Have your say on proposals for Weymouth Football Club's new ground

Have your say on Weymouth Football Club's new stadium

ISSUES: A view from the road of how the site would look

PLAN: An artist’s impression

First published in News by , Sports Reporter

RESIDENTS have until the end of this month to give their views after the latest set of proposals for Weymouth Football Club’s new home at a community sports stadium at Lodmoor were unveiled.

The outline from Town Planning Consultants Tanner & Tilley, which expand on the original plans submitted in December 2012, include an additional risk assessment, contact with Natural England and the Environment Agency and amendments to the planned training pitch to comply with FA guidelines.

The plans also include a condition survey of the Bob Lucas Stadium which states that Weymouth’s current home has ‘a limited shelf life’ and would ‘inevitably have to close in the near future under health and safety grounds’.

Andrew Martin, head of projects and specialist services for Weymouth & Portland Borough Council, said: “The information is all online and there are a number of technical issues, which have been holding up the progress of the application.

“The principal issue is that the site is an old landfill site and so developing it throws up potential issues of land contamination.”

He added: “We have re-publicised the status of the application to give the public and other authorities the chance to comment. The application is still pending and within three weeks the comments will come back and we will look at where we are then.

“Once the information has come back we will digest it and see where we can go with the application from there.”

The proposals have also been sent by the council to the Environmental Agency and Natural England, both of whom have until April 30 to submit their opinions.

Wessex Delivery LLP acquired the land surrounding the club’s current home at the Bob Lucas Stadium in October 2008 for £500,000.

The company, which is linked to Morgan Sindall Investments, also possesses an option agreement with Weymouth Football Club on the current stadium.

WDP has an option to acquire the stadium in exchange for providing a new one within five miles of the current ground at a build cost of £7million plus grants and also to be built to Football League standard.

A spokesman for Weymouth Football Club said the club did not want to comment.

To view the proposal, go to webapps.westdorset-dc.gov.uk/ PlanningApps/Pages/Search.aspx and search for the reference WP/13/00015/FUL

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:28am Mon 14 Apr 14

Phaedrus says...

Clearly the objective is for Wessex Delivery LLP to make money.
Clearly the objective is for Wessex Delivery LLP to make money. Phaedrus
  • Score: 17

9:03am Mon 14 Apr 14

Joe_Bloggs says...

What a waste of time a football league standard stadium lets be realistic in the next 25 years are Weymouth even going to make it back to conference level !!!
Also the club had a new stadium about 30 years ago and has let it get into an almost derelict state, where are the finances for the upkeep of a new stadium ?
Surely the money would be better spent on developing the team than building a stadium where no one wants it.
What a waste of time a football league standard stadium lets be realistic in the next 25 years are Weymouth even going to make it back to conference level !!! Also the club had a new stadium about 30 years ago and has let it get into an almost derelict state, where are the finances for the upkeep of a new stadium ? Surely the money would be better spent on developing the team than building a stadium where no one wants it. Joe_Bloggs
  • Score: 17

9:27am Mon 14 Apr 14

MrTomSmith says...

Question. Will WFC have to pay rent?

Answer Yes.

Question Who in their right minds would move from an property that you own into a rented one?

Answer No-one with any sense.

Thats the reason why WFC don't want to move, and also the dubious way the land around the Bob Lucas Stadium was acquired in the first place.

Not moving, Unlucky.
Question. Will WFC have to pay rent? Answer Yes. Question Who in their right minds would move from an property that you own into a rented one? Answer No-one with any sense. Thats the reason why WFC don't want to move, and also the dubious way the land around the Bob Lucas Stadium was acquired in the first place. Not moving, Unlucky. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 29

9:31am Mon 14 Apr 14

satisfecho says...

Joe_Bloggs wrote:
What a waste of time a football league standard stadium lets be realistic in the next 25 years are Weymouth even going to make it back to conference level !!!
Also the club had a new stadium about 30 years ago and has let it get into an almost derelict state, where are the finances for the upkeep of a new stadium ?
Surely the money would be better spent on developing the team than building a stadium where no one wants it.
Who says it's in an almost derelict state?

No one credible has!
[quote][p][bold]Joe_Bloggs[/bold] wrote: What a waste of time a football league standard stadium lets be realistic in the next 25 years are Weymouth even going to make it back to conference level !!! Also the club had a new stadium about 30 years ago and has let it get into an almost derelict state, where are the finances for the upkeep of a new stadium ? Surely the money would be better spent on developing the team than building a stadium where no one wants it.[/p][/quote]Who says it's in an almost derelict state? No one credible has! satisfecho
  • Score: 9

9:35am Mon 14 Apr 14

Douglas Mc says...

