New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

SteMerritt said:
Which small village are they talking about? The ground isn't in a village, it is near one, and one that has approaching the stadium capacity of people living in it. It isn't 3 houses, a shop and a pub...
Click to expand...
That'll be Kidlington, the second largest village in England.
 
Manorlounger said:
Response from OCC just received via email:

Thank you for your email dated 30th March. I acknowledge receipt on behalf of Cabinet and have brought your correspondence to their attention.

Thank you for writing to Cabinet members on this matter.

Kind regards
Sarah
Sarah Whatman

Personal Assistant to Cllr Liz Leffman, Leader of the Council

Sarah.Whatman@oxfordshire.gov.uk

Oxfordshire County Council | County Hall | New Road | Oxford | OX1 1ND |
Click to expand...
Ive not had a reply as yet
 
Concretebob said:
That bloody Oxford Fail story again. That bloody Albert Tait.
Click to expand...
It actually plays right into our hands.

OCC cabinet has seen the lease (c/f cabinet meeting of 19th September 2023) and no doubt would have commented on there being any possibility of negotiations with Firoka if a new lease were possible.

Representations stating that FK will renew fly in the face of official documents and as such, they will be discounted. Every objection that claims otherwise are synonymous with the ubiquitous "wasted vote".
 
Oxymoron said:
It actually plays right into our hands.

OCC cabinet has seen the lease (c/f cabinet meeting of 19th September 2023) and no doubt would have commented on there being any possibility of negotiations with Firoka if a new lease were possible.

Representations stating that FK will renew fly in the face of official documents and as such, they will be discounted. Every objection that claims otherwise are synonymous with the ubiquitous "wasted vote".
Click to expand...
It's just frustrating that the Fail ran with the story and people still believe it.
 
Oxymoron said:
It actually plays right into our hands.

OCC cabinet has seen the lease (c/f cabinet meeting of 19th September 2023) and no doubt would have commented on there being any possibility of negotiations with Firoka if a new lease were possible.

Representations stating that FK will renew fly in the face of official documents and as such, they will be discounted. Every objection that claims otherwise are synonymous with the ubiquitous "wasted vote".
Click to expand...
That will nearly be all of them when fosb release the copy and paste job
 
WuTang said:
Can I park on your drive? Promise I won't P**s in the garden (I might)...
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, but I've signed a contract with Sainsbury's, to be their overflow car park, as apparently their car park will be full due to inconsiderate football fans parking there. It must be true, FOSB said so.

We can probably come to an arrangement about the pissing though.................
 
Colin B said:
Sorry mate, but I've signed a contract with Sainsbury's, to be their overflow car park, as apparently their car park will be full due to inconsiderate football fans parking there. It must be true, FOSB said so.

We can probably come to an arrangement about the pissing though.................
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you are right, being a football fan it means I cannot park correctly when picking up a sandwich from Sainsbury's. Often have to take up two spaces I'm that thick.
 
Nadi- said:
The village of Kidlington is in OX5, which the stadium is not.
As for small village, having lived there for over 20years.
Having moved to a city half the size, and less than half the population.
Pushing it somewhat.
Click to expand...
Odd place Kidlington. Somehow in the last year or so The Triangle has gone from contaminated wasteland to a nature paradise as well and now it's a "small village" despite being the second biggest village in England.

Never heard of a place quite like it.
 
