VIDEO: Hundreds protest against stadium plans (From Bucks Free Press)

well done and thank you to all who turned out today. a fantastic effort by GASP, AND A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE DELIVERED!

Read this beacause Steve Baker Twitted it.

given the hundreds of people who turned out and weren't put off by the rain I do hope the Council takes note and acts accordingly on Monday.

Thank you GASP for giving us the chance to say how we feel.

The organisation was brilliant.

Well done to all who took part.
~
The sooner the unwanted stadium is stopped the better.
~
Long live Booker aerodrome!
~
Have you read Ivor’s blog today? Click on the “BLOGS” link at the top of the page.

FANTASTIC!!!


What price NIMBYS now eh?????

great well done!!!!!!!!!!!!! see how steve hayes likes this one you wont get it built so take your club and p#ss off!!!!!!

I cant see what the problem is

population of WDC = 162000
esimate of those on the march = 200
that gives us a whooping great big majority of 0.123% ..... and they accuse WSDL of fiddling the figures!

I thought the turn out was good but lets not get carried away!

The 'silent' majority either don't care or don't know about this.

Jock's little helper wrote:
population of WDC = 162000
esimate of those on the march = 200
that gives us a whooping great big majority of 0.123% ..... and they accuse WSDL of fiddling the figures!

I thought the turn out was good but lets not get carried away!

The 'silent' majority either don't care or don't know about this.

How did you come up with that estimate "Jock's little helper"? I counted that many waiting at The Rye an hour before the march started!

gpn01 wrote:

Jock's little helper wrote: population of WDC = 162000 esimate of those on the march = 200 that gives us a whooping great big majority of 0.123% ..... and they accuse WSDL of fiddling the figures! I thought the turn out was good but lets not get carried away! The 'silent' majority either don't care or don't know about this.

How did you come up with that estimate "Jock's little helper"? I counted that many waiting at The Rye an hour before the march started!

Its a number thats been quoted in a couple of places and seems a fair estimate for what I saw pass through the High Street. Even if you double it, it doesn't really change the percentage.

Jock's little helper wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

Jock's little helper wrote: population of WDC = 162000 esimate of those on the march = 200 that gives us a whooping great big majority of 0.123% ..... and they accuse WSDL of fiddling the figures! I thought the turn out was good but lets not get carried away! The 'silent' majority either don't care or don't know about this.

How did you come up with that estimate "Jock's little helper"? I counted that many waiting at The Rye an hour before the march started!

Its a number thats been quoted in a couple of places and seems a fair estimate for what I saw pass through the High Street. Even if you double it, it doesn't really change the percentage.

Like the WSDL material Jock, don't believe everything you read by hearsay. I was there and a very well known former local Headmaster counted 480 going through the tunnel and that's without the ones he missed and picked up on the way. Still, if we're going to talk about numbers, lets talk about the WSDL evening, 150 on the WWFC night, 100 or so on the WASPs night and 27 on the 1st public meeting.
!
Once again, everybody has a right to voice their opinion, the silent majority argument is wearing thin; if we used the silent majority argument each time we had an election, then no party would ever get in. This is why we have a system that counts the opinions of those that get off of their @rses.

It was a great event and something not seen in Wycombe for a long time. Well done to GASP for organising it. The Community spoke in a loud voice this afternoon and said "no".

Now it is over to the Cabinet on Monday to show that they have listened.

Jock's little helper wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

Jock's little helper wrote: population of WDC = 162000 esimate of those on the march = 200 that gives us a whooping great big majority of 0.123% ..... and they accuse WSDL of fiddling the figures! I thought the turn out was good but lets not get carried away! The 'silent' majority either don't care or don't know about this.

How did you come up with that estimate "Jock's little helper"? I counted that many waiting at The Rye an hour before the march started!

Its a number thats been quoted in a couple of places and seems a fair estimate for what I saw pass through the High Street. Even if you double it, it doesn't really change the percentage.

I've seen the number quoted in one place and would be interested (WWFC fan site) so would be curious about where else you've seen it quoted.
.
You make a fair point if talking about percentages as it wouldn't actually make a material difference if there were 1,000 or 10,000 and you're choosing to compare it to the entire Wycombe District population. BUT, and it's a very important but, if you look at counting those who are in some way interested (both for and against) then the numbers tell a different story. Just like how it is that Governments (and Councillors!) aren't voted by a majority of the entire electorate, they're voted in by a majority based on those interested enough to vote.

