Stadium public consultation given thumbs up (From Bucks Free Press)

How much will this cost US?

Love the photo at the top of the page.
~
Let's have a caption competition!
~
Steve Hayes: "Yes, the community can use it ... every other Thursday between 11pm and 3am. Oh, by the way, did you get my present?"

hayes - I love it when a plan comes together!

once hayes gets his new stadium. he will put wycombe wanderers in administration. he has never shown any intrest in wycombe

cheesepie wrote:
once hayes gets his new stadium. he will put wycombe wanderers in administration. he has never shown any intrest in wycombe

The Buck Free Press reported in an article dated 22nd April 2010 that Wasps had been threatened with a winding up order over an unpaid £1m tax bill but that “an agreement to pay” had since been put in place. I have never heard anything to suggest that the Wycombe Wanderers business was likely to go into administration.

Don't you think at the moment the council should be tring to "save money", cut backs etc?????
not dwindle it away on something that is not vital.

Hayes is a con man! He has never shown how passing more cost to WWFC and moving more than HALF the non matchday revenue (conference, advertising, etc) to Wasps will make WWFC more money!! ???

He either CAN'T do the arithmetic, or, more worringly, he can but WON'T show the details to the football fans?

WYCOMBE WANDERERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED has a credit rating of just 12 (out of 100) and shown by the credit checking agency ‘Creditsafe’ on the 8th Sept 2010.
This is the sign of a club which will very soon go bankrupt.
Very worrying, it’s a shame that nothing can be done about this.
It is true, that once the ‘Wycombe Air Park’ is made the chosen site – Hayes will pull his money out of WWFC and it will go into administration – it’s all very dodgy and stinks of corruption. I’m surprised that this type of dirty local politics is still allowed in this Country in this day and age.
I feel sorry for the people behind this if there is a police or anti-corruption case ever brought to the table. Me thinks that ‘someone would be spending some time in Her ‘Majesties Pleasure’ at some point in the future…

This is a total sham consultation, we're not being asked whether we want a stadium in the first place this has to be challenged in Court, there's far too much shananigans and goings on.

This man Hayes, has cooked up 6million quid in depts with WWFC alone and now the Council is going to finance a stadium for him!!!! WSDL has liabilities in shares of £100 pounds, is that a good investment????? I am disgusted with the local Councillors who have signed up to this, some of who are against it but have been bullied into supporting it, when it goes belly up, and it will, people won't forget who perpetrated this disgusting and disgraceful act.

This is a total sham consultation, we're not being asked whether we want a stadium in the first place this has to be challenged in Court, there's far too much shananigans and goings on.

This man Hayes, has cooked up 6million quid in depts with WWFC alone and now the Council is going to finance a stadium for him!!!! WSDL has liabilities in shares of £100 pounds, is that a good investment????? I am disgusted with the local Councillors who have signed up to this, some of who are against it but have been bullied into supporting it, when it goes belly up, and it will, people won't forget who perpetrated this disgusting and disgraceful act.

Dear BFP, your headline states:

" Stadium Public consultation gives Thumbs-up"

Now how misleading is this?. About as misleading as yoour sister paper's report that " 75,000 Wasps supporters at Twickenham" The Public Consultation has yet to start, so how can the public give it a " thumbs up" It may well give a two finger salute, as did the residents when the running track plans were turned down. Twickenham hosted two matches and the spectators of all 4 teams attended both games.
We are aware that Steve Hayes and Lesley Clarke are avoiding a real discussion on the Stadium proposals.

How the public can participate in a real choice when we still await a full disclosure on the financial details. Receiving them during the course of a meeting without the opportunity to digest the facts, is not the best approach by a local authority to produce the "Big Society" that their Big Brothers at Westminster want to instal in the UK. The Council has "invested" £750,000 already and without a realistic costing exercise they cannot justify their current approach, let alone give the go-ahead for even more expenditure.
The Town does need better sporting facilities for its residents, but producing a football Stadium is not the way forward, reopening Swimming Pools, providing better facilities for Hockey, Badminton &Table Tennis and other minority sports can be achieved without the need to provide Steve Hayes with another toy to play with.