our local company director is back at it again

I have read the planning application for the stadium at the triangle in Kidlington and havethe following concerns:Traffic and transportThe planning statement anticipates that 580 annual events at the stadium and proposes astadium with 18,000 seats and lounge access for 1,000 guests. Parking at this site will beavailable for only 81 realistic spaces.The Kidlington roads that I live and walk around are already congested. Where is the AirQuality Management Plan that supports the addition of up to 16,000 additional cars onfootball match days?There is no evidence that supporters (that don't currently use public transport to attendKassam), will suddenly change because of this proposed move to Kidlington?There is no evidence that supporters will use the train.Is there any UK case study evidence to demonstrate that football supporters will suddenlymove their journey habits to rail?Of the 24 teams in League One, where Oxford United play, most would find it challenging totravel by train. There is no evidence that this form of transport (which is the sustainabilityclaim of the application), would result in majority supporters taking rail transport to theground.There is no plan for the additional congestion, traffic spill, double parking and increasedautomotive exhaust emissions that will ensue form this ill-considered application. This willcause considerable harm and safety issues to local children and residents.The plan to install a crossing over Frieze Way (which I already now being constructed as partof roundabout adjustments, and prior to this application being considered), effectivelyagrees that parking will spill over into Kidlington residential streets. Is this move to install aCrossing at Freize Way an acceptance that this application has already been agreed?Supporters that travel by train or bus (as the application proposes), would have no otherreason to cross Frieze Way to and from Kidlington.The Fan Travel section of the Sustainability Statement bases all of its 'what if' beliefs on twosurveys of football supporters. It shows over 83.1% of supporters currently travel by privatetransport (cars and vans).The 'what if' ambition suggests a 33% reduction in CO2e emissions if car use dropped to32%. What and where is the evidence for this?Away supporters will all have at least one change to make, in order to take trains to the site.If supporters claim they would not drive to site, why is this not evident currently in the 89%figure, where only 16.9% use sustainable forms of travel?And why on match days are all roads leading to and from the Kassam loaded with parkedcars?Green BeltThere is a very high bar that needs to be reached to justify building on green belt land.These 'very special circumstances' to justify the proposed development in the Green Belthave not been demonstrated.The three case studies used in the application to justify these 'very special circumstances'are far from relevant here.Specifically:1. Newcastle Falcons in 2002, did not already occupy a 23-year-old football stadium (witha 60-year life) that already had foundations and potential to expand it to 16,000 seats. Norare OUFC members of a prestigious league such as the Premier league.2. Brighton and Hove Albion: In 2001, this case was called in. It took until 2005 for thesecretary of state to judge in their favour, only for this to be quashed in 2006 and not finallyapproved until 2007. In this case, OUFC would be without a stadium until 2031.Consequently, OUFC should be building relationships with Mr Kassam.3. Southend United in 2008, was not to be built on green belt land. This is thereforeirrelevant.These cases are 20 years old. All Oxfordshire Councils have since recognised climate changeas an existential 'emergency'.There were no alternate sites in these three case study locations. There are 42 beingconsidered in Oxfordshire, 8 of which not in the green belt. The Kidlington site is not inOxford. These case studies are put forward to justify a case for building on green belt land.None of these three are at all relevant to this application and do not provide a precedent forbuilding on green belt land.OUFCs failure to consider the future of their club, and to negotiate and agree contracts withthe Kassam owners for the longevity of the site (60 years) are unforgivably poor businessdecisions. Green belt cannot be rolled over as a result of such poor business decisions orweak business management. These are business decisions and are not the concern f theresidents of Kidlington who would-be left to pick up the pieces of this.How do OUFC propose to act if the same poor management leads to disagreement with theirnew owner. Will they be seeking to demolish this and build another stadium?Biodiversity Net GainThe claims that this site isn't highly biodiverse are intrinsically false. The site is rich inbiodiversity including but not confined to great crested newt, badgers, and bats.These are all protected species. Since we understand that it is now universally accepted thatthe monitoring equipment installed at the site to detect these bats was removed very shortlyafter it was installed, there have effectively been no bat surveys conducted.This is legal requirement in such an area. In terms o these species, absence of evidence isnot evidence of absence.What are the new and improved habitats? "The vision has been to incorporate flexible multifunctional spaces, monocultured (and aesthetically pleasant trees and shrubs) that can beenjoyed whether it be a match day or not".This fails to understand anything about Biodiversity. Biodiversity net gain is not about givingover green and wild lands to public wanderings.How exactly can the building of a concrete and asphalt mass on this site, add a 10% netbiodiversity gain?That is built on the false assumption that the site is currently biodiversity neutral andcontains no biodiversity. This is evidently and absolutely not the case.ConstructionThe talk of a Route Map for Avoidable Waste in Construction would be far better delivered bynot constructing. Instead, OUFC and its new owner should be coming to a sustainablebusiness arrangement with Mr Kassam to build a fourth stand at the Kassam and upgradefacilities there.This will avoid the need to demolish a perfectly good and adaptable stadium and avoid all ofthe embodied carbon being lost from this 23 year old site. An approach similar to shareownership of the Kassam site may be an option. Where is the evidence that such discussionsbeen conducted 'to exhaustion' between the old and new owner and OUFC themselves?Carbon Reduction PledgesThe summary claims a 51% CO2e reduction by moving to Stratfield Brake. The stadium isnot being built at Stratfield Brake, so how is this relevant?The 'what if' reductions discussed in this Sustainability Statement, are exactly that, what ifsand pipe dreams.What if the stadium were to be built to Olympic standards or to BREEAM Outstanding andconfirmed as this? Instead, we see vaguely aspirational goal to be diluted if they use toomuch capital funding and start to look like they might not be 'economically viable'.A voluntary BREEAM 'Very Good' equates to 55% of what an outstanding build would looklike. This application demonstrates absolutely no will to build a sustainable or world classstadium. Simply a cheap and quick build to satisfy the financial benefits of an overseas palmoil investor.By simply asking the question 'what if?" OUFC are failing to make any pledges ordemonstrate any evidence of agreed and firm CO2e reduction actions or means thereof. theyhave provided no evidence that any f these 'aspirations will be delivered.Given that buildings account for 37% of total GHG emissions; How can Oxfordshire CountyCouncil who have supported this project from the start "Do their part to achieve a net zerocarbon district by 2030 and to lead through example" whilst acting in this way?Yours faithfully
 