I haven't seen a march of over 500 pro-stadium supporters anywhere? Did I miss them this afternoon? Do tell Jock!

stevfire2 wrote:
well done and thank you to all who turned out today. a fantastic effort by GASP, AND A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE DELIVERED!

I hope WSDL have seen the march and listened to the concerns of the demonstrators; then make the correct decision to make our town what it should be; Bigger, better forward thinking, a community that doesnt focus on the needs of individuals but on the needs of a whole town. It wont suit everyone, but everyone will benefit from it. Go WSDL! I cant wait!

How will it suit everyone to destroy a huge swathe of Green Belt, or to asset strip a football club of its football stadium to then require it to pay rent it cannot then afford?

Answers on a postcard!

ChilternsBlue wrote:
I haven't seen a march of over 500 pro-stadium supporters anywhere? Did I miss them this afternoon? Do tell Jock!

GASP could have had 10,000 people on the streets this afternoon and i'm sure the pro-people would be using the same argument. I guess Jock also missed the car horns in support, the market traders giving the thumbs up, regular people weren't part of the march clapping and signing the petition; I for one will never forget the looks of astonishment on peoples faces as the protest marched past, i'll never forget the market trader who shouted to his mate "they're still coming around the bl@@dy corner; I was at the pepperpot, the corner he was referring to was Queen Victoria Road.
!
The only "negative comment" i heard was "nice try but they (the Council), won't listen; that comment i'm afraid, is what summarises what is fundamentally wrong with our politics. The Council if they turn this project down on Monday, might be accused by some quarters of not being innovative, of being inwards looking and of not having vision, similar charges are levelled at those who wish to protect their village boundaries or way of life, a means of stiflining any debate or opposition by using petty name calling and bullying.
!
Well, having the hindsight of one of the worst recessions in recent history, one thing we should have learned by now, is that speculative venture is a gamble, and i'd much rather have a Council that is accused of being inward looking, than a Council that goes through the motions of due-process, then continues to fritter away our hard earned money on a project that has been totally undermined and pulled to pieces. A Council should be providing good quality services at a fair price, maintaining and regenerating when required but not gambling with our future in order to create legacies.

Rent is a problem for the club to worry about, The council have already state that £500000 a year will be generated via rental income. Jobs will be created, good fealing will be created, homes for families will be built, an ugly old air park (which i like nevertheless) will be transformed. Land that is currently not used by anyone will be utilised. 2-3-4 or even 500 people on a march is comendable but does not represent the needs of the society. I live close to the proposed site, and although i dont believe i'll benefit or loose out on it financially i think alot of people will benefit from it, and i wish them well. Please dont drag Wycombe down, we're a town that has people wiling to invest in to it, because they see value here and potential. In my opinion some of the demonstrators were there because they are worried about how it might affect them and not how it will benefit the community.

imoldgreg wrote:

stevfire2 wrote: well done and thank you to all who turned out today. a fantastic effort by GASP, AND A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE DELIVERED!

I hope WSDL have seen the march and listened to the concerns of the demonstrators; then make the correct decision to make our town what it should be; Bigger, better forward thinking, a community that doesnt focus on the needs of individuals but on the needs of a whole town. It wont suit everyone, but everyone will benefit from it. Go WSDL! I cant wait!

Tell me, how does it not suit everyone, but then benefit everyone?
!
As for:
!
"Bigger, better forward thinking";
!
!
Oh well, that's one crossed off of the Bullsh!t bingo, keep going:
!
Forward-thinking *
Strategic fit
Core competencies
Out of the box
Bottom line
Revisit
Take that off-line
24/7
Out of the loop
Benchmark
Value-added
Proactive
Win-win
Think outside the box
Fast track
Result-driven
Empower (or empowerment)
Knowledge base
At the end of the day
Touch base
Mindset
Client focus(ed)
Ballpark
Game plan
Leverage
Cascade
Sequential or sequentially

imoldgreg wrote:
Rent is a problem for the club to worry about, The council have already state that £500000 a year will be generated via rental income. Jobs will be created, good fealing will be created, homes for families will be built, an ugly old air park (which i like nevertheless) will be transformed. Land that is currently not used by anyone will be utilised. 2-3-4 or even 500 people on a march is comendable but does not represent the needs of the society. I live close to the proposed site, and although i dont believe i'll benefit or loose out on it financially i think alot of people will benefit from it, and i wish them well. Please dont drag Wycombe down, we're a town that has people wiling to invest in to it, because they see value here and potential. In my opinion some of the demonstrators were there because they are worried about how it might affect them and not how it will benefit the community.

