL

Not if they are not directly putting in any funding into it themselves, plus if they can make something from the project they will jump at the chance, 

[Neutralfan7]

4 hours ago, dkw said:

Ah good old Neutralfan, just asking questions.....no doubt he will just go crying to the admin again if anyone questions him though. Pathetic from an "adult".

You mean like a few of you lot did about me? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

12 hours ago, JMB said:

Not if they are not directly putting in any funding into it themselves, plus if they can make something from the project they will jump at the chance, 

the RFL are skint pal, every professional club have had their central funding slashed so there's not a cat in hells chance of any funding coming from them, plus they aren't interested in Cumbria, too small a population and a back water as far as they are concerned

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

On 03/02/2023 at 23:00, donald said:

Been reading all these posts the town fans seem peed off about what's happening. But what about the reds fans . If the money per game gets split town will profit more with reds playing probably twice as many games a season . And I am right in saying most of the extra money needed as come from the reds thro the sport england which covers all levels of football. 

No pal, the money has come from the government's levelling up fund (£5.5 million) with a further £1,000,000 from Allerdale for phase 1 to benefit both professional clubs in Workington. 

The FA may possibly be putting some money in, but certainly nothing notable to date that's been made public.

My guess is, Sport England/FA would be more likely to fund the all weather/running track part of the scheme as it has a higher community value than the stadium. The FA like to fund all weather pitches but they build a caveat in that local junior football gets priority sessions for an agreed number of hours per week as part of the funding agreement. 

In regards to gate splits, I'm sure it was set out at the start of this proposal that each club would keep their own revenue with a percentage, presumably linked to attendance put aside for ground maintenance, insurance etc. So in that respect both clubs would be better off, as maintenance costs will be a lot less on a modern stadium plus they are paying for the upkeep of one, not 2 stadiums.  

It will be interesting to see what plans are submitted for the planning application, I've read the comments on here about 'one new grandstand and the rest to stay as it is etc', but that doesn't add up to me as I can't see why they would release even sketches at this late stage unless that is at least the footprint of the new stadium, as the second smaller athletics/all-weather pitch runs adjacent to the goal end of the ground, which to me indicates the new grandstand will run parallel to Allerdale House (the Derwent End), and that surely means the pitch will be rotated 90 degrees!

So taking that into consideration, the Reds would only be able to play at Borough Park whilst some of the site groundworks work were being carried out as all the other terracing will be removed.

But as I said in an earlier post, the plans are open to interpretation and it could be me whose got it completely wrong !!

Also the stuff about Reds having a bigger shareholding that Town - here's the link to Companies House. I've just had a  quick look through and as far as I can see both Town and Reds have equal shareholding and voting rights. 

If you don't understand how companies are set up I wouldn't comment - but the shareholding splits are shown as 50 shares each. 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14004950/filing-history 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Death to the Rah Rah's

[JMB]

44 minutes ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

the RFL are skint pal, every professional club have had their central funding slashed so there's not a cat in hells chance of any funding coming from them, plus they aren't interested in Cumbria, too small a population and a back water as far as they are concerned

Totally agree that the rl are skint, but if the they can look to make a bob or two and get extra funding towards helping with rfl staff wages they will apply to sport England for them to help part fund it, the rfl will say that their contribution towards the project will be the staff overseeing the project.

[Derwent Parker]

56 minutes ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

No pal, the money has come from the government's levelling up fund (£5.5 million) with a further £1,000,000 from Allerdale for phase 1, to benefit both professional clubs in Workington. 

The FA may possibly be putting some money in, but certainly nothing notable to date that's been made public anyway.

My guess is, Sport England/FA would be more likely to fund the all weather/running track part of the scheme as it has a higher community value than the stadium. The FA like to fund all weather pitches and they build a caveat in that local football gets priority sessions for an agreed number of hours per week as part of the funding agreement. 

In regards to gate splits, I'm sure it was set out at the start of this proposal that each club would keep their own revenue with a percentage, presumably linked to attendance put aside for ground maintenance, insurance etc. So in that respect both clubs would be better off, as maintenance costs will be a lot less on a modern stadium plus they are paying for the upkeep of one, not 2 stadiums.  

It will be interesting to see what plans are submitted for the planning application, I've read the comments on here about 'one new grandstand and the rest to stay as it is etc', but that doesn't add up to me as I can't see why they would release even sketches at this late stage unless that is at least the footprint of the new stadium, as the second smaller athletics/all-weather pitch runs adjacent to the goal end of the ground, which to me indicates the new grandstand will run parallel to Allerdale House (the Derwent End), which in means the pitch will be rotated 90 degrees.

So taking that into consideration, the Reds would only be able to play at Borough Park whilst some of the site groundworks work were being carried out as all the other terracing will be removed.

Also the stuff about Reds having a bigger shareholding that Town - here's the link to Companies House, so I've just had a  quick look through and as far as I can see both Town and Reds have equal shareholding and voting rights. 

If you don't understand how companies are set up I wouldn't comment  

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14004950/filing-history 

Read page 8 to 11  properly

Reds 

Nature of control - The relevant legal entity holds, directly or indirectly, more than 50% but less than 75% of the shares in the company. Nature of control The relevant legal entity holds, directly or indirectly, more than 50% but less than 75% of the voting rights in the company

Town

Nature of control - The relevant legal entity holds, directly or indirectly, more than 25% but not more than 50% of the shares in the company. Nature of control The relevant legal entity holds, directly or indirectly, more than 25% but not more than 50% of the voting rights in the company

So whoever put that on here stated what is written correctly

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

2 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

Read page 8 to 11  properly

Reds 

Nature of control - The relevant legal entity holds, directly or indirectly, more than 50% but less than 75% of the shares in the company. Nature of control The relevant legal entity holds, directly or indirectly, more than 50% but less than 75% of the voting rights in the company

Town

Nature of control - The relevant legal entity holds, directly or indirectly, more than 25% but not more than 50% of the shares in the company. Nature of control The relevant legal entity holds, directly or indirectly, more than 25% but not more than 50% of the voting rights in the company

So whoever put that on here stated what is written correctly

read the confirmation statement pal - as things stand, each club has 50 ordinary shares each - that's 50/50 split !!

That may change in time, but at present they have equal voting rights.

It will have to change at some point and that could be with the issue of additional shares or even bringing in a 3rd party rep - ie: stadium management with reps from both clubs who could hold 10% of the shares and would give them any casting vote in decision making, or it could be a 51/49 split in favour of the Reds.

This partnership has to work for both clubs, and the Council also have a responsibility to ensure this project is delivered as they are spending public money so there will be plenty of safeguards put into place.

We will all have to wait for the planning application to be submitted, things should hopefully become clearer once the application has been lodged 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Death to the Rah Rah's