Let the public decide by delaying the decision until after the local elections. The Tories can then provide the public with all the facts, especially the financial details, in theirc Manifesto. If tthe voters then they will have their mandate.
HAVE THEY GOT THE BOTTLE ?.

Come on BFP, surely you can do better than mislead the public, provide the platform for a real debate.

Dear BFP, your headline states:

" Stadium Public consultation gives Thumbs-up"

Now how misleading is this?. About as misleading as yoour sister paper's report that " 75,000 Wasps supporters at Twickenham" The Public Consultation has yet to start, so how can the public give it a " thumbs up" It may well give a two finger salute, as did the residents when the running track plans were turned down. Twickenham hosted two matches and the spectators of all 4 teams attended both games.
We are aware that Steve Hayes and Lesley Clarke are avoiding a real discussion on the Stadium proposals.

How the public can participate in a real choice when we still await a full disclosure on the financial details. Receiving them during the course of a meeting without the opportunity to digest the facts, is not the best approach by a local authority to produce the "Big Society" that their Big Brothers at Westminster want to instal in the UK. The Council has "invested" £750,000 already and without a realistic costing exercise they cannot justify their current approach, let alone give the go-ahead for even more expenditure.
The Town does need better sporting facilities for its residents, but producing a football Stadium is not the way forward, reopening Swimming Pools, providing better facilities for Hockey, Badminton &Table Tennis and other minority sports can be achieved without the need to provide Steve Hayes with another toy to play with.

Let the public decide by delaying the decision until after the local elections. The Tories can then provide the public with all the facts, especially the financial details, in theirc Manifesto. If tthe voters then they will have their mandate.
HAVE THEY GOT THE BOTTLE ?.

Come on BFP, surely you can do better than mislead the public, provide the platform for a real debate

Dear BFP, your headline states:

" Stadium Public consultation gives Thumbs-up"

Now how misleading is this?. About as misleading as yoour sister paper's report that " 75,000 Wasps supporters at Twickenham" The Public Consultation has yet to start, so how can the public give it a " thumbs up" It may well give a two finger salute, as did the residents when the running track plans were turned down. Twickenham hosted two matches and the spectators of all 4 teams attended both games.
We are aware that Steve Hayes and Lesley Clarke are avoiding a real discussion on the Stadium proposals.

How the public can participate in a real choice when we still await a full disclosure on the financial details. Receiving them during the course of a meeting without the opportunity to digest the facts, is not the best approach by a local authority to produce the "Big Society" that their Big Brothers at Westminster want to instal in the UK. The Council has "invested" £750,000 already and without a realistic costing exercise they cannot justify their current approach, let alone give the go-ahead for even more expenditure.
The Town does need better sporting facilities for its residents, but producing a football Stadium is not the way forward, reopening Swimming Pools, providing better facilities for Hockey, Badminton &Table Tennis and other minority sports can be achieved without the need to provide Steve Hayes with another toy to play with.

Let the public decide by delaying the decision until after the local elections. The Tories can then provide the public with all the facts, especially the financial details, in theirc Manifesto. If tthe voters then they will have their mandate.
HAVE THEY GOT THE BOTTLE ?.

Come on BFP, surely you can do better than mislead the public, provide the platform for a real debate

I am not a Wycombe resident, but a WWFC regular. I would feel aggrieved that public money was being spent on a rich man's dream if I was a Wycombe council tax payer. If Steve Hayes was paying for it, despite the fact WWFC do not need a new ground, I would think 'Fair enough'.
He isn't. This should concern councillors about to shove money into this unwanted, possibly misguided project.

