The Robins Nest Forum

The lure of an away win at FGR is too much for some to boycott, bigger clubs have gone there and moaned about the away section, its old news.

.FGR have announced that they will be installing a covered area with some seating for away fans on the West Terrace.

F*ck Forest Green

Sorry Ben, I'll still be supporting my team.

Forest Green was one of the worst away trips last season, the atmosphere was comparable to a library for the majority of the game, we were crammed in like sardines on a small terrace and not welcome in local pubs. Whilst I welcome the fact they are putting a roof on the away side I can't imagine it will make a massive improvement in such a tinpot ground.

To be honest, although the away side is dire, the rest of the ground isn't tinpot. Their main stand is arguably better than anything at Whaddon Road, while the two ends are covered, modern and probably offer better views than our skip end.

Not sure I'd agree there Vickery, yes they have two small sheds behind each goal but the view was not good. For me at least it's probably behind only Macclesfield as the worst ground in the division.

When I judge a ground I'm looking for atmopshere, novelty factor, capacity (i.e. is it sufficient), food, alcohol availability, accessibility etc. I'd say Whaddon Road is somewhere in the middle for this league. Macclesfield, Newport, Crawley, FGR towards the bottom.

vickeryc wrote:Their main stand is arguably better than anything at Whaddon Road, while the two ends are covered, modern and probably offer better views than our skip end.

Sacrilege.

....well it sounds as if there might be a clause in the original planning consent for the NL preventing closure of the gym.
Fairly predictable DV thinks differently and his hilarious spat on Radio Glos this morning is well worth the effort of listening to. He was not a happy bunny and made a complete fool of himself.
It's on the breakfast show at 8.10 am. which is about 2 hours 10 minutes into the show.

paperboy wrote:....well it sounds as if there might be a clause in the original planning consent for the NL preventing closure of the gym.
Fairly predictable DV thinks differently and his hilarious spat on Radio Glos this morning is well worth the effort of listening to. He was not a happy bunny and made a complete fool of himself.
It's on the breakfast show at 8.10 am. which is about 2 hours 10 minutes into the show.

I have just listened to it. No idea what 106 is but there appears to be two versions. Surely the simple question DV should have asked was what the date and version number that each was looking at to confirm they were both looking at the same document. But no, he goes off a rant about the BBC approach of journalism and the use of an unknown councellor.

They kept on about muggers(?) being built. What is that about?

It is strange that a club with an ethos based on a healthy lifestyle would put alcohol consumption abouve the fitness of a community.

Red Duke wrote:

paperboy wrote:....well it sounds as if there might be a clause in the original planning consent for the NL preventing closure of the gym.
Fairly predictable DV thinks differently and his hilarious spat on Radio Glos this morning is well worth the effort of listening to. He was not a happy bunny and made a complete fool of himself.
It's on the breakfast show at 8.10 am. which is about 2 hours 10 minutes into the show.

I have just listened to it. No idea what 106 is but there appears to be two versions. Surely the simple question DV should have asked was what the date and version number that each was looking at to confirm they were both looking at the same document. But no, he goes off a rant about the BBC approach of journalism and the use of an unknown councellor.

They kept on about muggers(?) being built. What is that about?

106 = S106 = Section 106 obligation.

A planning rule where developers have to cut a deal and build infrastructure in turn for building their development. Most commonly this is roads and pavements. E.g a house builder company or supermarket will submit a planning application and the planning authority will say “you can have permission but you have to pay for xyz roads or abc bridge”.

S

As RCS says, a s106 agreement is a planning obligation that must be implemented or adhered to in order for development to proceed. Failure to do so would normally result in enforcement action against the developer. A s106 agreement is often a necessary condition of the permission to ensure that the development can, for example, be safely accessed or makes a contribution to local infrastructure, services and/or facilities. It must br reasonable and related to the application.

But what is a 'muggers'?

vickeryc wrote:As RCS says, a s106 agreement is a planning obligation that must be implemented or adhered to in order for development to proceed. Failure to do so would normally result in enforcement action against the developer. A s106 agreement is often a necessary condition of the permission to ensure that the development can, for example, be safely accessed or makes a contribution to local infrastructure, services and/or facilities. It must br reasonable and related to the application.