Lodmoor location has many problems. Lack of on site parking a real turn off for elderly supporters. Little opportunity to develop alternative money making ventures on such a site which would essential to fund the team long term. Also believe many games could be lost during wet weather again resulting in lost income as rearranged dates tend to attract fewer paying supporters.

Actually the existing Stadium ideally placed road wise and in a population growth area. Not sure the state of the Wessex Stadium is as bad as suggested - but the suggestion is in the developers interests.
Lodmoor location has many problems. Lack of on site parking a real turn off for elderly supporters. Little opportunity to develop alternative money making ventures on such a site which would essential to fund the team long term. Also believe many games could be lost during wet weather again resulting in lost income as rearranged dates tend to attract fewer paying supporters. Actually the existing Stadium ideally placed road wise and in a population growth area. Not sure the state of the Wessex Stadium is as bad as suggested - but the suggestion is in the developers interests. Douglas Mc
  • Score: 24

9:45am Mon 14 Apr 14

PHonnor says...

I think Mr Andrew Martin needs to read the above comments which hit the nail on the head and maybe speak to WFC to assertain why it does not want to move as what is the point of developing council owned land if its going to sit empty.
I think Mr Andrew Martin needs to read the above comments which hit the nail on the head and maybe speak to WFC to assertain why it does not want to move as what is the point of developing council owned land if its going to sit empty. PHonnor
  • Score: 16

9:55am Mon 14 Apr 14

MrTomSmith says...

Another Question about Mr Curtis. Is it not rather strange that this property developer took over as Chairman and Owner of WFC and the land around the ground was owned by WFC. Then after he leaves the role, the land around the ground is NOT owned by WFC?

Answer, No it's not strange. It is Fact.
Another Question about Mr Curtis. Is it not rather strange that this property developer took over as Chairman and Owner of WFC and the land around the ground was owned by WFC. Then after he leaves the role, the land around the ground is NOT owned by WFC? Answer, No it's not strange. It is Fact. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 18

12:19pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Woodgate says...

Why on earth would WFC want to go to a low lying, contaminated small piece of landfill next to a waste sorting depot? Clean up,flood protection and building costs will be huge and you would need high quality buildings and fittings to withstand the weathering there. Cant see any other income streams being generated in this location, especially during winter and with so many competing facilities struggling for custom. Makes more sense to refurbish the existing stadium and build new facilities around it
Why on earth would WFC want to go to a low lying, contaminated small piece of landfill next to a waste sorting depot? Clean up,flood protection and building costs will be huge and you would need high quality buildings and fittings to withstand the weathering there. Cant see any other income streams being generated in this location, especially during winter and with so many competing facilities struggling for custom. Makes more sense to refurbish the existing stadium and build new facilities around it Woodgate
  • Score: 31

12:36pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Top Gear says...

Build a speedway track instead. Much better entertainment than watching Weymouth FC.
Build a speedway track instead. Much better entertainment than watching Weymouth FC. Top Gear
  • Score: -13

12:36pm Mon 14 Apr 14

MrTomSmith says...

Woodgate wrote:
Why on earth would WFC want to go to a low lying, contaminated small piece of landfill next to a waste sorting depot? Clean up,flood protection and building costs will be huge and you would need high quality buildings and fittings to withstand the weathering there. Cant see any other income streams being generated in this location, especially during winter and with so many competing facilities struggling for custom. Makes more sense to refurbish the existing stadium and build new facilities around it
Agree with most of what you say, but I don't think you fully understand the situation with you final sentence. They cannot refurbish the existing stadium because they don't have any money. The Stadium is owned by the Football club. The facilities around it, by that I think you mean the Car Park and the old Speedway Stadium, (being used as a recycling centre) is not owned by the club, it is owned by Wessex Delivery LLP. So they are not going to do anything with that area until A) They have planning permission, which they don't. AND B) They have built a stadium for the Club, that is part of the deal.

The point is, they want Weymouth to move out, so they can develop, and agree with your point the area they are suggesting is not fit, BUT and I did mention it above, and its a MASSIVE but, Weymouth would have to pay rent. Which might sound fine, but they cannot afford to pay it. Clubs such as Rushden and Diamonds were put in this position, and they have long since gone. They could not afford the rent. That was the ONLY problem.