then did it again using a different name just changed a few bits

Having read the planning application for the stadium at the triangle in Kidlington and havethe following concerns:Local Planning ApplicationThis is a local planning application that will adversely affect the people of Kidlington in anumber of ways.Because it is football related, it has evidently drawn in large amount of support fromdisparate regions, including as far afield as Aberdeen, and Cumbria, as well as Les Houches,in France and Victoria, in Australia!!These cannot be treated as support, given the effects felt by these respondents will beminimal if not non-existent.Being a football fan, does not justify support for the move from one stadium to anotherwhen the former is in good condition, has c 40 years of life left and has the potential forgrowth.Green BeltBuilding on Green belt land demands the achievement of a very high bar.The 'very special circumstances' cited to justify this proposed Green Belt development havenot been demonstrated.In this application, the three case studies used to justify meeting the 'very specialcircumstances' have no relevance here.This is because:1. Newcastle Falcons in 2002, did not occupy a 23-year-old stadium (with a 60-year life)that already had foundations and potential to expand to 16,000 seats. OUFC are notmembers of a prestigious league such as the Premier League.2. Brighton and Hove Albion: If this is deemed to be similar, this case was called in during2001. It took until 2005 for the secretary of state to judge in their favour, only for this to bequashed in 2006. it was not finally approved until 2007. This is far from a clear-cutprecedent. In this case, OUFC would be without a stadium until 2031. As such, OUFC shouldbe building relationships with Mr Kassam.3. Southend United in 2008, was to be built close to, not in green belt land and so isentirely irrelevant.Two of these cases are more than 20 years old. Oxfordshire Councils have since recognisedclimate change as an existential 'emergency'.There were no alternate sites in these three case study locations. There are 42 beingconsidered in Oxfordshire, 8 of these are not in the green belt.The proposed Kidlington site is not in Oxford City.These case studies are not at all relevant to this application and do not provide a precedentfor building on green belt land.It is clear that OUFC management's failure to consider the future of their club, and tonegotiate contracts with the Kassam owners for the longevity of the site (60 years) isoutstandingly poor business.Green belt cannot be overruled as a result of such bad business decisions or weak businessmanagement. These are commercial decisions, and are not the concern of the people ofKidlington who would-be left to pick up the pieces of this.What will OUFC do if the same poor management leads to a future disagreement with theirnew owner? Will they seek to demolish this site in Kidlington, and build another stadiumelsewhere?Biodiversity Net GainThe application claims that this site isn't highly biodiverse. This is entirely false. The site isrich in biodiversity including, but not confined to, great crested newt, badgers, and bats.These are all protected species.Since it is now universally accepted that the monitoring equipment installed at the site todetect these bats was removed very shortly after it was installed, there have effectivelybeen no bat surveys conducted.This is legal requirement in such an area. In terms of these species, absence of evidence isnot evidence of absence.What are the new and improved habitats? "The vision has been to incorporate flexible multifunctional spaces, monocultured (and aesthetically pleasant trees and shrubs) that can beenjoyed whether it be a match day or not".This fails to understand anything about Biodiversity. Biodiversity net gain is not about givingover green and wild lands to public wanderings.How exactly can the building of a concrete and asphalt mass on this site, add a 10% netbiodiversity gain?This premise is built on the entirely false assumption that the site is currently biodiversityneutral and contains no biodiversity. This is evidently and absolutely not the case.Traffic and transportThe planning statement anticipates there will be 580 annual events at the stadium andproposes a stadium with 18,000 seats and lounge access for 1,000 guests. Parking at thissite will only be available for around 80 cars.The Kidlington roads where we live, work and study, are already congested. Where is the AirQuality Management Plan that supports the addition of up to 18,000 additional cars onfootball match days?There is no evidence that supporters (that don't currently use public transport to attendKassam), will suddenly change their travel habits and travel by more expensive trains,simply because of this proposed move to Kidlington. Supporters can travel to Oxford RailwayStation for Kassam now and, according to OUFC's own evidence, they broadly do not do this.There