I'm not going to type it all out again, the arguments have already been made:
!
!
http://www.thisisloc
allondon.co.uk/where
ilive/northwest/sout
hbucks/9136910.Stadi
um__Council_warned_o
ver_Swansea_comparis
on/

Wayneo Bucks, are we that poor that we cannot afford to spend money on a venture that will help people in the community and earn money for the council for me thats a no brainer. My only concerns are how that money is then spent, perhaps it will create more jobs. What a nice thought that our hard earned money will help many families to eat and pay their bills.

imoldgreg wrote:
Rent is a problem for the club to worry about, The council have already state that £500000 a year will be generated via rental income. Jobs will be created, good fealing will be created, homes for families will be built, an ugly old air park (which i like nevertheless) will be transformed. Land that is currently not used by anyone will be utilised. 2-3-4 or even 500 people on a march is comendable but does not represent the needs of the society. I live close to the proposed site, and although i dont believe i'll benefit or loose out on it financially i think alot of people will benefit from it, and i wish them well. Please dont drag Wycombe down, we're a town that has people wiling to invest in to it, because they see value here and potential. In my opinion some of the demonstrators were there because they are worried about how it might affect them and not how it will benefit the community.

Where has the Council stated they'd get £500k p.a.? The WDC Business Case states they'd get £100k p.a. Anything extra would need increased attendance.
.
"Jobs will be created"? What about the 250 already at the Air Park that would be lost if it closed? Do you think losing highly skilled, professional jobs in return for matchday programme sellers is a good exchange?
.
How, exactly, are the people who'll benefit from it? And how? And who'll have to pay? The answer to the latter includes ratepayers, local residents, existing air park tenants and local businesses (as traffic jams would lose them business).
.
You say that the protesters were there because how it might affect them, instead of them considering how it'll benefit the community.....Do explain how you think spending £31 Millions of ratepayers assets on a scheme for two mulit-million loss-making clubs will benefit the community?

Bit harsh Wayneo, im not using soundbites im telling the truth, and while we're at it, why dont you share your views on why it shouldnt go forward, Greenbelt? what does that mean, we're so brainwashed as a nation to protect our precious greenbelt, but we dont know why. Is it the wildlife? is it because you go for walks there...what?

Im sorry, you havnt read the proposals, and your maths is out. Your regurgitating what every other person has said against this project. Stick to the facts, approach it professionaly and you'll get people on your side.

imoldgreg wrote:
Wayneo Bucks, are we that poor that we cannot afford to spend money on a venture that will help people in the community and earn money for the council for me thats a no brainer. My only concerns are how that money is then spent, perhaps it will create more jobs. What a nice thought that our hard earned money will help many families to eat and pay their bills.

It's WDC, not Bucks CC, that would be providing the funds.
.
What money do you think this speculative gamble would provide to the Council?

imoldgreg wrote:
Im sorry, you havnt read the proposals, and your maths is out. Your regurgitating what every other person has said against this project. Stick to the facts, approach it professionaly and you'll get people on your side.

Perhaps you could enlighten us to what "facts" you're talking about?

I understood that WSDL will not be seeking any equity from WDC. Rental income to WDC estimated at £125m over 25 years. And the current proposal includes the Air park in the plans......

Sorry made a mistake. 15m over 25 years but added value of 125m to the community.

imoldgreg wrote:
I understood that WSDL will not be seeking any equity from WDC. Rental income to WDC estimated at £125m over 25 years. And the current proposal includes the Air park in the plans......