So it is great to point out the problems with the new area, but I am afraid you cannot say it is better to refurbish, as that is never going to happen,

The best plan was rejected years ago, to move ASDA to the football ground and build a new stadium and ASDA, that was rejected, and why was it rejected, poor transport links! The council just have not got a clue I am afraid, and if anyone expects WFC to move just to suit LLP then they are in cloud cuckoo land.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgate[/bold] wrote: Why on earth would WFC want to go to a low lying, contaminated small piece of landfill next to a waste sorting depot? Clean up,flood protection and building costs will be huge and you would need high quality buildings and fittings to withstand the weathering there. Cant see any other income streams being generated in this location, especially during winter and with so many competing facilities struggling for custom. Makes more sense to refurbish the existing stadium and build new facilities around it[/p][/quote]Agree with most of what you say, but I don't think you fully understand the situation with you final sentence. They cannot refurbish the existing stadium because they don't have any money. The Stadium is owned by the Football club. The facilities around it, by that I think you mean the Car Park and the old Speedway Stadium, (being used as a recycling centre) is not owned by the club, it is owned by Wessex Delivery LLP. So they are not going to do anything with that area until A) They have planning permission, which they don't. AND B) They have built a stadium for the Club, that is part of the deal. The point is, they want Weymouth to move out, so they can develop, and agree with your point the area they are suggesting is not fit, BUT and I did mention it above, and its a MASSIVE but, Weymouth would have to pay rent. Which might sound fine, but they cannot afford to pay it. Clubs such as Rushden and Diamonds were put in this position, and they have long since gone. They could not afford the rent. That was the ONLY problem. So it is great to point out the problems with the new area, but I am afraid you cannot say it is better to refurbish, as that is never going to happen, The best plan was rejected years ago, to move ASDA to the football ground and build a new stadium and ASDA, that was rejected, and why was it rejected, poor transport links! The council just have not got a clue I am afraid, and if anyone expects WFC to move just to suit LLP then they are in cloud cuckoo land. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 12

12:58pm Mon 14 Apr 14

OpenEye says...

Who actually benefits from this development?
Who actually benefits from this development? OpenEye
  • Score: 6

5:07pm Mon 14 Apr 14

leo210856 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Question. Will WFC have to pay rent?

Answer Yes.

Question Who in their right minds would move from an property that you own into a rented one?

Answer No-one with any sense.

Thats the reason why WFC don't want to move, and also the dubious way the land around the Bob Lucas Stadium was acquired in the first place.

Not moving, Unlucky.
I really don't want to defend the developers but the ground rent (as per the business case) would be £1 a year on a 125 year lease. In truth not owning the ground supported with a 125 year lease would offer better protection to the club than owning the BLS with a freehold has afforded the club!
The problem is that the club aren't in control of events the option agreement took that luxury out of the clubs hands and as for choice the name Hobson springs to mind!
Lodmoor is a nightmare site but WDP have produced massive evidence that suggests the problems can be overcome .Hard to believe I know but just shouting things are not so will get objects no where unless such objections are based on expert evidence .
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Question. Will WFC have to pay rent? Answer Yes. Question Who in their right minds would move from an property that you own into a rented one? Answer No-one with any sense. Thats the reason why WFC don't want to move, and also the dubious way the land around the Bob Lucas Stadium was acquired in the first place. Not moving, Unlucky.[/p][/quote]I really don't want to defend the developers but the ground rent (as per the business case) would be £1 a year on a 125 year lease. In truth not owning the ground supported with a 125 year lease would offer better protection to the club than owning the BLS with a freehold has afforded the club! The problem is that the club aren't in control of events the option agreement took that luxury out of the clubs hands and as for choice the name Hobson springs to mind! Lodmoor is a nightmare site but WDP have produced massive evidence that suggests the problems can be overcome .Hard to believe I know but just shouting things are not so will get objects no where unless such objections are based on expert evidence . leo210856
  • Score: -3

5:11pm Mon 14 Apr 14

leo210856 says...

Sorry the proposal is for a 150 year lease
Sorry the proposal is for a 150 year lease leo210856
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Douglas Mc says...

Would W&PBC sell the Lodmoor site to the develop given its unsuitability? In any case the scheme will not work without planning permission for the Wessex site which to date has not been forthcoming due in part to the loss of recreational land in West Dorset entailed.
Would W&PBC sell the Lodmoor site to the develop given its unsuitability? In any case the scheme will not work without planning permission for the Wessex site which to date has not been forthcoming due in part to the loss of recreational land in West Dorset entailed. Douglas Mc
  • Score: 7

6:19pm Mon 14 Apr 14

JACKC says...

