Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Blue_and_Gold

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 88
31
General Discussion / Re: LN's article
« on: May 15, 2022, 04:03:43 PM »
I've followed Lynn for nearly 60 years, but we do seem to have a small minority of so called supporters who badly let down the club. Like most, I enjoy the wit from the Lynn crowd but these people are scum to be quite honest. They disgust me.

 :salute:

Only one person that can do anything about it as far as the Club is concerned.
But he will look at how many £20+s he will lose if he bans them, not at how many might come back if this matter was dealt with.
I will gamble that it will be allowed to continue and fester.

From what has occurred in the past, I fear that you could be right.

Time will tell.

32
General Discussion / Re: LN's article
« on: May 15, 2022, 01:51:23 PM »
I've followed Lynn for nearly 60 years, but we do seem to have a small minority of so called supporters who badly let down the club. Like most, I enjoy the wit from the Lynn crowd but these people are scum to be quite honest. They disgust me.

 :salute:

Only one person that can do anything about it as far as the Club is concerned.

34
General Discussion / Re: Who to keep, who to let go.
« on: May 13, 2022, 12:21:03 AM »
So long as the girls stay in the bar I will be happy. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Do you really mean, so long as the girls in the bar stay.................
 :laughcry:

35
General Discussion / Re: Next season’s Admission Prices
« on: May 12, 2022, 09:20:36 PM »
Being ex NL, will they put Lynn as a Cat A game when we visit them next season?

36
General Discussion / Re: Next season’s Admission Prices
« on: May 12, 2022, 07:54:15 PM »
Not very easy to read.

Is that £14 admission for adults?

37
General Discussion / Re: Entertainment licence
« on: May 12, 2022, 12:10:10 PM »
Can't see what this has got to do with planning permission surely this is an extension of the premises licence that's being requested. Starting to look like a political fight.

Dear Jade

At this time, there is insufficient information included within the submitted documents for this
application to allow this team to accurately and fairly assess the proposal. We have to weigh up
the reasons for this application (clearly to provide additional financial support to the football
club) with the impact of the proposed events, given the location of the stadium in a residential
area.

No elevational plans have been submitted to show the height and design of the stage, likely
heights and locations of speakers and lighting rigs etc and whether any existing structures on site
will aid with attenuation of noise and lighting.

Some idea of the likely events would be of help in our assessments, as these can vary greatly in
terms of bass music (usually the main source of complaint) which comprises low frequency noise
and vibrations. It would have helped if some details had been included in a document, including
some basic considerations of how the impact of such events on the surrounding residents could
be mitigated. Noting the open car park to the front of the site will be used for artists and crew,
this is also likely to be a source of noise and there are currently no physical solid barriers to
reduce noise and lighting.

The hours of opening are listed on the application form as being from 12 noon until 12 midnight
Monday to Saturday inclusive. What are the likely event times? We would recommend having a
maximum end time of 22:30-23:00 hours, given the ‘open-air’ nature of the events and proximity
to dwellings, as consideration is also needed as to the impact after the event closes of persons
leaving the site, waiting to be collected, congregating etc. By reducing the end time of the
event, this would lessen the overall event impact, and ensure the premises was
closed/completely vacated before midnight.

In addition to the above, the applicant should note that this team will require a robust Event
Management Plan document (adherence to which we would require via a planning condition) so
I strongly recommend that they seek professional guidance on how to control noise from
outdoor events, including the preparation for these and likely after event occurrences, and
consideration of the artists area outside the stadium and event goers leaving the site. This
document should include layout of the stage, speaker blocks, lighting, noise mitigation and
attenuation, event types, duration and hours.
 
Clearly an afternoon event is likely to have less impact than an evening one, and it’s likely a 10+ hour event would have more impact than a 3
hour event. Events requiring crowd participation in any form are also more likely to have a
greater impact. Noise levels for music will need to be controlled, so that at the site boundary
they are at acceptable levels. Such levels would be guided by a noise assessment undertaken by
professionals, and can be discussed with this team following the assessment.