Susie1000 - it is obvious that the BFP is involved in this in some way.
~
There are many things that have been pointed out by the people responding to this story. There have been many other questions asked about Steve Hayes - his intentions regarding Wycombe Wanderers, his business dealings, his past, his relationships with councilors and council officials. Yet all the time the BFP resolutely refuse get involved.
~
This week's misleading headlines are just the latest piece of the jigsaw. Remember when their reporter spoke to Wycome fans before a game about a new stadium and they only used the positive comments?
~
The paper is very quick to make mountains out of molehills when reporting other stories, using overtly emotive headlines, etc. Yet in this case they are prepared to make molehills out of mountains.
~
Ask yourselves ... WHY?

why arent all you posters doing something about Hayes what ever happened to people power, does it not exist anymore? i personally know nothing about Wanderers, Wasps or Hayes so i cant comment but you lot obviously know about this shady character so get off your backsides and do something

Once again it's the people of Wycombe District who are going to have to wrestle with this Giant Hayes Tax

It reminds me of Roald Dahl's Danny, Champion of the World, the wikipedia describes Mr Steve Hayes, aka Hazell, perfectly.

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Danny,_the_
Champion_of_the_Worl
d

All we need, is a Danny, that said, I understand that there will be some very embarassing promulgations with respect to some Cabinet members soon. They can't hide from it.

If I was the lady in the photo I would check she hasnt been robbed, whats he doing with his other hand probably stealing from her handbag. Sounds like what he's doing to the council tax payer in Wycombe District! all too familiar again. Look no one wants this damned stadium read the comments. A scared man or should I say as others put it a conman who does want to show his cards to others. Very shaddy dealings and a corrupt Council!!!! prove us alll wrong then.
Just remember our hospitals ie Wycombe outpatients gone? and Marlow Cottage Hospital under threat. Perhaps Steve would like to donate some of HIS money towards these COMMUNITY needs. He hasnt offered a penny has he!! Conman and perhaps soon when it all goes wrong and Escape Artist ehh. Crooked as a willow walking stick!!! GO AWAY HAYES con somewhere else.

BigTommy wrote:
Susie1000 - it is obvious that the BFP is involved in this in some way. ~ There are many things that have been pointed out by the people responding to this story. There have been many other questions asked about Steve Hayes - his intentions regarding Wycombe Wanderers, his business dealings, his past, his relationships with councilors and council officials. Yet all the time the BFP resolutely refuse get involved. ~ This week's misleading headlines are just the latest piece of the jigsaw. Remember when their reporter spoke to Wycome fans before a game about a new stadium and they only used the positive comments? ~ The paper is very quick to make mountains out of molehills when reporting other stories, using overtly emotive headlines, etc. Yet in this case they are prepared to make molehills out of mountains. ~ Ask yourselves ... WHY?

I know everyone likes a conspiracy but this is taking it a bit far isn't people!?
The whole Hayes-WDC-stadium thing stinks to high heaven, but the BFP being involved is pushing it a bit far isn’t it!?
It's hardly misleading to say 'consultation given thumbs up' when in the first para it says 'councillors approved it'.
The council even blocked a FOI by the BFP over stadium documents but released them to a member of the public.
-
This is behind doors dealings between Hayes and Clarke’s cronies, who obviously won’t tell the BFP or us anything about it.
It’s already a stitch up that a stadium will be built at the Air Park, no matter what comes out of this ‘consultation’, and it will be paid for by us, the gullible tax payer.
We should all vote for ‘no stadium’ or the Adams Park option on this ‘consultation’ to see if they really will listen to the people….I doubt it somehow.

Can the Bucks Free Press use its resources and know-how to find out the following.
1. What was the level of WW debt prior to the Hayes take-over?
2. What is that level of debt now?
3. What is the approximate value of the ground if housing development is granted?
4. Who owns the ground? WW, Wasps, Hayes, who?
5. Could revenue from the sale of the ground be used to prop up Wasps, WW, both?
6. Could Hayes let WW go into administration, thus allowing all the money from the development of the old ground go into either his own pocket or that of Wasps ... or both?
It is not difficult to imagine WW going under and Hayes taking Wasps to a new council owned stadium and using any money from the sale of the old ground to put into Wasps (or his own pocket).
7. Are any loans for Hayes, WW or Wasps secured against Adams Park?

No doubt there are various holding companies involved.