Lodmoor site is totally unsuitable for a variety of reasons, not least access for transport. You couldn't pick a worse spot to try to get to. I suspect this is all about building houses on the land and stuff Weymouth Football Club, anywhere will do as long as WFC moves and the diggers move in. Said it years ago when they bought the surrounding land. Must think we're mugs.
Lodmoor site is totally unsuitable for a variety of reasons, not least access for transport. You couldn't pick a worse spot to try to get to. I suspect this is all about building houses on the land and stuff Weymouth Football Club, anywhere will do as long as WFC moves and the diggers move in. Said it years ago when they bought the surrounding land. Must think we're mugs. JACKC
  • Score: 15

7:00pm Mon 14 Apr 14

MrTomSmith says...

leo210856 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Question. Will WFC have to pay rent?

Answer Yes.

Question Who in their right minds would move from an property that you own into a rented one?

Answer No-one with any sense.

Thats the reason why WFC don't want to move, and also the dubious way the land around the Bob Lucas Stadium was acquired in the first place.

Not moving, Unlucky.
I really don't want to defend the developers but the ground rent (as per the business case) would be £1 a year on a 125 year lease. In truth not owning the ground supported with a 125 year lease would offer better protection to the club than owning the BLS with a freehold has afforded the club!
The problem is that the club aren't in control of events the option agreement took that luxury out of the clubs hands and as for choice the name Hobson springs to mind!
Lodmoor is a nightmare site but WDP have produced massive evidence that suggests the problems can be overcome .Hard to believe I know but just shouting things are not so will get objects no where unless such objections are based on expert evidence .
You don't want to defend the developers but come out with this tripe about
£1 a Year...............N
o Chance. More protection, you are a complete joker, absolute RUBBISH, but if you keep repeating it, you might start believing it!

I can see it all again, those crazy enough to believe this last time, surely have learnt their lesson? We lost the ground at a knock down price, the speedway lost their track. AND YOU STILL defend it, Well up to you, but I tell you what, I didn't believe him last time and still don't and never will.

WDP produced "massive evidence" they haven't even got planning on the BLS!! What are you talking about, this massive evidence is worth ZERO, You are the only one so far to say "massive evidence" strange that.
[quote][p][bold]leo210856[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Question. Will WFC have to pay rent? Answer Yes. Question Who in their right minds would move from an property that you own into a rented one? Answer No-one with any sense. Thats the reason why WFC don't want to move, and also the dubious way the land around the Bob Lucas Stadium was acquired in the first place. Not moving, Unlucky.[/p][/quote]I really don't want to defend the developers but the ground rent (as per the business case) would be £1 a year on a 125 year lease. In truth not owning the ground supported with a 125 year lease would offer better protection to the club than owning the BLS with a freehold has afforded the club! The problem is that the club aren't in control of events the option agreement took that luxury out of the clubs hands and as for choice the name Hobson springs to mind! Lodmoor is a nightmare site but WDP have produced massive evidence that suggests the problems can be overcome .Hard to believe I know but just shouting things are not so will get objects no where unless such objections are based on expert evidence .[/p][/quote]You don't want to defend the developers but come out with this tripe about £1 a Year...............N o Chance. More protection, you are a complete joker, absolute RUBBISH, but if you keep repeating it, you might start believing it! I can see it all again, those crazy enough to believe this last time, surely have learnt their lesson? We lost the ground at a knock down price, the speedway lost their track. AND YOU STILL defend it, Well up to you, but I tell you what, I didn't believe him last time and still don't and never will. WDP produced "massive evidence" they haven't even got planning on the BLS!! What are you talking about, this massive evidence is worth ZERO, You are the only one so far to say "massive evidence" strange that. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 6

7:11pm Mon 14 Apr 14

craigbastow1@outlook.com says...

Top Gear wrote:
Build a speedway track instead. Much better entertainment than watching Weymouth FC.
you must be sniffing a lot of top gear pal !! go to poole to watch that speedway yawnfest .
[quote][p][bold]Top Gear[/bold] wrote: Build a speedway track instead. Much better entertainment than watching Weymouth FC.[/p][/quote]you must be sniffing a lot of top gear pal !! go to poole to watch that speedway yawnfest . craigbastow1@outlook.com
  • Score: -1

7:34pm Mon 14 Apr 14

leo210856 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
leo210856 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Question. Will WFC have to pay rent?

Answer Yes.

Question Who in their right minds would move from an property that you own into a rented one?

Answer No-one with any sense.

Thats the reason why WFC don't want to move, and also the dubious way the land around the Bob Lucas Stadium was acquired in the first place.