There are gaps where there are entrance/exit points to the site, which will allow noise break-out
at ground floor height. It is possible these could be re-designed to retain noise whilst still
retaining their emergency escape status.

At this stage, due to the lack of information to allow an informed decision, please accept this as a
holding objection. I am not prepared to support approval with conditional requirement for an
EMP; at this stage, whilst there are only four events proposed per year, the open air nature and
close residents are of significant concern.

It is also possible that, if we can reach the stage of having sufficient detail, we would still
recommend a temporary approval ie for one year, allowing ongoing monitoring of events and
giving the possibility of improving issues or preventing further events if they cannot be suitably
controlled to protect residential amenity. I note the NCC Highways Officer would support a
temporary permission.

Thank you.
Kind regards

Suzi Pimlott (Mrs)

Senior Community Safety & Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer
Community Safety & Neighbourhood Nuisance Team
Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk

38
General Discussion / Re: Entertainment licence
« on: May 11, 2022, 08:30:36 PM »
Article from the Norwich paper:

King's Lynn Town boss in council spat over concert plan


Published: 5:26 PM May 11, 2022
Updated: 6:58 PM May 11, 2022
 

A bid to use King’s Lynn Town's ground to host concerts has descended in to acrimony after the club’s owner accused a councillor of trying to block the plans.


The Linnets, who were recently relegated, are seeking permission to use The Walks stadium as a concert venue in an effort to help their finances.


The club has lodged the plans with King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council and has learned that the proposal will have to be considered by the authority's planning committee.

That decision has sparked an online row, with Stephen Cleeve, the club's owner, criticising Christine Hudson, a local councillor.

He accused her of "trying to stop the club in its tracks" and costing it thousands of pounds, by 'calling in' the scheme to be scrutinised by councillors.

Mr Cleeve said: “Local residents have been excellent, however, one councillor, Christine Hudson is trying to stop the club in its tracks.


“Christine Hudson, by calling in the application, has cost the club thousands of pounds on extra legal fees that we cannot afford, her actions speak volumes as to how out of touch she is with the local people of King’s Lynn.”

Mr Cleeve also posted the councillor's publicly available contact details online, and encouraged supporters to contact her directly to show their support for the scheme.

This move was criticised by another councillor, Jo Rust, who urged him to take the details down.

Ms Hudson has been contacted for comment. She told the Lynn News she was not against the application and was willing to help Mr Cleeve if asked.

A petition has now been launched by the club to show support for the planning application, which would see the club permitted to host up to four 'non-football related' entertainment events at The Walks each year. 

In a statement on the club’s website, it said: “It is very important that the club continues to remain economically viable, is able to expand in order to offer more opportunities for both football and other activities to take place.   

“This will enable the club to continue to form an important part of the local community.”

The club has called on the public to visit the ground on Thursday between 9.15am and midday to sign the petition, or to complete a form of its website.

The planning application has said the plans will bring an addition 25 part time jobs, bringing the total number of employees to 45 part-time and one full time.

39
General Discussion / Re: Entertainment licence
« on: May 10, 2022, 06:23:27 PM »
Can't see what the problem is all  that's being asked for is the stadium to put on 4 concerts a year that they are not requesting events to be held for 365 days a year.

Reading it on the Councils portal, it looks to me that the only problem is that sufficient information has not been supplied. All looks very encouraging apart from that.

It even seems as if they will consider a temporary change of use 1 (year), to see how it goes before committing to a longer term. That seems reasonable to me.

The ball is firmly in the applicant's court. They need to provide additional information to support the application if they want it passed.

40
General Discussion / Re: The Queen's Speech.
« on: May 10, 2022, 02:30:27 PM »
..........................my MP is Truss for my sins...................

Just give her a wink and tell her you know a sure fire way that could further her career.............................(Partridge, Pheasent, Grouse..nudge nudge).