In short what I want to know is:
"Is it possible for Steve Hayes to get rid of WW by selling the club or letting it collapse, whilst at the same time using all the profits from the sale of Adams Park to pump money into the ailing finances at Wasps and reduce overheads by renting the new stadium on a match by match basis from the council?"
-
"Can Hayes effectively asset strip WW for the benefit of Wasps (or his own pocket)?"

This won't work if the council are not prepared to spend over £4 million (and the rest) of public money on a new stadium.

If the council do go ahead they are effectively spending £4m+ to pay off Wasps debts.

Truth@ wrote:

BigTommy wrote: Susie1000 - it is obvious that the BFP is involved in this in some way. ~ There are many things that have been pointed out by the people responding to this story. There have been many other questions asked about Steve Hayes - his intentions regarding Wycombe Wanderers, his business dealings, his past, his relationships with councilors and council officials. Yet all the time the BFP resolutely refuse get involved. ~ This week's misleading headlines are just the latest piece of the jigsaw. Remember when their reporter spoke to Wycome fans before a game about a new stadium and they only used the positive comments? ~ The paper is very quick to make mountains out of molehills when reporting other stories, using overtly emotive headlines, etc. Yet in this case they are prepared to make molehills out of mountains. ~ Ask yourselves ... WHY?

I know everyone likes a conspiracy but this is taking it a bit far isn't people!? The whole Hayes-WDC-stadium thing stinks to high heaven, but the BFP being involved is pushing it a bit far isn’t it!? It's hardly misleading to say 'consultation given thumbs up' when in the first para it says 'councillors approved it'. The council even blocked a FOI by the BFP over stadium documents but released them to a member of the public. - This is behind doors dealings between Hayes and Clarke’s cronies, who obviously won’t tell the BFP or us anything about it. It’s already a stitch up that a stadium will be built at the Air Park, no matter what comes out of this ‘consultation’, and it will be paid for by us, the gullible tax payer. We should all vote for ‘no stadium’ or the Adams Park option on this ‘consultation’ to see if they really will listen to the people….I doubt it somehow.

Personally I think the BFP have been fantastic at providing us with as much information as possible, even to their own detriment. Oliver Evans especially, was proactive at trying to uncover what "the Council" was/is hiding from us. I have undertaken much research into this and i'm afraid the label of it being a conspiracy is well-founded but the BFP aren't involved. The BFP/Gannet are a commercial organisation and despite them still having to protect their advertising revenue and despite various accusations of bias from all sides , I am absolutely certain that Steve Cohen is as straight as a dye and that he would not be swayed from being factual.

Sometimes whichever side one takes, we read things we don't like but the facts will prevail, unfortunatley, often after the event.

Ewartwhatyoubulldoze wrote:
Once again it's the people of Wycombe District who are going to have to wrestle with this Giant Hayes Tax

Well I appreciated that comment (I think).

DeepThinker wrote:
Can the Bucks Free Press use its resources and know-how to find out the following. 1. What was the level of WW debt prior to the Hayes take-over? 2. What is that level of debt now? 3. What is the approximate value of the ground if housing development is granted? 4. Who owns the ground? WW, Wasps, Hayes, who? 5. Could revenue from the sale of the ground be used to prop up Wasps, WW, both? 6. Could Hayes let WW go into administration, thus allowing all the money from the development of the old ground go into either his own pocket or that of Wasps ... or both? It is not difficult to imagine WW going under and Hayes taking Wasps to a new council owned stadium and using any money from the sale of the old ground to put into Wasps (or his own pocket). 7. Are any loans for Hayes, WW or Wasps secured against Adams Park? No doubt there are various holding companies involved. In short what I want to know is: "Is it possible for Steve Hayes to get rid of WW by selling the club or letting it collapse, whilst at the same time using all the profits from the sale of Adams Park to pump money into the ailing finances at Wasps and reduce overheads by renting the new stadium on a match by match basis from the council?" - "Can Hayes effectively asset strip WW for the benefit of Wasps (or his own pocket)?" This won't work if the council are not prepared to spend over £4 million (and the rest) of public money on a new stadium. If the council do go ahead they are effectively spending £4m+ to pay off Wasps debts.

answers:

1.closing net debt 2005 £2,209,323
2. debt as June 2009 £8,337,959
3. Adams' park was taken out of the green belt, the land is estimated to be worth 10million+ although post 2005 accounts wrongly have it valued at the green belt value of around 6 million quid. Likely to be industrial development although Hayes has purchased other land within the vicinity of Adam's park.