Then your understanding is somewhat adrift from the actaul proposal.
.
- WDC would be expected to provide £31 Million towards the project (refer to appendix in WDC Business CASE). It doesn't appear as "equity" because they don't retain any element of ownership (so, a bit like a rather large donation really).
.
-The rental income is based on a best case projection that every match would have an almost capacity atendance. The actual real rental (per WDC Business Case and as confirmed by WSDL at their 'public' meeting on Wednesday) presentation is £100k p.a.
.
- WSDL's proposals are that the airfield would not operate on matchdays (i.e. weekends). Most of thei airfields operators (i.e. flight training and gliding club) activities are based on weeknd flying, so this would kill them off. Also, if you look at the 'plan' you'll notice that the scale isn't right and that there wouldn't actualy be any room left for the runways once the stadium, additional rugby & football pitches and enabling development of at least 500 houses are put into place. Which possibly explains why the runways shown in the plan actually cross an existing road.
.
If you have any other "facts" you'd care to claim expertise on that you'd like to propose then do let me know. Meanwhile I can recommend that you read the WDC/IPW Business Case as that is the one that WDC's Cabinet will make a decision on Monday about.

imoldgreg wrote:
Bit harsh Wayneo, im not using soundbites im telling the truth, and while we're at it, why dont you share your views on why it shouldnt go forward, Greenbelt? what does that mean, we're so brainwashed as a nation to protect our precious greenbelt, but we dont know why. Is it the wildlife? is it because you go for walks there...what?

Greg, preservation of Green Belt land is largely about preventing encroachment and urban sprawl into surrounding villages. It is particularly pertinent in this instance.

This proposal will see 200 acres of Green Belt designated land being built upon. That will increase the urban sprawl of Wycombe across the M40 and towards the villages of both Lane End and Marlow.

Green belt has actually nothing to do with wildlife in that respect, and if it is about the landscape, that is AONB. It is about stopping urban sprawl and encroachment.

imoldgreg wrote:
Wayneo Bucks, are we that poor that we cannot afford to spend money on a venture that will help people in the community and earn money for the council for me thats a no brainer. My only concerns are how that money is then spent, perhaps it will create more jobs. What a nice thought that our hard earned money will help many families to eat and pay their bills.

Let me put it to you this way for all the arguments have been made on here and elsewhere:
!
""Are we so poor that we cannot afford to spend money on a venture that will help people in the community"
!
Spending money arbritarily is easy, spending money wisely is not; it is the spending of money that we don't have, often on things we don't need that has contributed to this country being in the mess that it is in; Fiscal stimulas has not worked in the past and it is not for the state to so provide ; it might bring jobs numbers down in the short term but as we have seen, such a practise is unsustainable for economic stability.
!
Your concern should not only be on the money that is spent but on what it will cost later; you would have noticed from the strategic outline business case that there was no mention of a maintenance budget, that the rent model they are likely to use is significantly similiar to that which was used by Swansea stadco which in 5 years, has not yielded ANY rent to the Council and that has also cost taxpayers an additional 2.6million; that money, might well indirectly cost jobs, for the Council would likely have to balance that expenditure by reassing other budgets elsewhere.
!
You would also know from having read the copius reports that are available for all, that the current unemployment figures (the jobseekers @2.4% not all at 8.6%,)are below the national average, being unemployed does not mean that there aren't any jobs and that far from being short on labour, Wycombe District will invariably have a shortage of Labour to fulfil existing roles.
!
If you want to help families eat and pay their bills then fix the rising fuel, energy, VAT, inflation, taxes, economic instability, building a bl@@dy stadium in place of skilled jobs on the perfectly good airfield isn't going to help.

imoldgreg wrote:
Bit harsh Wayneo, im not using soundbites im telling the truth, and while we're at it, why dont you share your views on why it shouldnt go forward, Greenbelt? what does that mean, we're so brainwashed as a nation to protect our precious greenbelt, but we dont know why. Is it the wildlife? is it because you go for walks there...what?

Tell me, why was Greenbelt first devised?

wayneo wrote:

imoldgreg wrote: Bit harsh Wayneo, im not using soundbites im telling the truth, and while we're at it, why dont you share your views on why it shouldnt go forward, Greenbelt? what does that mean, we're so brainwashed as a nation to protect our precious greenbelt, but we dont know why. Is it the wildlife? is it because you go for walks there...what?

Tell me, why was Greenbelt first devised?

