Club being all crytpic on Twitter

cockbeard said:
No point building on current site, especially now we have permission to build on athletics stadium, still need to buy it back though as land swap was part of deal and needed to satisfy parks acts
Click to expand...
We don't have planning permission for anything at the athletics track, only discussions. Also we don't have to do a land swap entailing buying back the ground, we just have to relocate the athletics stadium to somewhere suitable..
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ
The only thing I would say is that the darkened photo under the Minus 17 logo is of Fletch celebrating his goal against Grimsby. I haven't a clue if that is relevant to what is going on.
 
redharry said:
We don't have planning permission for anything at the athletics track, only discussions. Also we don't have to do a land swap entailing buying back the ground, we just have to relocate the athletics stadium to somewhere suitable..
Click to expand...

The current athletics track is part of the Five Parks area. So the club would need to swap the land it owns at the southern end of Dean Court to take the current Athletics track out of the Five Parks Act restrictions. The training pitches site is already outside the Five Parks area. The combined area (training pitches and Athletics track) creates the footprint for a new stadium.

And before any says that there is a stadium there already, the Five Parks Act allows the building of sports pavilions, changing rooms, cafes etc ancillary to leisure activities. The Athletics stadium is a publicly accessible venue (for participants as well as spectators) so meets the ancillary facilities test. That is very different from a privately owned professional football ground.
 
as a marketing campaign it's doing what it was meant to do: get us all talking. But....

The problem with being all clever and hyping something up is that the hype has to be worth it. If the hype makes everyone think they're getting a new stadium, and the reality is a new book with glossy photos of Anton Robinson then I don't think that will go down massively well.
 
NornIron said:
as a marketing campaign it's doing what it was meant to do: get us all talking. But....

The problem with being all clever and hyping something up is that the hype has to be worth it. If the hype makes everyone think they're getting a new stadium, and the reality is a new book with glossy photos of Anton Robinson then I don't think that will go down massively well.
Click to expand...

I've obviously heard the same rumours as others but if it was a new ground I can't see why they'd use the -17 angle. It's not really connected to the ground is it.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
I've obviously heard the same rumours as others but if it was a new ground I can't see why they'd use the -17 angle. It's not really connected to the ground is it.
Click to expand...

Like you I'm struggling to see anything but a slightly tenuous link from adversity to prosperity. Hopefully it relates to a legacy of some sort but I fear it won't.

Its going to a celebratory programme for the Fulham game , new release of the old shirt back then, a book and a parade of ex players plus a £50 dinner thrown in for those who want it (Guest speaker from the Football league)
 
Last edited:
To be fair, its one person on here who mentioned the buy-back. It probably has nothing to do with the -17 campaign, and might just be a completely unfounded rumour.
 
redharry said:
We don't have planning permission for anything at the athletics track, only discussions. Also we don't have to do a land swap entailing buying back the ground, we just have to relocate the athletics stadium to somewhere suitable..
Click to expand...

We would have to provide land for public recreation equal to the amount that we remove from the park. That's the Five Parks Act. Sorry you are right about permission, I was getting ahead of myself being as it seemed to be agreed in principle at one point. I do recall saying at the time though, that the club could say one acre for the stadium (simplified for numbers sake) and the council could agree that 15% of it is public recreation as the public attend and enjoy football, or 25% due to community project run by the club using business suites in the ground or maintaining other parts of Kings Park. In which case rather than swapping one acre for one acre we could swap one acre for 0.75 or 0.85 acres

Which whilst almost certainly against the spirit of the Act wouldn't be against the law of it, and has I believe been used before to shrink parts of one of the smaller parks, whether that was Redhill or the other one I forget

But either way buying the ground back doesn't mean we'd be filling in the corners, and shouldn;t be assumed that it does. Also the talk of moving the pitch a few yards (or rotating it again which was my earliest thinking) is crazy as where would we play in the meantime, Wembley, Dorchester??
 
billythekid said:
2008-09 season was when the Big Man goal that home goal against Grimsby and stopped the threat of going into the non league and whatever that meant for our club.

SlowDownDerek said:
That was in April so the criptic tweet wasn't the anniversary of that - it was a 4-1 win over Bradford City at DC that took us above Grimsby, Chester and Barnet according to this:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2009/mar/20/bournemouth-eddie-howe-march-2009

The big man did get two of them though, Goulding with the other two. Tbf the tweet probably isn't in relation to that Bradford game but nice memories all the same.



I agree it was in April and towards the end of it as well and seems a long time to keep up cryptic messages.

Found this below which mentions the -17 and also it was a Special goal for the Big Man. Probably 2+2=5. :grinning:

Steve Fletcher scored his 100th league goal as Bournemouth came from behind to secure their Football League survival by beating nine-man Grimsby.

Fletcher's fairytale winning goal came 11 minutes from the end of an emotionally-charged game at Dean Court.

Grimsby had snatched the lead through a Nathan Jarman header, but Danny Boshell then saw red for two bookings.

And Liam Feeney's predatory leveller and Fletcher's shot sparked Bournemouth joy, before Joe Widdowson's dismissal.

The win caps a remarkable turnaround for Bournemouth, who began the season with a 17-point deduction, and provoked a mass pitch invasion at the whistle.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_3/8002125.stm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;