4.Hayes, or WWFC Ltd
5.As long as the new stadium is within approximately 3miles then the old ground can be sold.

6.It is a Ltd Company so letting it go into adminstration wouldn't be a problem, Hayes threatened administration if he didn't procure a majority of shares in 2009.

7. The loans as of 2009 to hayes were in the region of £6,887,129 mainly as a result of an increase in staff since 2005.

WSDL Ltd is the stadium "management Company" for WWFC and London WASPs, it is feasible that all assets would transfer to this Company from the sale of Adam's Park however it would depend on the Council agreements etc and the repayment of debt to hayes, WWFC is clearly the vehicle for the larger amibitions such as concerts, wine bars, theatre bars etc etc. Surinder Arora who is a Hotelier and who happens to have the lease on Wycombe Air Park until 2014, is also involved in the development plans.

Still, don't let the above detract you from the prospect of this being a "Community Venture" eh?

Steve Totteridge Hill wrote:
How much will this cost US?

Easy answer is more!

How is it that the simple folk of HW can see fraud and nobody will houndog the story till the truth comes out and the crooks are put behind bars?

Come on afraid/Fraud Squad!

The stadium is not needed and has come to symbolise everything that is wrong with Wycombe.
~
The public may be consulted but can they stop the scheme? This scheme should only go ahead if 51% of the entire Wycombe population vote for it in a local referendum.
~
SAY NO TO THE STADIUM!
~
Have you read Ivor’s blog today? Click on the “BLOGS” link at the top of the page.

My earlier comment regarding the standard of reporting was not a accusation that BFP was involved in the sordid behaviour of the council, but that their reporting standards had slipped, and that they were giving a wrong slant. ""Truth"" pointed out that in the report that the thumbs up was meant to refere to the local councillors . Readers look at HEADLINES many do not read the full story. His is an important issue for Wycombe residents and the real reasons need to be explored. BFP have been involved but they now need to get down to the real reasons for the move, and the effect that it will have on the status of the football club .
Its heritage and legacy to the Town could be drowned in a sea of Yellow & gold. We could be truly stung.

Quite right Susie.

Hayes is a businessman, so how did he manage to take the debt from 2 million to 8 million? How does a bigger staduim make sense? WWFC average home gate 5 thousand, Wasps average home gate 8.5 thousand, considerable less than when Hayes took over. How were the boards so hoodwinked that SH would ever be good for WWFC. I really fear for the future of WWFC with SH(it) at the helm

This headline is totally misleading and needs changing! It implies that a public consultation has had a positive response.. "Public to be consulted over stadium plans" would be more appropriate

Public Consultation? Carefully picked locations I'd say - How about a venue in Booker or Lane End where the real impact is going to be felt - Or are they too scared they might hear some home truths - I mean we all know its going to be Wycombe Air park so why bother having a venue in Princess Bloody Risborough? Another waste of Money

again it is typical of WDC why do the mandarins there think we in Marlow do not qualify to host a meeting on this miserable project? All Marlow gets is an exhibition i guess they do not want to be faced with irate local taxpayers questioning the real motives of our prawn sandwich collection of councillors and the staff they employ. when ww played at loakes park they entertained more spectators than the current pros, do and all the club could afford to pay their players then were a couple of wheels for their old bangers they drove in those days. why on earth should we have to payout for the sporting interests of a few loyal local football fans and a crowd of toffs driven in from london. let them all go back to london their spiritual home and leave us alone.

ps locals opposed to the madcap idea should call a local referendum in the same way locals in Marlow did to frustrate the council from ussing compulsory purchase orders to buy out a local undertakers just to make way for a huge Waitrose superstore.