is therefore no current evidence that supporters use the train or will use the train toattend a new site.Where is the UK case study evidence to demonstrate that football supporters will suddenlymove their journey habits to rail?Of the 24 teams in League One, where Oxford United play, most would find it challenging totravel by train. There is no evidence that this form of transport - 'that forms thesustainability claim of the application', would result in majority supporters taking railtransport to this new ground.There is no plan for the additional congestion, traffic spill, double parking and increasedautomotive exhaust emissions that will ensue from this ill-considered application. This willcause considerable harm and safety issues to local children and older residents.The plan to install a crossing over Frieze Way (which it appears is already now beingconstructed by Oxfordshire County Council Highways as part of roundabout adjustments,and before this application even being considered by Cherwell District Council Planners!),effectively agrees that parking will spill over into Kidlington residential streets.Supporters that travel by train or bus (as the application proposes), would be on the otherside of the roundabout and would have no other reason to cross Frieze Way to and fromKidlington.It appears that this move to install a Crossing at Freize Way is an acceptance that thisapplication has already been agreed, pre-planning. This looks highly suspect!The Fan Travel section of the Sustainability Statement bases all of its 'what if' beliefs on twosurveys of football supporters. It shows over 83.1% of supporters currently travel by privatetransport (cars and vans).The 'what if' ambition suggests a 33% reduction in CO2e emissions 'if' car use dropped to32%. What and where is the evidence for this?Away supporters will all have at least one change to make (most will need to make two ormore), in order to take trains to the site. If supporters claim they would not drive to site,why is this not evident currently in the 83.1% figure, where only 16.9% use sustainableforms of travel?And why on match days are all roads leading to and from the Kassam loaded with parkedcars?ConstructionThe talk of a Route Map for Avoidable Waste in Construction could be better delivered by notconstructing this new site.OUFC and its new owner should be coming to a sustainable business arrangement with MrKassam to build a fourth stand at the Kassam and upgrade facilities there.This will avoid the need to demolish a perfectly good and adaptable stadium and avoid all ofthe embodied carbon being lost from this 23-year-old site.An approach to share ownership of the Kassam site may be an option. Where is the evidencethat such discussions been conducted 'to exhaustion' between the old and new owners andOUFC themselves?Carbon Reduction PledgesThe summary claims a 51% CO2e reduction by moving to Stratfield Brake. The stadium isnot being built at Stratfield Brake, so how is this relevant? Even if it were relevant, this isclearly not taking into account the embodied CO2e within the existing Kassam Stadium.The 'what if' reductions discussed in this Sustainability Statement, are exactly that, what ifsand pipe dreams.What if the stadium were to be built to Olympic standards or to BREEAM Outstanding andconfirmed as this?In reality, we see an application with vaguely aspirational goals to be diluted if they use toomuch capital funding and start to look like they might become 'economically unviable'.A voluntary BREEAM 'Very Good' equates to 55% of what an outstanding build would looklike. this is what BREEAM 'very good' means. This application demonstrates that neitherOUFC or its new owners have any will to build a sustainable or world class stadium.Instead, a cheap and quick build to satisfy the financial benefits of its overseas palm oilinvestors.By simply asking the question 'what if?" OUFC are failing to make any pledges ordemonstrate any evidence of agreed and firm CO2e reduction actions or means thereof.They have provided no evidence that any of these 'aspirations' will be delivered.Buildings account for 37% of total GHG emissions; How can Oxfordshire County Council(OCC) who have supported this project from the start "Do their part to achieve a net zerocarbon district by 2030 and to lead through example" whilst acting in this way?OCC may wish to consider compulsory purchase of Kassam, since they appear to feel that anunnecessary football ground outweighs the legalities of green belt land.If OCC feel so strongly about the need to assist OUFC, they should interject into thenegotiations with Mr Kassam about coming to an agreement over a perfectly good andestablished football ground; A ground that has built-in potential and foundations to deliver16,000 seats.Given that OUFC have never, in their history, achieved a capacity crowd (one of the reasonsthat the fourth stand was never erected), the Kassam would look to be more than adequat
 
