Important and Anti Ashley !! | Page 2 | Vital Football

Important and Anti Ashley !!

Totally get where Mc’s coming from. Signed nonetheless.
I wish I did because it sounds like he's saying whats the point which is a win for Ashley and future Ashley's and essentially paves the way for many more unopposed years of pillaging.
Call me old fashioned but that a terrible reflection on the people of our city.
 
Ashley's sold the land though hasn't he?

He has the 9 million in the bank no matter what gets built on it
 
Ashley's sold the land though hasn't he?

He has the 9 million in the bank no matter what gets built on it

Is that right though Mac,I might be wrong but I thought he put it through the books as a sale to his son in law for that price.Who in turn is selling it on to developers for a hell of a lot more as long as the development plans get the go ahead.
 
Is that right though Mac,I might be wrong but I thought he put it through the books as a sale to his son in law for that price.Who in turn is selling it on to developers for a hell of a lot more as long as the development plans get the go ahead.

I'm not sure at all to be honest mate

I googled it to reply to PM and saw an article saying the deal was done in Feb this year but I wasn't confident enough to state it as fact
 
I saw credence in the irony re monument to those that couldn’t give a fuck.

I’ve done my bit Pie- I don’t have the energy for it now. A 10 year+ losing battle has taken its toll on me marra.
Fair enough mate and I have enough internet respect for you:grinning: to be slightly concerned that you may have misunderstood my point.

I get you have had enough and it's not for me to judge you on that,especially but not exclusively as you are not one of the gobshites that frequent this board who were happy to support the regime as long as Benitez was in charge but hypocritical in slagging off the attendees.

Me personally,I will never give in to Ashley or his ilk and I desperately hope the majority in our city have the same mindset.
 
I was replying to Finns endorsement of the other macs statement mac.
My stance is more a moral one than actually caring whether or not Ashley has the money.

If marky is correct in his belief it makes the whole episode even more interesting in terms on how we can have an effect on Ashley's dealings.

The next debate needs to be will the real mac please stand up.
 
It definitely stinks whatever way its looked at.The land was owned by the club and I could of sworn I read somewhere he "sold" it to his son in law.Either way it was either him or Ashley himself it was sold to.
Then it was sold on to developers for a price.The price that will be quoted will be a hell of a lot less than the true price we will see quoted anywhere.
The fat slug will have made a hell of a lot of money out of this and you can bet your life a 2nd payment will be in the deal once or if the developers get their permission to build.
 
I don’t think I misunderstood Pie - I see where your coming from and get it marra - no worries. The aspect of Mac’s post that I got where he was coming from was the monument analogy. I envisaged even more shitty student buildings with a plaque saying “thanks to all those that did fuck all to get rid of the bastard that took the piss out of you and meekly let him carry on! We couldn’t have done it without you”.

I’m just weary of it all now. The chips seemed stacked against us in the fight.

Beating Man Utd last week summed things up lately for instance. My first thought (and I think someone else mentioned similar) was “shit! Just when there was a bit of momentum in people actually not going and making a stand - that’s put their bums firmly back in their seats next game”. What a sad indictment - beating them and feeling like that. I’m just sick of it now that’s all. There’s literally no joy whatsoever. I’ll never accept Ashley but it’s been over 6 years now since I’ve seen them play after 40 years home and away; man and boy. I just feel it’s like it was another life.
 
I don’t think I misunderstood Pie - I see where your coming from and get it marra - no worries. The aspect of Mac’s post that I got where he was coming from was the monument analogy. .

Ha finally got it,you were referring to McCreey's post
I thought it was in answer to Mcnamee67 quote...
"I can sign it no problem but the fat fecker already has the money from the sale."
 
Reading in this mornings paper about the latest set of accounts from Shite Direct. The final paragraph makes interesting reading:

The accounts also reveal that a £9 million deal to sell the leasehold to St James Metro station in Newcastle could be cancelled if planning permission to build more offices on the site is rejected.
 
Reading in this mornings paper about the latest set of accounts from Shite Direct. The final paragraph makes interesting reading:

The accounts also reveal that a £9 million deal to sell the leasehold to St James Metro station in Newcastle could be cancelled if planning permission to build more offices on the site is rejected.
Meaning mac ?
 