At a local council meeting Cllr Jean Teapot said " We considered a referendum but the date would clash with a referendum regarding Proportional Representation and we did not want to confuse people!" Nice to know they are looking out for us poor confounded and Muddled bucks boys!

J B Blackett wrote:

Ewartwhatyoubulldoze wrote:
Once again it's the people of Wycombe District who are going to have to wrestle with this Giant Hayes Tax

Well I appreciated that comment (I think).

Thanks JBB. You are the Daddy.

I'm glad that you appear pleased Ewart ; but it's just a little straw in the wind - however it was clutched by yourself.
.
A small solace I am sure but better than the usual uncomprehending response to your glistening pearls of humour cast before swine.
.
Keep it up and don't despair. This unsavoury unfolding saga of the Hegemony of Hideous Hayes Gang could be the making of all of us.
.
Regards

freeforall wrote:
ps locals opposed to the madcap idea should call a local referendum in the same way locals in Marlow did to frustrate the council from ussing compulsory purchase orders to buy out a local undertakers just to make way for a huge Waitrose superstore.

GREAT IDEA.
.
But just how do we, the local taxpayers, call a local referendum?

A VOTER wrote:

freeforall wrote: ps locals opposed to the madcap idea should call a local referendum in the same way locals in Marlow did to frustrate the council from ussing compulsory purchase orders to buy out a local undertakers just to make way for a huge Waitrose superstore.

GREAT IDEA. . But just how do we, the local taxpayers, call a local referendum?

Six or more parishioners, who must all be on the electoral roll for the parish, can convene a parish meeting to consider any business which is a matter of concern to the parish. There is no requirement in the Act for parishioners to ask for the permission of the Parish Council to do this

www.iwantareferendum
.com/publication/par
ishes.doc

wayneo wrote:

A VOTER wrote:

freeforall wrote: ps locals opposed to the madcap idea should call a local referendum in the same way locals in Marlow did to frustrate the council from ussing compulsory purchase orders to buy out a local undertakers just to make way for a huge Waitrose superstore.

GREAT IDEA. . But just how do we, the local taxpayers, call a local referendum?

Six or more parishioners, who must all be on the electoral roll for the parish, can convene a parish meeting to consider any business which is a matter of concern to the parish. There is no requirement in the Act for parishioners to ask for the permission of the Parish Council to do this www.iwantareferendum .com/publication/par ishes.doc

So..... With all the enthusiasm we have here, and all the support to stop this total waste of our money, can we muster 6 or more local parishoners to convene a suitable meeting?

A VOTER wrote:

wayneo wrote:

A VOTER wrote:

freeforall wrote: ps locals opposed to the madcap idea should call a local referendum in the same way locals in Marlow did to frustrate the council from ussing compulsory purchase orders to buy out a local undertakers just to make way for a huge Waitrose superstore.

GREAT IDEA. . But just how do we, the local taxpayers, call a local referendum?

Six or more parishioners, who must all be on the electoral roll for the parish, can convene a parish meeting to consider any business which is a matter of concern to the parish. There is no requirement in the Act for parishioners to ask for the permission of the Parish Council to do this www.iwantareferendum .com/publication/par ishes.doc

So..... With all the enthusiasm we have here, and all the support to stop this total waste of our money, can we muster 6 or more local parishoners to convene a suitable meeting?

Already being arranged in Lane End.

wayneo wrote:

A VOTER wrote:

wayneo wrote:

A VOTER wrote:

freeforall wrote: ps locals opposed to the madcap idea should call a local referendum in the same way locals in Marlow did to frustrate the council from ussing compulsory purchase orders to buy out a local undertakers just to make way for a huge Waitrose superstore.

GREAT IDEA. . But just how do we, the local taxpayers, call a local referendum?

Six or more parishioners, who must all be on the electoral roll for the parish, can convene a parish meeting to consider any business which is a matter of concern to the parish. There is no requirement in the Act for parishioners to ask for the permission of the Parish Council to do this www.iwantareferendum .com/publication/par ishes.doc

So..... With all the enthusiasm we have here, and all the support to stop this total waste of our money, can we muster 6 or more local parishoners to convene a suitable meeting?