Chilternsblue already answered it for you.

imoldgreg wrote:
Sorry made a mistake. 15m over 25 years but added value of 125m to the community.

I'm off to bed as I've had a long day. I'm quite happy to discuss any "facts" that you have but please can you verify where they have come from and if they form part of the WDC/IPW Strategic Outline Business Case. If they don't then I'd suggest that they're not "facts" per se and are probably aspirations stated by WSDL in their drive to provide a compelling argument (which they haven't to date been successful with).

Then maybe it wont go ahead. How much money would be made from the additional 500 families moving to the area, how much money will local business gain from their spending. Has the 125m been exagerted too?

me too? compelling stuff though!

imoldgreg wrote:
Then maybe it wont go ahead. How much money would be made from the additional 500 families moving to the area, how much money will local business gain from their spending. Has the 125m been exagerted too?

How many of the 500 families would be new, you assume that they would come out of the district? How many homes would be devalued once such a development goes ahead? What is the cost to existing business that transport their goods and services to Cressex on a Saturday or Sunday but have to site through traffic, what is the cost to local businesses when the traffic from extra developent without having roads infrastructure, new schools, services have been understimated.
!
!
"Has the 125m been exagerated too"
!
As GPN determined, If you can provide the sum that has formulated this £125million then it can be examined; to date, as with the promised attendance figures, WSDL have not provided the sum, until they do, it is unlikely you, I or anybody can scrutinise that sum; until then, it is mythical, subject to conjecture.

If the New Stadium is such a good idea why is Steve Hayes not investing? In fact Steve Hayes is likely to get a cash windfall when old grounds are sold for development and the clubs move to the “New Iconic Stadium” paid for by the taxpayer. Then if circumstances change and the clubs face financial difficulties the 125 year lease of the new stadium will need to be renegotiated with some councillors who have been well looked after in the brand new hospitality boxes.

I wonder who the clubs would pay if they had to make a choice between paying their TAX bill or paying the rent on the “New Iconic Stadium”.
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/sport/2010/apr
/22/wasps-winding-up
-rugby-union

How sad; so many people with no vision about the future. This is a potential development for our children and even further into the future.
GASP should be renamed GAPS. Groups against Progress.

Thanks I've learnt alot, there was talk of a new road to the recycliing centre that would service football traffic?

imoldgreg wrote:
Then maybe it wont go ahead. How much money would be made from the additional 500 families moving to the area, how much money will local business gain from their spending. Has the 125m been exagerted too?

506 new homes doesn't mean 506 families; but would mean that many cars and probably double the number of cars to be more accurate!
...
The WSDL business case talks about 20% being affordable homes, well that is just wrong. It has to be 40% under current regulations. That's a big hole in the business plan, massive; obscenely massive
...
Then there is the question of why anyone would want a home on a very small ploy of land at a very large price in a stagnant housing market next to a stadium?
...
If there is unemployment in this area why would people flock here? So that after a hard day or weekend's work their evening or weekend can be spoilt if they don't happen to be in the section of te community that enjoy local football and/or rugby.

redspellsdanger wrote:
How sad; so many people with no vision about the future. This is a potential development for our children and even further into the future.
GASP should be renamed GAPS. Groups against Progress.

You mean a potential liability for our children when a white elephant comes rampaging through our tax bills,...and theirs!
...
Talking of Tax, well spotted John Ley:
...
Wasps threatened with winding-up order by HMRC over £1m unpaid debt:
...
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/sport/2010/apr
/22/wasps-winding-up
-rugby-union
...
Wonder what that tell us?
...
Oh and RedSpellsDanger, perhaps name calling used to work for you years ago it the playground. I played sport instead.

imoldgreg wrote:
Thanks I've learnt alot, there was talk of a new road to the recycliing centre that would service football traffic?

That would be the one BCC don't have the money for and would cut across circa 2 miles of Green Belt land even if they were allowed by central government?
...
Trouble is there would be little if any extra WWFC traffic. Ave. gate is half that of the Adams part capacity.
..
Perhaps more Rugby Traffic from out of towners who would go again straight after the matches. I'll wager that BCC have better things to spend there money on, like maintaining the roads that we have?
...
@imoldgreg, you seem unable to do simple accounting, but I suppose fantasies aren't based on boring accountancy,...apolo
gise to any bean counters reading.

wayneo wrote:

Jock's little helper wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

Jock's little helper wrote: population of WDC = 162000 esimate of those on the march = 200 that gives us a whooping great big majority of 0.123% ..... and they accuse WSDL of fiddling the figures! I thought the turn out was good but lets not get carried away! The 'silent' majority either don't care or don't know about this.

