Discussion in 'The Hornets' Nest - Watford Chat' started by Stevohorn, Jul 13, 2019.
99 pages. Will my post take it over the 100 mark?
I have seen comments suggesting that we cannot raise the roof or significantly expand the capacity for the SEJ stand because of the complaints we might be getting from residents in Liverpool Street. I don't think that would be an issue.
oh just chit chat on here.. i thought you meant it was an actual thing.
Tell you what though.. i seem to recall a previous planning application (that was granted) stipulated that the capacity of any stand on the East side of the Vic would be limited to 5,000. Whether that was a question of height, access or something else i'm not sure.
I think you're confusing Vicarage Road with White Hart Lane. Vicarage Road is the one in Watford
Yes....that was the plan approved on Graham Simpson's watch. We had planning permission for a 5,000 seater stand, which had a 5 year life span as long as the brick was laid. I think we were locked into that because we didn't want to go back and start the planning process again, as it was quite difficult getting approval in the first place. I remember Dorothy Thornhill stating that there wasn't a collective will towards the club (at that time). I think the attitude has changed since those days though.
No but will mine?
But people are fatter now.
We need a bigger stand.
But aren’t we the one with the cheese sampling room?
There's a stadium in, i think Canada, that has different capacities for summer and winter events. This is due to people wearing thick winter clothing. I guess it must be for standing areas as i doubt it would be practical to install larger seats.
Also in Brazil for the 2014 world cup they trialed double width "Obese seats" Though i'm not sure if it was a big success.
But aren’t we the one with the cheese sampling room?
V contemporary to require a doctor’s note to prove you are 25 stone.
That's garbage, at least six councillors were season ticket holders and had to declare an interest and not take part in the planning decision. Despite that it sailed through with no votes against. Allplanning permissions have a five year life and can be renewed as many times as you like. You have to get those renewals approved. In fact the plans changed numerous times. Graham Simpson became chairman in 2002 about six months after Thornhill became elected Mayor. The reason the East Stand redevelopment did not go ahead was the club virtually went bust - once pre Simpson and again just after he left. Both pre and post eras had similarities. The club was often Poorly run, badly recruited paying more than it could afford on trophy signings and most of its existence the club has had very little capital. That's why we ended up with stands surrounded by flats. It is true in the early eighties the council refused to give the club the land that is now the Radlett Road estate. That was because the club was to build a stadium and ASDA. The council argued that if the club was getting all the money from Asda they should buy the land. But that was fifteen years before the East Stand redevelopment plans.
Write to the former mayor and tell her she’s a liar, before venting your anger at my post.
Is it anger though, or is he just expressing a different point of view which begins with the use of the word garbage? Ive no idea who’s point of view is right by the way and I’m struggling to remember what the issue was. Ignore me, I’m not sure what my point is ......
I am sure she would like you to explain why you think the council approving a planning application and approving its renewal. And approving another set of plans, and later again approving a new set of plans that led to the current SEJ redevelopment showed a lack of collective will toward the club. Maybe she meant her husband who is a rugby union supporter, may be amnesia on her part, maybe she meant the council senior managers. The facts though do not support the statement. The council has supported the club a lot in the last thirty years.
I suppose there's a difference though between approving planning applications - which is really just the council as a planning authority discharging it's legal responsibility - and the council accepting Watford FC's development as a key part of its plans for the borough. I dont think the latter has ever really happened and so funding and priorities have been directed elsewhere.
Watford have suffered because of the council. They scuppered any attempt by the club to move in the past and threw out ground improvements. I would go as far to say that the council had a major part in Watford’s decline, in that when we were going up though the leagues in the 80s the club stalled because the council didn’t have the same ambitions to help the club. A move to a new ground was the next stage in sustaining the success. The club eventually had to take them to court to get the Rous built albeit on a much smaller scale after the council had thrown out a much grander 7000 stand.
To say they have supported WFC is laughable.
I think we are talking about two different era's here arent we?
Even though wfc did more than most to engage with the local community (thanks to GT) football was considered a dirty business by most people outside of the game pre around 1990. Since then the game has slowly become more acceptable to the outside world and i would suggest that the attitude of the council towards the club mirrors that.
I recall that GT was annoyed that the local council didnt acknowledge us reaching the cup final in 84 (though they did green light the following days parade) We now seem to be a far cry from those days with banners up at the town hall and councilors talking of their pride in the clubs achievements.
Glad you confirmed Liverpool Road and not Liverpool Street, as everyone else is writing. If we bought up Liverpool Street how would the train travellers amongst us get to Norwich away?
Yep, I know, via King's Cross Hitchin and Cambridge, before anyone gives me a rail travel lesson
I reiterate in the last thirty years. Can't think of a single occasion the council has thwarted the ambition of the club. If scuppering attempts to match ve n the last you mean refuse to give them free land to build a stadium and commercial development. Then maybe the club should have been prepared to share the commercial gain with the owner of the land. Football was not seen as an asset by communities as it is today -
When Watford BC compulsory purchase the 40 odd houses in Liverpool Rd and demolish them so WFC can build a stand I will take everything back I said about the numpties. btw Liverpool council did it for their club.
But the bill for Liverpool Council was £37,000.
The story of how Liverpool bought up houses in the area around Anfield, which took decades and sent an already poor area further into decline..
Can't the club just contact Liverpool and ask them to take their road back?
Probably the first time anyone has ever had to ask a scouser to take something.
You can buy houses in Liverpool for £1.
It was on’t telly last night.
It was a very 'tatty' area (like most of the Northside) but there were very few "...tinned-up..." (now there's a phrase I've just read that I hadn't heard in a very long time) houses as there were quite a few "houses of multiple occupancy" (students) and very large "medical" presence of first time buyers (nurses, medics) due to the low prices and close proximity/good public transport to the city centre. I lived the majority of my time in the 'Pool in Kirkdale, an even 'tattier' ward/district, that was a neighbour to Anfield and Kirkdale: the stadia were always viewed as a mixed 'blessing' the weekly influx of 40000+ people walking their streets...
How much change can you expect from that ?
I’m terms of a new stadium , I think we should take inspiration from the disillusioned soldier character in War of the Worlds as played by David Essex in Jeff Wayne’s musical adaptation, whereby he thought we should rebuild the whole world under the ground , including cricket stadia .
Giant screen going over the Rookery today.
I'd assumed this was speculation, but perhaps not then! Do the powers that be realise you can't see the top of the Vicarage Road end from the back of the Rookery? I have to squat down to see the current corner screen and this one will be even higher. I assume the original plans for a new screen in the corner in-fill have been scrapped?
Looks more like they’re installing it in a rockery than the Rookery from that picture.
I'm in, but only if they sell half and half versions.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
With the state of that pitch, I can see why the Brighton game has been switched.