Meaning mac ?
I'm intrigued where 'St James Metro station' fits in the plan. I understood that Ashley had sold the land to Marrico Asset Management LLP and if planning permission is given they will sell the leasehold. Who is 'St James Metro station'? Surely not Nexus who maintain the stations. It is the first time I've heard this scenario, mind it wouldn't be the first time I've been slow on the uptake.
 
there's something stopping me from signing this petition at the minute but I'm not exactly sure what...

in truth I reckon its because I feel like its someone else's fight now - why should I give a fuck ??


It's this sort of apathy that led to every oppreszed group continuing to be oppresed- throughout history, ever.
 
RICHARD BUXTON

SOLICITORS



ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & PUBLIC LAW 19B Victoria Street

Cambridge CBI IJP​

Tel: (01223) 328933​

Newcastle City Council

Development Management
www.richardbuxton.co.uk
Civic Centre
Newcastle upon Tyne
law@richardbuxton.co.uk
NEI 8QH
By email only: Planning Committee Members

cc: Kath Lawless, Director of Planning

Jill Young, Planning Officer

Our ref: NUSI-OOI/MM/AP

Email: mmcfeeley@richardbuxton.co.uk

7 November 2019

TIME SENSITIVE - RELEVANT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ON 8 NOVEMBER 2019
Dear Sirs,

Re: Application for a mixed use redevelopment at Strawberry Place; Ref. 2019/0879/01/DET

We are instructed by the Newcastle United Supporters Trust ("the Trust"), a not-for-profit organisation which represents 10,000 Newcastle United supporters and is committed to strengthening the voice for supporters in the decision making process at Newcastle United, and strengthening the links between Newcastle United and the local community it serves.

The above application has been recommended for approval by officers and is scheduled for a vote before the Planning Committee at tomorrow's meeting.

As you may be aware, the application for a mixed use redevelopment at Strawberry Place ('the application") is highly contentious. It has generated over I ,OOO objections.

Importantly, the scheme has been amended on multiple occasions. In particular, amendments to the scheme have been made so recently that they postdate the release of the Officer's Report to this Committee on 31 October, as set out in the Officer's Addendum report.

It is also clear from the description of the development as it now is set out on page I of the Officer's Report that plans/details dated 25 October 2019 are considered integral to the scheme, despite this being the closing date for the last public consultation. Furthermore, amended documents, including a Revised Design and Access Statement and Revised Landscape Addendum

Partners: Richard Buxton* MA (Cantab) MES (Yale), Lisa Foster Juris D MSc (UEA) MA (York)

Solicitors: Simon Kelly BA MSt (Oxon), Paul Taylor. BA (Oxon), Hannah Brown MA (Cantab), Matthew McFeeley BSc MIDP Juris D

Consultants: Paul Stookes* PhD MSc LLB, Adrienne Copithorne* BA (Cantab) MA (UC Berkeley), Kristina Kenworthy BA (Hons) LLM Env (UCL) Solicitor and Practice Manager: Caroline Chilvers BA (Hons) Office Manager: Kath Kusyn

7åROq​

have been posted to the Council's website for public review as recently as 4 November 2019.

This is contrary to the Council's legal obligations, as the Trust and other members of the public have not been provided with the statutorily-mandated 21 day period to consider the revised proposal and provide comments. See R(Holbom Studios Ltd) v. Hackney I-BC, [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin).

It is clear that the Council's duty of procedural fairness requires it to provide the Trust and other interested Newcastle residents with the opportunity to consider the amended proposal in full and to provide comments.

In the circumstances, and in particular given the very large number of representations that this proposal has generated - which demonstrate the public's widespread concerns about the proposed scheme — we respectfully request that the Council defer the application until the December Planning Committee meeting to allow the Trust and other members of the public to properly consider the revised plans and comment on these (and allow officers to consider whether to maintain their recommendation in light of such comments).

Failure to do so would be contrary to the Council's legal duties and leave any decision by the Committee to approve the application open to legal challenge.

Yours faithfully,



Richard Buxton Solicitors

Environmental, Planning & Public Law