How did you come up with that estimate "Jock's little helper"? I counted that many waiting at The Rye an hour before the march started!

Its a number thats been quoted in a couple of places and seems a fair estimate for what I saw pass through the High Street. Even if you double it, it doesn't really change the percentage.

Like the WSDL material Jock, don't believe everything you read by hearsay. I was there and a very well known former local Headmaster counted 480 going through the tunnel and that's without the ones he missed and picked up on the way. Still, if we're going to talk about numbers, lets talk about the WSDL evening, 150 on the WWFC night, 100 or so on the WASPs night and 27 on the 1st public meeting.
!
Once again, everybody has a right to voice their opinion, the silent majority argument is wearing thin; if we used the silent majority argument each time we had an election, then no party would ever get in. This is why we have a system that counts the opinions of those that get off of their @rses.

There was neigh on 500 at the ANTI-stadium GASP demo. It rained solidly for 2-3 hours beforehand and this may have put a few fair weather ANTI-stadium campaigners off?
...
There wasn't 150 at the the WWFC presentation, 100 at the most, then take away the team players (3-line wip to attend) and the various WWFC & WSDL figures and even if you're VERY generous and cut audience 50/50 for and against (more like 20/80 for/against IMHO) then you'll only end up with a couple of dozen for the stadium, on a dry evening, with a bar and a supportive environment. A big thumbs up to those of the anti-stadium campaign that attended, what could have been an intimidating experience!
...
Can't speak of the 100 at the WASPs presentation, but could you break down the attendance in the same proportions to the WWFC meeting?
...
Then there is the 27 people at the public gathering and the second meeting at the oak room that was cancelled,...
...
Any way you stack those numbers, the losing side (according to the public) are Hayes & Brooks,....

The Wasps and WWFC organizations are in a deep deep financial hole - a self created one caused by bad management and foolish overspending - whilst letting the Adams Park Stadium deteriorate through deliberate lack of maintenance.
.
This is the only way they (Hayes and company) can devise to get themselves out of the unholy mess they've made of things. .
.
That is by 'borrowing' (some would call it stealing actually) taxpayers money in a deceitful way whilst throwing up a smokescreen by using words and phrases like 'community' , 'assets for future generations', 'progressive' etc etc - all absolute gollocks of course.
.
Anyone taken in by these corporate delusionists ( liars ?) really need to a close look at the history of the people involved , the spurious false accounting , vague and nonsensical plans/drawings and ever-changing projected incomes they keep publishing every other day.....
.

Here is an interesting juxtaposition. Yesterday somewhere between 200 - 480 people protested against a Sports Village starting on the Rye and travelled less than a mile.

Today 1,000 + will assemble on the Rye, most of these local people, and run 13 miles for sport and what they believe in.

If that's what we call voting with their feet I am with the runners - and yes I am running for a Sports Village :)

Jeff Brydon

A good turnout considering everyone I speak too feels it is a done deal.

I agree with those here who have commented that we need to be forward thinking for the benefit of our children and our children's children.

This means we shouldn't be spending public money funding what is essentially two loss making clubs playing silly little games.

The only 'community' part of the project is in the title.

Spend the money (which incidentally we don't actually have) on improving broadband infrastructure - a benefit to all and something Wycombe is seriously falling behind on with direct consequences for both local businesses and the future of us all.

Jeff - good to hear that you are running today. I'm assuming you are raising money for the sports village itself since it is down to the groups to raise the money itself! The agreement is just for the stadium and housing. Your dream of a sports village is an optional extra which you will need to fund.

I hope you're not running on your own today. You'll need every penny.

