: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:41 pm  

from what i rememeber from the licence application OSV was going to be built around the bowl , with a seated stand placed over the Popular side covering a lower standing tier

the picutre is from the failed OSV proposal. (2002?)

However Hood has said that the the plans are flexable

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:36 pm  

MQBlank wrote:

from what i rememeber from the licence application OSV was going to be built around the bowl , with a seated stand placed over the Popular side covering a lower standing tier

the picutre is from the failed OSV proposal. (2002?)

However Hood has said that the the plans are flexable

Correct.

The picture isnt recent and instead the failed tesco driven scheme of 2002.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:06 pm  

vbfg wrote:

It's the first time I've seen that picture I think but Hood has said in the past that the plans involved swinging the pitch through 90 degrees. I assumed from that the hole was getting filled in and a new structure was going on top. From the looks of that picture the hole is getting filled in and becoming a car park whilst the stadium is where the hospital was.

I think thats about right, lifting and rotating the stadium gives you more "useful" real estate immediately around the pitch and stadium, so you can set the costs of filling in the hole against the savings of it being a subsequently easier build with more potential.

I think we have also reduced our demands capacity wise and seating wise over the course of feasibility to help cut costs.

But its all flexible and could change entirely by the next meeting.

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:00 pm  

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/4152237.Tax_payers_facing_2_5__rise/ good to see council is allocating money towards odsal project. First time I've heard a figure mentioned. Would the 15million be total cost including external grants or just the councils contribution? willing to bet there'll be comments from city fans saying it would be cheaper to buy vp back and make us groundshare - which I suspect was partially the agenda behind teh story about them moving to odsal a couple of weeks back

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/4152237.Tax_payers_facing_2_5__rise/ good to see council is allocating money towards odsal project. First time I've heard a figure mentioned. Would the 15million be total cost including external grants or just the councils contribution? willing to bet there'll be comments from city fans saying it would be cheaper to buy vp back and make us groundshare - which I suspect was partially the agenda behind teh story about them moving to odsal a couple of weeks back

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:05 pm  

mat wrote: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/4152237.Tax_payers_facing_2_5__rise/ good to see council is allocating money towards odsal project. First time I've heard a figure mentioned. Would the 15million be total cost including external grants or just the councils contribution? willing to bet there'll be comments from city fans saying it would be cheaper to buy vp back and make us groundshare - which I suspect was partially the agenda behind teh story about them moving to odsal a couple of weeks back IIRC the total cost is around the £29 milliom mark.

mat wrote: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/4152237.Tax_payers_facing_2_5__rise/ good to see council is allocating money towards odsal project. First time I've heard a figure mentioned. Would the 15million be total cost including external grants or just the councils contribution? willing to bet there'll be comments from city fans saying it would be cheaper to buy vp back and make us groundshare - which I suspect was partially the agenda behind teh story about them moving to odsal a couple of weeks back IIRC the total cost is around the £29 milliom mark.

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:20 pm  

maybe just maybe this could be something bradford could be proud of ..{if it ever happens}

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:23 pm  

This seems quite big to me - that the council is announcing 'We're going to tax you more to pay for Odsal' suggests that they are prepared to weather the likely sh.tstorm from City/Cougar fans plus other 'I don't use it, why should I pay for it' types. Why would they bother to do this if they weren't serious, or at least semi-serious?

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:26 am  

We pay for your home,
we pay for your hoo-ome,
what a waste of council tax,
we pay for your home.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:39 am  

Asim wrote:

We pay for your home,
we pay for your hoo-ome,
what a waste of council tax,
we pay for your home.

Did City ever pay for VP? Or was that one of many things written off when they went into admin?

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:26 am  

af wrote:

Did City ever pay for VP? Or was that one of many things written off when they went into admin?

Some of it was written off, the public certainly didn't have to fork out for it.