But how often do the councils let this go.. just like social housing, it normally gets cut when the developer threatens to walk away as it would be ‘not profitable enough’.

ctfc-fan wrote:

vickeryc wrote:As RCS says, a s106 agreement is a planning obligation that must be implemented or adhered to in order for development to proceed. Failure to do so would normally result in enforcement action against the developer. A s106 agreement is often a necessary condition of the permission to ensure that the development can, for example, be safely accessed or makes a contribution to local infrastructure, services and/or facilities. It must br reasonable and related to the application.

But how often do the councils let this go.. just like social housing, it normally gets cut when the developer threatens to walk away as it would be ‘not profitable enough’.

It does happen sometimes and it can be for justifiable reasons. However, as is often the case with public matters, it's become an urban myth that this sort of thing occurs all the time. Unfortunately, since the National Planning Policy Framework became effective in 2012, the dice has been more heavily loaded in favour of the development industry, making it harder for local planning authorities to extract 'planning gain' from developers. Indeed, the NPPF introduced requirements relating to viability and 'reasonable' profit margins from developments.

Robin wrote:Not sure I'd agree there Vickery, yes they have two small sheds behind each goal but the view was not good. For me at least it's probably behind only Macclesfield as the worst ground in the division.

When I judge a ground I'm looking for atmopshere, novelty factor, capacity (i.e. is it sufficient), food, alcohol availability, accessibility etc. I'd say Whaddon Road is somewhere in the middle for this league. Macclesfield, Newport, Crawley, FGR towards the bottom.

Well, Robin, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm no fan of FGR or TNL, but you're over-rating Whaddon Road's atmosphere, which nowadays unfortunately, is one of the quietest grounds in the FL.

Our main stand side is totally outdated/ inadequate (as a season ticket holder in block B, I live in perennial hope of a replacement), while the modest Skip end is also not great and certainly shallower than either end at TNL. The two new stands, however, are pretty good. TNL's main stand though has similar capacity to the Colin Farmer, but the former also has hospitality suites and non-football income generation; hence why it has the edge on any of our stands.

As I say, I can't stand Dale Vince and all his cr*p, but I'm not so blinkered that I can't acknowledge the odd thing at TNL that might have the edge on Whaddon Road.

Sprout Picker wrote:But what is a 'muggers'?

Very good question!

vickeryc wrote:

Robin wrote:Not sure I'd agree there Vickery, yes they have two small sheds behind each goal but the view was not good. For me at least it's probably behind only Macclesfield as the worst ground in the division.

When I judge a ground I'm looking for atmopshere, novelty factor, capacity (i.e. is it sufficient), food, alcohol availability, accessibility etc. I'd say Whaddon Road is somewhere in the middle for this league. Macclesfield, Newport, Crawley, FGR towards the bottom.

Well, Robin, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm no fan of FGR or TNL, but you're over-rating Whaddon Road's atmosphere, which nowadays unfortunately, is one of the quietest grounds in the FL.

Our main stand side is totally outdated/ inadequate (as a season ticket holder in block B, I live in perennial hope of a replacement), while the modest Skip end is also not great and certainly shallower than either end at TNL. The two new stands, however, are pretty good. TNL's main stand though has similar capacity to the Colin Farmer, but the former also has hospitality suites and non-football income generation; hence why it has the edge on any of our stands.

As I say, I can't stand Dale Vince and all his cr*p, but I'm not so blinkered that I can't acknowledge the odd thing at TNL that might have the edge on Whaddon Road.

As someone that has been behind the goal at both grounds, I can't agree that the view is any better at TNL than WR. They're pretty much identical, really.

vickeryc wrote:

Sprout Picker wrote:But what is a 'muggers'?

Very good question!

MUGA - Multi Use Games Area. Part of the planning consent for the stadium included one being built. 13 years later and it's still not done, however progress is finally being made on that front I believe.

Chris FGR wrote:

vickeryc wrote:

Sprout Picker wrote:But what is a 'muggers'?

Very good question!

MUGA - Multi Use Games Area. Part of the planning consent for the stadium included one being built. 13 years later and it's still not done, however progress is finally being made on that front I believe.

Ha, penny drops. Have done quite a lot on MUGAs in recent months - part of the “playable cities” agenda which is in vogue amongst urbanists and regeneration circles currently.