I will add my usual comments, and they are based on the Sports Village.
.
In my view the Council should be supporting participation sports, and should only be putting money into community-based (ie Community Amateur Sports Clubs - non-profit clubs owned and run by the club members, and from which no-one can derive any benefit - see definition on Inland Revenue website).
.
WDC has a sports facility development plan which recognises that there are some deficiencies, and overcoming these involves facilities being spread throughout the district in the communities that require them, not centralising them at an inaccessible site, where they won't be able to be used when a professional club wants to use other facilities on-site.
.
Gliding which is a recognised amateur sport will have to cease.
.
The restrictions on powered flying will mean the air park will probably have to close, with the loss of over 200 full-time high quality jobs with a few lower paid ones, and a lot of "matchday-only" jobs.
.
Within a mile of the proposed "Sports Village" there are already un or under used football pitches.
.
Any local sports club that wants to have facilities on the site, will have to wait until the stadium, and probably hoses/hotel/commerci
al development is complete, and then will have to pay for it themselves.
.
If the Council wants to help Sports development - then stage 1 should be the redevelopment of the Sports Centre.
.
Having said all the above, I can see the point of moving the running track there, as there is no space for it on the proposed Handy Cross development, and real NIMBYs didn't want it moved to a school site in Hazlemere.
.
If WWFC/Wasps (of which I am a Season Ticket holder) want a new stadium let them raise the money. They already own the enabling development pot. It's called Adams Park.

TheHorsesMouth wrote:

redspellsdanger wrote:
How sad; so many people with no vision about the future. This is a potential development for our children and even further into the future.
GASP should be renamed GAPS. Groups against Progress.

You mean a potential liability for our children when a white elephant comes rampaging through our tax bills,...and theirs!
...
Talking of Tax, well spotted John Ley:
...
Wasps threatened with winding-up order by HMRC over £1m unpaid debt:
...
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/sport/2010/apr

/22/wasps-winding-up

-rugby-union
...
Wonder what that tell us?
...
Oh and RedSpellsDanger, perhaps name calling used to work for you years ago it the playground. I played sport instead.

Are the “Reds” the Community who what to stop the building of the “Community Stadium” and spend their time free of charge protesting against something they believe to be wrong while others are paid overtime by developers to invent Mickey Mouse characters to support the development?

It is obvious to me why there has been no march in favour of this stadium – it would cost the developers too much to pay for such a large crowd of people to march through the streets of Wycombe and of course their employees would expect to be paid!

jeffbrydon wrote:
Here is an interesting juxtaposition. Yesterday somewhere between 200 - 480 people protested against a Sports Village starting on the Rye and travelled less than a mile. Today 1,000 + will assemble on the Rye, most of these local people, and run 13 miles for sport and what they believe in. If that's what we call voting with their feet I am with the runners - and yes I am running for a Sports Village :) Jeff Brydon

Here's another interesting juxtaposition - One doesn't need a Stadium or sports village to run a half marathon.
!
!
link-keep

wayneo wrote:

jeffbrydon wrote:
Here is an interesting juxtaposition. Yesterday somewhere between 200 - 480 people protested against a Sports Village starting on the Rye and travelled less than a mile. Today 1,000 + will assemble on the Rye, most of these local people, and run 13 miles for sport and what they believe in. If that's what we call voting with their feet I am with the runners - and yes I am running for a Sports Village :) Jeff Brydon

Here's another interesting juxtaposition - One doesn't need a Stadium or sports village to run a half marathon.
!
!
link-keep

Well I participated in both events, (well, I only did the 10 K today) and today, I wasnt aware of anyone doing it for a sports village - lost of people either doing stuff for their favourite charity or some, simply like me this year doing it just to remind myself I'm still not too old to do it.
.
I'm not really sure what Jeff Brydon's point is.

So Many People with Too much time on their hands !!!!!

chris toff wrote:
So Many People with Too much time on their hands !!!!!

Or to put it another way - So many people who care.

If you don't care, don't care to comment on those who do.

chris toff wrote:
So Many People with Too much time on their hands !!!!!

there is a delicious irony when somebody posts on a newspapers comment section complaining that others that have an interest in the subject matter, have too much time on their hands.

wayneo wrote:

chris toff wrote:
So Many People with Too much time on their hands !!!!!

there is a delicious irony when somebody posts on a newspapers comment section complaining that others that have an interest in the subject matter, have too much time on their hands.