Already being arranged in Lane End.

GREAT, count me in....
Where's the publicity, and when's the meeting taking place?
.
I want my vote to count!

see how to petition council
http://www.wycombe.g
ov.uk/council-servic
es/council-and-democ
racy/consultations/p
etitions-scheme.aspx

A VOTER wrote:

wayneo wrote:

A VOTER wrote:

wayneo wrote:

A VOTER wrote:

freeforall wrote: ps locals opposed to the madcap idea should call a local referendum in the same way locals in Marlow did to frustrate the council from ussing compulsory purchase orders to buy out a local undertakers just to make way for a huge Waitrose superstore.

GREAT IDEA. . But just how do we, the local taxpayers, call a local referendum?

Six or more parishioners, who must all be on the electoral roll for the parish, can convene a parish meeting to consider any business which is a matter of concern to the parish. There is no requirement in the Act for parishioners to ask for the permission of the Parish Council to do this www.iwantareferendum .com/publication/par ishes.doc

So..... With all the enthusiasm we have here, and all the support to stop this total waste of our money, can we muster 6 or more local parishoners to convene a suitable meeting?

Already being arranged in Lane End.

GREAT, count me in.... Where's the publicity, and when's the meeting taking place? . I want my vote to count!

A special meeting is being arranged by the Parish Council therefore it is likely we will ask or it then. A letter is also bein sent to the Secretary of State rearding the consultation and the fact that the Council clearly have a conflict of interest with regards to the planning aspect.

gungun wrote:
Public Consultation? Carefully picked locations I'd say - How about a venue in Booker or Lane End where the real impact is going to be felt - Or are they too scared they might hear some home truths - I mean we all know its going to be Wycombe Air park so why bother having a venue in Princess Bloody Risborough? Another waste of Money

Please, if you're going to mention other towns, at least get the name right. It should read Princes (bloody)Risborough

Am I imagining things , or does Mr Hayes have a passing resemblance to a certain late-lamented Reggie Kray (all be it a with a jolly face instead of a miserable one) ? Same body type and colouring as well. Same tailor ?
.
Pure coincidence , I suppose.

J B Blackett wrote:
Am I imagining things , or does Mr Hayes have a passing resemblance to a certain late-lamented Reggie Kray (all be it a with a jolly face instead of a miserable one) ? Same body type and colouring as well. Same tailor ? . Pure coincidence , I suppose.

****, This "New Identity Program" needs an update... The public are on to Reggie's new ID.
.
Yet Reggie, sorry, Mr Hayes was, told to keep a low profile, and not to go messing around with public funds. When will he ever learn?
.
Oh well, I suppose he should wait until he has received the millions from his friends at WDC, share out some of the loot with them, then he'll get another new identity at the taxpayers' expense.
.
So it's all good for him in the end, and he'll live happily ever after...
.
THE END

"Liberal Democrat Cllr Trevor Snaith asked the ruling Conservative council why the consultation did not give residents the chance to vote against a stadium at a Full Council meeting last month.

But Mr Unsworth told the Bucks Free Press that Adams Park had been shortlisted for those residents who wanted the current set up to remain the same. "

As a council taxpayer and local resident I want an option to spend NOTHING more on the stadium project. And no, that doesn't mean coming up with some financial wizardry that revalues existing council assets so that they can be sold off to fund the project either!

gpn01 wrote:
"Liberal Democrat Cllr Trevor Snaith asked the ruling Conservative council why the consultation did not give residents the chance to vote against a stadium at a Full Council meeting last month.

But Mr Unsworth told the Bucks Free Press that Adams Park had been shortlisted for those residents who wanted the current set up to remain the same. "

As a council taxpayer and local resident I want an option to spend NOTHING more on the stadium project. And no, that doesn't mean coming up with some financial wizardry that revalues existing council assets so that they can be sold off to fund the project either!

Absolutely ! Deviousness again to the fore by WDC trying to hoodwink the citizens

Is there a reason why, with 48 comments, this has disappeared from the 'most coments' section of the website? 48 comments would (currently) make it the second highest topic!