Not moving, Unlucky.
I really don't want to defend the developers but the ground rent (as per the business case) would be £1 a year on a 125 year lease. In truth not owning the ground supported with a 125 year lease would offer better protection to the club than owning the BLS with a freehold has afforded the club!
The problem is that the club aren't in control of events the option agreement took that luxury out of the clubs hands and as for choice the name Hobson springs to mind!
Lodmoor is a nightmare site but WDP have produced massive evidence that suggests the problems can be overcome .Hard to believe I know but just shouting things are not so will get objects no where unless such objections are based on expert evidence .
You don't want to defend the developers but come out with this tripe about
£1 a Year...............N

o Chance. More protection, you are a complete joker, absolute RUBBISH, but if you keep repeating it, you might start believing it!

I can see it all again, those crazy enough to believe this last time, surely have learnt their lesson? We lost the ground at a knock down price, the speedway lost their track. AND YOU STILL defend it, Well up to you, but I tell you what, I didn't believe him last time and still don't and never will.

WDP produced "massive evidence" they haven't even got planning on the BLS!! What are you talking about, this massive evidence is worth ZERO, You are the only one so far to say "massive evidence" strange that.
Mr Tom Smith

For goodness sake read the business case before you lob comments like these at me. I said in my earlier post as per the business case . That's the business case has been submitted with the plans. Its not me believing its what has been submitted to the planners
As for more protection think it through. The club was asset rich cash poor. MC saw an opportunity and went for it .Its what property developers do. If the BLS had been leasehold then there would have been no value and therefore no opportunity to turn a profit from WFC.
I am not defending the developers I am trying to face up to the real prospect that all this will go through. And yes that includes planning consent at the BLS.
As for massive evidence the comment is re Lodmoor. Read the planning application if you don't think they have gone all out to deal with what are the issues then I don't know what would be deemed massive.I am not qualified to challenge this evidence and find a lot of it very very strange but like it or not that's what the planners and or the planning inspector will rely on unless the reports /evidence is challenged by experts.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]leo210856[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Question. Will WFC have to pay rent? Answer Yes. Question Who in their right minds would move from an property that you own into a rented one? Answer No-one with any sense. Thats the reason why WFC don't want to move, and also the dubious way the land around the Bob Lucas Stadium was acquired in the first place. Not moving, Unlucky.[/p][/quote]I really don't want to defend the developers but the ground rent (as per the business case) would be £1 a year on a 125 year lease. In truth not owning the ground supported with a 125 year lease would offer better protection to the club than owning the BLS with a freehold has afforded the club! The problem is that the club aren't in control of events the option agreement took that luxury out of the clubs hands and as for choice the name Hobson springs to mind! Lodmoor is a nightmare site but WDP have produced massive evidence that suggests the problems can be overcome .Hard to believe I know but just shouting things are not so will get objects no where unless such objections are based on expert evidence .[/p][/quote]You don't want to defend the developers but come out with this tripe about £1 a Year...............N o Chance. More protection, you are a complete joker, absolute RUBBISH, but if you keep repeating it, you might start believing it! I can see it all again, those crazy enough to believe this last time, surely have learnt their lesson? We lost the ground at a knock down price, the speedway lost their track. AND YOU STILL defend it, Well up to you, but I tell you what, I didn't believe him last time and still don't and never will. WDP produced "massive evidence" they haven't even got planning on the BLS!! What are you talking about, this massive evidence is worth ZERO, You are the only one so far to say "massive evidence" strange that.[/p][/quote]Mr Tom Smith For goodness sake read the business case before you lob comments like these at me. I said in my earlier post as per the business case . That's the business case has been submitted with the plans. Its not me believing its what has been submitted to the planners As for more protection think it through. The club was asset rich cash poor. MC saw an opportunity and went for it .Its what property developers do. If the BLS had been leasehold then there would have been no value and therefore no opportunity to turn a profit from WFC. I am not defending the developers I am trying to face up to the real prospect that all this will go through. And yes that includes planning consent at the BLS. As for massive evidence the comment is re Lodmoor. Read the planning application if you don't think they have gone all out to deal with what are the issues then I don't know what would be deemed massive.I am not qualified to challenge this evidence and find a lot of it very very strange but like it or not that's what the planners and or the planning inspector will rely on unless the reports /evidence is challenged by experts. leo210856
  • Score: -6

7:59pm Mon 14 Apr 14

MrTomSmith says...

Mr leo210856 RUBBISH, the whole lot, no idea whatsoever.
Mr leo210856 RUBBISH, the whole lot, no idea whatsoever. MrTomSmith
  • Score: -6

9:13pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Waynerooni says...