And in any case we all have exactly the same amount of time on our hands. Some of us choose to use it talking about and doing things we care about.

tom.marlow2 wrote:

wayneo wrote:

chris toff wrote: So Many People with Too much time on their hands !!!!!

there is a delicious irony when somebody posts on a newspapers comment section complaining that others that have an interest in the subject matter, have too much time on their hands.

And in any case we all have exactly the same amount of time on our hands. Some of us choose to use it talking about and doing things we care about.

Exactly Tom!

jeffbrydon wrote:
Here is an interesting juxtaposition. Yesterday somewhere between 200 - 480 people protested against a Sports Village starting on the Rye and travelled less than a mile.

Today 1,000 + will assemble on the Rye, most of these local people, and run 13 miles for sport and what they believe in.

If that's what we call voting with their feet I am with the runners - and yes I am running for a Sports Village :)

Jeff Brydon

The protests are against the STADIUM and the housing development elements of the project. Since when did anyone at GASP say they were against better sports facilities?
-
Nothing like misrepresenting the position of someone who's comprehensively demolished your argument eh..

jeffbrydon wrote:
Here is an interesting juxtaposition. Yesterday somewhere between 200 - 480 people protested against a Sports Village starting on the Rye and travelled less than a mile.

Today 1,000 + will assemble on the Rye, most of these local people, and run 13 miles for sport and what they believe in.

If that's what we call voting with their feet I am with the runners - and yes I am running for a Sports Village :)

Jeff Brydon

There were more or less the same number that ran last year, so why the compariosn with a demo? Tentative in the extreme.
...
They ran through the lovely green country side, Abbey School, Dawes hills, the Rye...green spaces, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Jeff,

Persuade WDC NOT to spend money on a stadium for private enterprise.

Then there may be money left to improve sports facilities AROUND the area.

Perhaps enough to build more badmington courts, but not on green belt land.

jeffbrydon wrote:
Here is an interesting juxtaposition. Yesterday somewhere between 200 - 480 people protested against a Sports Village starting on the Rye and travelled less than a mile. Today 1,000 + will assemble on the Rye, most of these local people, and run 13 miles for sport and what they believe in. If that's what we call voting with their feet I am with the runners - and yes I am running for a Sports Village :) Jeff Brydon

Jeff, it is not about what is wanted, it is about what is permittted, and justifiable.
Perhaps you could:
a) visit this site http://www.adamspark
.co.uk/
...then tell us what the new stadium element will provide that does not already exist, and how building a replacement stadium can justly fulfil the very special circumstances that are must be proven before building on green belt.
b) then consider the other sporting facilities being provided as part of the "sporting village" , and identify those that might fulfil the same very special circumstances.

You should not assume that opponents of the scheme are anti-sporting in any way. They just wish to see clear justification in order to comply with the rules governing the release of green belt.
There is no reason at all why the stadium element has to be lumped in with the other sporting facilities. It has been up to now because the whole thing has been driven by those who want a new stadium, and they see the additional sporting facilities as providing the justification for the release of green belt. But WDC does not have to dance to that tune only.
I suspect that the provision of the additional sporting facitlities for the public could be more easily justified than a new stadium. And if that is so, then WDC could and in my view should consider "enabling" the provision of those additional facilities only, but not the stadium.
If neither the stadium nor additional sporting facilities can be properly justified (i.e. needed, not wanted), then the rules should be followed, and nothing should be built - it's as simple as that.

jeffbrydon wrote:
Here is an interesting juxtaposition. Yesterday somewhere between 200 - 480 people protested against a Sports Village starting on the Rye and travelled less than a mile.

Today 1,000 + will assemble on the Rye, most of these local people, and run 13 miles for sport and what they believe in.

If that's what we call voting with their feet I am with the runners - and yes I am running for a Sports Village :)

Jeff Brydon

Jeff I'm confused by your posting about the run on The Rye on Sunday. You're suggesting that they were running 13 miles for "sport and what they believe in". Do you really believe that they were doing it "for sport", as in they were doing it as a protest to defend their right to run? The participants at Saturday's GASP march WERE doing it as a protest.
.
To compare the event on Sunday, which was about people doing what they enjoy, versus Saturday which was about people protesting against losing what they enjoy simply does not make sense.
.
Next thing you'll be pointing out that over a thousand people went shopping at Asda at the weekend and that they went shopping because that's what they believe in!