Billyox said:
then did it again using a different name just changed a few bits

Having read the planning application for the stadium at the triangle in Kidlington and havethe following concerns:Local Planning ApplicationThis is a local planning application that will adversely affect the people of Kidlington in anumber of ways.Because it is football related, it has evidently drawn in large amount of support fromdisparate regions, including as far afield as Aberdeen, and Cumbria, as well as Les Houches,in France and Victoria, in Australia!!These cannot be treated as support, given the effects felt by these respondents will beminimal if not non-existent.Being a football fan, does not justify support for the move from one stadium to anotherwhen the former is in good condition, has c 40 years of life left and has the potential forgrowth.Green BeltBuilding on Green belt land demands the achievement of a very high bar.The 'very special circumstances' cited to justify this proposed Green Belt development havenot been demonstrated.In this application, the three case studies used to justify meeting the 'very specialcircumstances' have no relevance here.This is because:1. Newcastle Falcons in 2002, did not occupy a 23-year-old stadium (with a 60-year life)that already had foundations and potential to expand to 16,000 seats. OUFC are notmembers of a prestigious league such as the Premier League.2. Brighton and Hove Albion: If this is deemed to be similar, this case was called in during2001. It took until 2005 for the secretary of state to judge in their favour, only for this to bequashed in 2006. it was not finally approved until 2007. This is far from a clear-cutprecedent. In this case, OUFC would be without a stadium until 2031. As such, OUFC shouldbe building relationships with Mr Kassam.3. Southend United in 2008, was to be built close to, not in green belt land and so isentirely irrelevant.Two of these cases are more than 20 years old. Oxfordshire Councils have since recognisedclimate change as an existential 'emergency'.There were no alternate sites in these three case study locations. There are 42 beingconsidered in Oxfordshire, 8 of these are not in the green belt.The proposed Kidlington site is not in Oxford City.These case studies are not at all relevant to this application and do not provide a precedentfor building on green belt land.It is clear that OUFC management's failure to consider the future of their club, and tonegotiate contracts with the Kassam owners for the longevity of the site (60 years) isoutstandingly poor business.Green belt cannot be overruled as a result of such bad business decisions or weak businessmanagement. These are commercial decisions, and are not the concern of the people ofKidlington who would-be left to pick up the pieces of this.What will OUFC do if the same poor management leads to a future disagreement with theirnew owner? Will they seek to demolish this site in Kidlington, and build another stadiumelsewhere?Biodiversity Net GainThe application claims that this site isn't highly biodiverse. This is entirely false. The site isrich in biodiversity including, but not confined to, great crested newt, badgers, and bats.These are all protected species.Since it is now universally accepted that the monitoring equipment installed at the site todetect these bats was removed very shortly after it was installed, there have effectivelybeen no bat surveys conducted.This is legal requirement in such an area. In terms of these species, absence of evidence isnot evidence of absence.What are the new and improved habitats? "The vision has been to incorporate flexible multifunctional spaces, monocultured (and aesthetically pleasant trees and shrubs) that can beenjoyed whether it be a match day or not".This fails to understand anything about Biodiversity. Biodiversity net gain is not about givingover green and wild lands to public wanderings.How exactly can the building of a concrete and asphalt mass on this site, add a 10% netbiodiversity gain?This premise is built on the entirely false assumption that the site is currently biodiversityneutral and contains no biodiversity. This is evidently and absolutely not the case.Traffic and transportThe planning statement anticipates there will be 580 annual events at the stadium andproposes a stadium with 18,000 seats and lounge access for 1,000 guests. Parking at thissite will only be available for around 80 cars.The Kidlington roads where we live, work and study, are already congested. Where is the AirQuality Management Plan that supports the addition of up to 18,000 additional cars onfootball match days?There is no evidence that supporters (that don't currently use public transport to attendKassam), will suddenly change their travel habits and travel by more expensive trains,simply because of this proposed move to Kidlington. Supporters can travel to Oxford RailwayStation for Kassam now and, according to OUFC's own evidence, they broadly do not do this.There is therefore no current evidence that supporters use the train or will use the train toattend a new site.Where is the UK case study evidence to demonstrate that football supporters will suddenlymove their journey habits to rail?Of the 24 teams in League One, where Oxford United play, most would find it challenging totravel by train. There is no evidence that this form of transport - 'that forms thesustainability claim of the application', would result in majority supporters taking railtransport to this new ground.There is no plan for the additional congestion, traffic spill, double parking and increasedautomotive exhaust emissions that will ensue from this ill-considered application. This willcause considerable harm and safety issues to local children and older residents.The plan to install a crossing over Frieze Way (which it appears is already now beingconstructed by Oxfordshire County Council Highways as part of roundabout adjustments,and before this application even being considered by Cherwell District Council Planners!),effectively agrees that parking will spill over into Kidlington residential streets.Supporters that travel by train or bus (as the application proposes), would be on the otherside of the roundabout and would have no other reason to cross Frieze Way to and fromKidlington.It appears that this move to install a Crossing at Freize Way is an acceptance that thisapplication has already been agreed, pre-planning. This looks highly suspect!The Fan Travel section of the Sustainability Statement bases all of its 'what if' beliefs on twosurveys of football supporters. It shows over 83.1% of supporters currently travel by privatetransport (cars and vans).The 'what if' ambition suggests a 33% reduction in CO2e emissions 'if' car use dropped to32%. What and where is the evidence for this?Away supporters will all have at least one change to make (most will need to make two ormore), in order to take trains to the site. If supporters claim they would not drive to site,why is this not evident currently in the 83.1% figure, where only 16.9% use sustainableforms of travel?And why on match days are all roads leading to and from the Kassam loaded with parkedcars?ConstructionThe talk of a Route Map for Avoidable Waste in Construction could be better delivered by notconstructing this new site.OUFC and its new owner should be coming to a sustainable business arrangement with MrKassam to build a fourth stand at the Kassam and upgrade facilities there.This will avoid the need to demolish a perfectly good and adaptable stadium and avoid all ofthe embodied carbon being lost from this 23-year-old site.An approach to share ownership of the Kassam site may be an option. Where is the evidencethat such discussions been conducted 'to exhaustion' between the old and new owners andOUFC themselves?Carbon Reduction PledgesThe summary claims a 51% CO2e reduction by moving to Stratfield Brake. The stadium isnot being built at Stratfield Brake, so how is this relevant? Even if it were relevant, this isclearly not taking into account the embodied CO2e within the existing Kassam Stadium.The 'what if' reductions discussed in this Sustainability Statement, are exactly that, what ifsand pipe dreams.What if the stadium were to be built to Olympic standards or to BREEAM Outstanding andconfirmed as this?In reality, we see an application with vaguely aspirational goals to be diluted if they use toomuch capital funding and start to look like they might become 'economically unviable'.A voluntary BREEAM 'Very Good' equates to 55% of what an outstanding build would looklike. this is what BREEAM 'very good' means. This application demonstrates that neitherOUFC or its new owners have any will to build a sustainable or world class stadium.Instead, a cheap and quick build to satisfy the financial benefits of its overseas palm oilinvestors.By simply asking the question 'what if?" OUFC are failing to make any pledges ordemonstrate any evidence of agreed and firm CO2e reduction actions or means thereof.They have provided no evidence that any of these 'aspirations' will be delivered.Buildings account for 37% of total GHG emissions; How can Oxfordshire County Council(OCC) who have supported this project from the start "Do their part to achieve a net zerocarbon district by 2030 and to lead through example" whilst acting in this way?OCC may wish to consider compulsory purchase of Kassam, since they appear to feel that anunnecessary football ground outweighs the legalities of green belt land.If OCC feel so strongly about the need to assist OUFC, they should interject into thenegotiations with Mr Kassam about coming to an agreement over a perfectly good andestablished football ground; A ground that has built-in potential and foundations to deliver16,000 seats.Given that OUFC have never, in their history, achieved a capacity crowd (one of the reasonsthat the fourth stand was never erected), the Kassam would look to be more than adequat
Click to expand...
The blokes a prize plank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Land Deal
722 723 724
Replies
14K
Views
937K
Northstandboy
Northstandboy
brightonyellow
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - Stratfield Brake
304 305 306
Replies
6K
Views
416K
ljs
L
MarkG
What will happen to the Kassam stadium?
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Concretebob
C
OUSP
Call to Action Stadium Planning
Replies
4
Views
786
OUSP
OUSP
OUFCwaffle
Study: New stadium location of safe standing model.
Replies
14
Views
1K
ljs
L
Back
Top Bottom