Is leo210856 a previous WFC Chairman or someone posting for him ?The business case is just spin. Doubt planners will pay any attention to a football clubs 'hoped for' income. The club don't seem to want it here and there are loads of people objecting so how can they say this is a community stadium ?Pretty plans and waffle about contamination and flood strategies dont alter the fact this is a daft idea.
Is leo210856 a previous WFC Chairman or someone posting for him ?The business case is just spin. Doubt planners will pay any attention to a football clubs 'hoped for' income. The club don't seem to want it here and there are loads of people objecting so how can they say this is a community stadium ?Pretty plans and waffle about contamination and flood strategies dont alter the fact this is a daft idea. Waynerooni
  • Score: 9

9:47pm Mon 14 Apr 14

MrTomSmith says...

Don't know but just been reading a bit more of the Business Case on Terras Talk some excellent points.

I really like the bit about the expected number of employed staff would be 34 permanent jobs, of which 19 would be players and manager (Hmmmm well that's 19 more than we have at the moment as they are all part time)

So that leaves 15 in this fairy tale. So how many permanent staff does WFC has at present.........agai
n zero. Actually I am not sure if we don't have one in the office not sure. So that's 14 new staff!!!

It is complete and utter fairy land cloud cuckoo land stuff, somehow, people believed him last time, but I am sure as long as I have breath in my body, I am going to keep telling the TRUTH and not these fairy tales.

How can Weymouth FC pay 35 staff?

Its Rubbish.

There is more, the plan says estimated attendances of 1200. Yes that possible..........I mean who on earth can work out a business plan on these kinds of figures, average attendance this season is 528. How on earth can the estimate be 1200? If anyone in the RIGHT MIND can answer, then please do.

Its Rubbish.
Don't know but just been reading a bit more of the Business Case on Terras Talk some excellent points. I really like the bit about the expected number of employed staff would be 34 permanent jobs, of which 19 would be players and manager (Hmmmm well that's 19 more than we have at the moment as they are all part time) So that leaves 15 in this fairy tale. So how many permanent staff does WFC has at present.........agai n zero. Actually I am not sure if we don't have one in the office not sure. So that's 14 new staff!!! It is complete and utter fairy land cloud cuckoo land stuff, somehow, people believed him last time, but I am sure as long as I have breath in my body, I am going to keep telling the TRUTH and not these fairy tales. How can Weymouth FC pay 35 staff? Its Rubbish. There is more, the plan says estimated attendances of 1200. Yes that possible..........I mean who on earth can work out a business plan on these kinds of figures, average attendance this season is 528. How on earth can the estimate be 1200? If anyone in the RIGHT MIND can answer, then please do. Its Rubbish. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 5

9:55pm Mon 14 Apr 14

leo210856 says...

No certainly not an ex chairman and certainly not posting on anyone's behalf

I really think you are either missing the point I am trying to get over or indeed whats more likely is that I am not explain myself fully
On a personal level I too think to build is a daft idea I really am far from convinced about the site, the need to move here, the evidence etc but people not wanting it to be built on Lodmoor or thinking that the undoubted problems cant be overcome, that the business case will be thrown out need to face the fact that the developers have spent a wedge of money in support of their application and I for one have real concerns that people need to be fully aware of what is being proposed.
The point about rent sort of emphasis my point. If the rent were to be based on commercial factors then fair enough the affordability point is very relevant but £1 a year. Would anyone looking objectively at the application feel rent is an issue?
People talk about traffic, flooding, contamination all very good points but take some time and read what has been added to the application. It may be rubbish but where is the professional evidence to counter these submissions?
The business case is ridiculous but where's the challenge?
No certainly not an ex chairman and certainly not posting on anyone's behalf I really think you are either missing the point I am trying to get over or indeed whats more likely is that I am not explain myself fully On a personal level I too think to build is a daft idea I really am far from convinced about the site, the need to move here, the evidence etc but people not wanting it to be built on Lodmoor or thinking that the undoubted problems cant be overcome, that the business case will be thrown out need to face the fact that the developers have spent a wedge of money in support of their application and I for one have real concerns that people need to be fully aware of what is being proposed. The point about rent sort of emphasis my point. If the rent were to be based on commercial factors then fair enough the affordability point is very relevant but £1 a year. Would anyone looking objectively at the application feel rent is an issue? People talk about traffic, flooding, contamination all very good points but take some time and read what has been added to the application. It may be rubbish but where is the professional evidence to counter these submissions? The business case is ridiculous but where's the challenge? leo210856
  • Score: 0

10:09pm Mon 14 Apr 14

PHonnor says...

Not one group, from the football club to the sea life centre and many individual residents support this application so I just can't see how the council can give permission, even IF WDP line all their ducks up in a row, it's just not wanted, or needed.
Not one group, from the football club to the sea life centre and many individual residents support this application so I just can't see how the council can give permission, even IF WDP line all their ducks up in a row, it's just not wanted, or needed. PHonnor
  • Score: 8

10:15pm Mon 14 Apr 14

anika says...

I've never been to Wessex stadium to watch a football match but have been to the café which is good, open every day and plenty of free parking.

Before anyone says so, no I don't work there and neither do I own it.
I do frequent it sometimes. It would be awful to lose the café.

Would there be room for the café at Lodmoor?

I do have visions of the visiting teams coaches not being able to park if they move the stadium to Preston beach road! Will the existing public car park disappear?

On landfill site? No thanks.
I've never been to Wessex stadium to watch a football match but have been to the café which is good, open every day and plenty of free parking. Before anyone says so, no I don't work there and neither do I own it. I do frequent it sometimes. It would be awful to lose the café. Would there be room for the café at Lodmoor? I do have visions of the visiting teams coaches not being able to park if they move the stadium to Preston beach road! Will the existing public car park disappear? On landfill site? No thanks. anika
  • Score: 7

1:14pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Cromy says...

Personally, I don't like the idea of the football ground in that area fullstop. I like the general area of Lodmoor and the park area, sealife centre and all that stuff.

Personally, I feel that adding a noisey football club is bound to make the area less attractive to visitors.
Personally, I don't like the idea of the football ground in that area fullstop. I like the general area of Lodmoor and the park area, sealife centre and all that stuff. Personally, I feel that adding a noisey football club is bound to make the area less attractive to visitors. Cromy
  • Score: 7

1:18pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Cromy says...

Seeing as no-one else has posted the link: http://webapps.westd
orset-dc.gov.uk/Plan
ningApps/Pages/Plann
ing.aspx?App=WP%2f13
%2f00015%2fFUL
Seeing as no-one else has posted the link: http://webapps.westd orset-dc.gov.uk/Plan ningApps/Pages/Plann ing.aspx?App=WP%2f13 %2f00015%2fFUL Cromy
  • Score: 0

7:42pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Phaedrus says...

Even if the contamination issue can be resolved there are serious problems with parking especially if the ground was to be used for other events in summer, and with impact on other users of the car park, impact on users of the recycling centre, general traffic during the holiday seasons, and the effect on an important wildlife area right next door to a football ground with floodlights and a cheering crowd (presumably!!). 34 permanent jobs is cloud cuckoo land. If planning permission is granted it will show something is seriously wrong with the process.
Even if the contamination issue can be resolved there are serious problems with parking especially if the ground was to be used for other events in summer, and with impact on other users of the car park, impact on users of the recycling centre, general traffic during the holiday seasons, and the effect on an important wildlife area right next door to a football ground with floodlights and a cheering crowd (presumably!!). 34 permanent jobs is cloud cuckoo land. If planning permission is granted it will show something is seriously wrong with the process. Phaedrus
  • Score: 6

3:02pm Thu 17 Apr 14

craigbastow1@outlook.com says...

im amazed the know all wannabe spokesperson weypaul has not droned on about this subject,or has he been struck off ............
im amazed the know all wannabe spokesperson weypaul has not droned on about this subject,or has he been struck off ............ craigbastow1@outlook.com
  • Score: 1

3:53pm Fri 18 Apr 14

weymouthfox says...

Raher like the Portland Academy, the object is to make money for the developer and stuff the Football Club.
Raher like the Portland Academy, the object is to make money for the developer and stuff the Football Club. weymouthfox
  • Score: 4

11:56pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

No! No!! NO!!!! N O ! ! ! !
No! No!! NO!!!! N O ! ! ! ! Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: 2

9:11am Sat 19 Apr 14

bigfatlad says...

leo210856 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Question. Will WFC have to pay rent?

Answer Yes.

Question Who in their right minds would move from an property that you own into a rented one?

Answer No-one with any sense.

Thats the reason why WFC don't want to move, and also the dubious way the land around the Bob Lucas Stadium was acquired in the first place.

Not moving, Unlucky.
I really don't want to defend the developers but the ground rent (as per the business case) would be £1 a year on a 125 year lease. In truth not owning the ground supported with a 125 year lease would offer better protection to the club than owning the BLS with a freehold has afforded the club!
The problem is that the club aren't in control of events the option agreement took that luxury out of the clubs hands and as for choice the name Hobson springs to mind!
Lodmoor is a nightmare site but WDP have produced massive evidence that suggests the problems can be overcome .Hard to believe I know but just shouting things are not so will get objects no where unless such objections are based on expert evidence .
Have you been working for WDP long?
[quote][p][bold]leo210856[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Question. Will WFC have to pay rent? Answer Yes. Question Who in their right minds would move from an property that you own into a rented one? Answer No-one with any sense. Thats the reason why WFC don't want to move, and also the dubious way the land around the Bob Lucas Stadium was acquired in the first place. Not moving, Unlucky.[/p][/quote]I really don't want to defend the developers but the ground rent (as per the business case) would be £1 a year on a 125 year lease. In truth not owning the ground supported with a 125 year lease would offer better protection to the club than owning the BLS with a freehold has afforded the club! The problem is that the club aren't in control of events the option agreement took that luxury out of the clubs hands and as for choice the name Hobson springs to mind! Lodmoor is a nightmare site but WDP have produced massive evidence that suggests the problems can be overcome .Hard to believe I know but just shouting things are not so will get objects no where unless such objections are based on expert evidence .[/p][/quote]Have you been working for WDP long? bigfatlad
  • Score: 0

9:36am Sat 19 Apr 14

leo210856 says...

bigfatlad wrote:
leo210856 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Question. Will WFC have to pay rent?

Answer Yes.

Question Who in their right minds would move from an property that you own into a rented one?

Answer No-one with any sense.

Thats the reason why WFC don't want to move, and also the dubious way the land around the Bob Lucas Stadium was acquired in the first place.

Not moving, Unlucky.
I really don't want to defend the developers but the ground rent (as per the business case) would be £1 a year on a 125 year lease. In truth not owning the ground supported with a 125 year lease would offer better protection to the club than owning the BLS with a freehold has afforded the club!
The problem is that the club aren't in control of events the option agreement took that luxury out of the clubs hands and as for choice the name Hobson springs to mind!
Lodmoor is a nightmare site but WDP have produced massive evidence that suggests the problems can be overcome .Hard to believe I know but just shouting things are not so will get objects no where unless such objections are based on expert evidence .
Have you been working for WDP long?
Boring!

If I was employed by WDP I wouldn't be posting on here I would just be sat back watching as to what was being said with a little grin and almost satisfaction because yes there's a lot of genuine concern , as expected, but hey nothing that wasn't anticipated or indeed that they had tried to cover .

I don't know why people just don't get it. I am not trying to encourage support for the application far from it.

WDP through their" experts" have submitted various reports with the application. Its these reports that need challenging by people that are qualified on properly informed and fully understand the arguments . I am not so qualified
Just as important people need to read what has been submitted and not what they think has been submitted.
For instance someone said on here that the Business Case says that WFC will employ 30+ full time employees. The reality is that is not what WDP say . WDPs claim are none the less crazy but unless the challenge is to what has actually been stated they will be easily countered.
[quote][p][bold]bigfatlad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]leo210856[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Question. Will WFC have to pay rent? Answer Yes. Question Who in their right minds would move from an property that you own into a rented one? Answer No-one with any sense. Thats the reason why WFC don't want to move, and also the dubious way the land around the Bob Lucas Stadium was acquired in the first place. Not moving, Unlucky.[/p][/quote]I really don't want to defend the developers but the ground rent (as per the business case) would be £1 a year on a 125 year lease. In truth not owning the ground supported with a 125 year lease would offer better protection to the club than owning the BLS with a freehold has afforded the club! The problem is that the club aren't in control of events the option agreement took that luxury out of the clubs hands and as for choice the name Hobson springs to mind! Lodmoor is a nightmare site but WDP have produced massive evidence that suggests the problems can be overcome .Hard to believe I know but just shouting things are not so will get objects no where unless such objections are based on expert evidence .[/p][/quote]Have you been working for WDP long?[/p][/quote]Boring! If I was employed by WDP I wouldn't be posting on here I would just be sat back watching as to what was being said with a little grin and almost satisfaction because yes there's a lot of genuine concern , as expected, but hey nothing that wasn't anticipated or indeed that they had tried to cover . I don't know why people just don't get it. I am not trying to encourage support for the application far from it. WDP through their" experts" have submitted various reports with the application. Its these reports that need challenging by people that are qualified on properly informed and fully understand the arguments . I am not so qualified Just as important people need to read what has been submitted and not what they think has been submitted. For instance someone said on here that the Business Case says that WFC will employ 30+ full time employees. The reality is that is not what WDP say . WDPs claim are none the less crazy but unless the challenge is to what has actually been stated they will be easily countered. leo210856
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree