Rebels’ site identified

[Guest]

Rebels’ site identified <p>THE Rebels could be on a collision course with neighbours Burnham FC after Slough Borough Council revealed this week it had identified a possible new site for Slough Town FC.<p>For more information please follow this link

[Chris]

Just to make it clear can someone explain the following:<p>'For the proposal is to move ahead the current land occupied by the stadium would revert to green belt uses and allotments. This would enhance the prospect of obtaining consent as part of an overall package.'<p>So is the idea is to knock the Stadium down and built allotments behind it with Mr Thorne's facilities still in place? <p>Trouble is I thought Mr Thorne had a 100 year lease on the ground, so some deal would have to be done to get that lease off of him?<p>Even if we do get the go ahead there are still a lot of if's and buts it seems as Ted says.<p>But at least it's some news!

[Guest]

At last a glimmer of light in the distance. Seems a lot of wheeling and dealing to be done. Slough Council seem to favour it, but will South Bucks and the Thornes play ball? I would like to see a simlar set up to the one Crawley have, a decent stadium, with training pitches etc. One last question, where is the money coming from?

[Guest]

Slough Council have already rejected the Burnham Ground proposal from their point of view, quoting the size and appropriateness of the ground in the proposed location. South Bucks Councillor Nick "I don't hate football, I watched Huddersfield play once in 1963" Binns is also pledged to fight any football development proposals until his last breath, according to a letter he sent to Burnham residents, along with his planning committee, so don't hold out any hope of a sympathetic hearing there! Their view of football is that it is some game which can only be played by seven year old cubscouts, on council owned playing fields and they had better be home in bed by 6.30pm, or else!!<p>The idea that clubs might need to raise money is not a concept that they are used to, so there will also be objections to any facilities which might be necessary to raise cash such as function rooms or the bar. <p>I suspect that the Councils both hope that if they can keep the objections going long enough both Slough and Burnham FC's will fold and go away and stop bothering them.<p>Am I being too cynical? I won't hold my breath!

[Guest]

I think there is a need to be clear here about Slough Council as opposed to South Bucks Council. <p>Slough Council seem sympathetic, South Bucks Council were certainly unsympathetic to Burnham. The views of local residents will also be important--if few South Bucks residents are affected, South Bucks councillors may not object.

[Guest]

while this appears encouraging news-it still seems a long way off.but i like the idea of the present site reverting back to green belt,should the new one be successful.this really would a "thorne" in the side of those who caused us all these problems in the first place-they won't be able to build on it(maybe they will give it back to the club)

[Guest]

For all this to happen would require the Thorne's cooperation. They would be unlikely to agree to a proposal unless there was something in it for them. I think you'll find there is a lot of wheeling and dealing going on.

[Guest]

Solution , South Bucks give Slough the planning permission and make Burnham ground share with Slough.

 

Any money made from the bars etc are shared fairly (not 50/50).

 

Burnham certainly do not need a 6000 seat stadium when they don't get much more than 60 people watching them , it doesn't make sense.

 

Surely it is time clubs looked at alternative ways of surviving instead of beleiving they can stay completely seperate, even if it only involves ground sharing.

[Guest]

Good idea, but will Burnham want to play in Slough where the 60 people will presumably be reduced to 30 or less?

 

<small>[ 13 May 2002, 05:54 PM: This message was edited by: Slough Observer ]</small>

[Guest]

Why would the 30 stay away , perhaps with an excellent stadium they could get 90 extra or even some STFC supporters. I will be absolutely amazed if Burnham get permission for a 6000 stadium , if they do Sth Bucks council are truely mad. (No offence to Burnham , at least they show some ambition)

 

AC Milan and Inter Milan share grounds so why not Slough and Burnham ;-)

[Guest]

Perminant ground sharing always sounds an attractive proposition, however I have two main reservations. 1. At the level of football we are talking about it usually results in the demise of one of the clubs. 2. Where professional teams ground share with other football teams or rugby teams, the pitch is usually well worn, despite the attentions of a full time groundstaff. At our level of football the pitch normally ends up in a dreadful state by Christmas time. If the only realistic option for having a decent stadium is to share with another sporting team then I would support it.