41
General Discussion / Re: Entertainment licence
« on: May 10, 2022, 02:24:09 PM »
Whilst I can understand SC's obvious frustration at a local councilor's stance on the entertainment licence, he does seem to want to pick a fight at every turn

https://www.kltown.co.uk/2022/05/10/calling-all-kings-lynn-town-fans-and-friends/?fbclid=IwAR0IO3DRDhJHrreLPHUuZhqzIbtbcCyWs20cYIAX0Pgp60cuAZNU3aQhLa4

Key quote:
"It is very important that the club continues to remain economically viable, is able to expand in order to offer more opportunities for both football and other activities to take place.  This will enable the club to continue to form an important part of the local community."

Possibly another example of how the Walks doesn't really fit the requirement of a modern football club but unless someone wins big on the Euro Lottery this evening I guess SC (and the council) have to make the best of an imperfect situation

"It is very important that the club continues to remain economically viable......".

Obviously, but this, and the reason attributed to Norman Cesar on the Councils planning portal, are entirely irrelevant when it comes to changing the planning from just a football stadium to one of multi use.

I'm not saying planning permission should or should not be granted as I can see both sides of the coin, but to basically say it should be granted because in would benefit someone's Limited Company, can't really be a reason.

I'd also have to say that I think if this was granted, and more revenue generated because of it, the hard pressed local taxpayers would be justified in expecting to receive a commercial rent for the Stadium and it's facilities. Last I heard, it cost more to rent a football pitch at River Lane than what the peppercorn rent at the Walks currently stands at.

Presumably, its this favourable peppercorn rent that already allows the business to be financially viable and to offer football at The Walks.

To be commercially viable, most business's have to cut their cloth accordingly to do this.

Can't have it all ways.

I agree with Tony. The Walks no longer fits the requirement of a modern football stadium. Again I can see both sides of the coin. Its nice to retain and protect places such as the Walks and all the history that goes with it, but an out of town venue could well generate much more revenue (i.e. multi use).

42
General Discussion / The Queen's Speech.
« on: May 10, 2022, 01:13:44 PM »
Today:

Independent football regulator.

This bill will create a new independent regulator of English football, instead of the FA.
It will protect clubs' long-term financial sustainability in the interests of clubs and fans.
The regulator would also make sure stewards are fit to practice and protect changes to logos, branding, kits and emblems to protect clubs' heritage.

43
General Discussion / Re: Down but not out.
« on: May 08, 2022, 01:10:15 PM »
I think the definition of “full time” can vary from club to club.

44
General Discussion / Re: NWNFL Cup Finals
« on: May 07, 2022, 02:01:30 PM »
Tonight , Division 3, West Wiinch Reserves v Ingoldisthorpe Res
Wednesday 4th May, Division 2 , Ingoldisthorpe 1st v Castle Rising
Friday 6th May, Division 1, Watlington v KLSC FC
All 7.30 ko, held at Fakenham Town FC
Admission £5 adults, £1 children
20 % of all admission fees being donated to the 8.56 foundation
£640 odd quid raised for the 8.56 foundation, Well done to all concerned !!

Yes, very well done.  :cup2:

45
General Discussion / Re: Tommy talk
« on: May 07, 2022, 08:33:20 AM »
Well if the Chairman is going to realise the mistakes and push a reset button, then what better way than to leave all aspects of the playing side to the person actually running it?

At least if it goes wrong then it’s 100% on Tommy.  If he gets it right then everyone’s a winner.  Looking at the list i cobbled together that looks the thick end of a million quid. I seem to recall SC saying it was costing over £110k a month to finance the club this was back when the Gov money we were given was £96k per month. 

I assume that if we carry on full time then that gives a 12month wage Bill, not 9 months as semi pro

I'm sure that the Chairman would have been fully aware of the costs involved when he took over the Club and started his journey.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 88
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal