I am now in receipt of several letters from rugby players / coaches etc. about Penilee playing fields, these guys are really angry, they all wrote at the same time expressing identical sentiments, all being careful to call me a liar, they must be physic eh ? with that kind of telepathy they must be unbeatable on the sports field.
I will of course answer them when I get the chance, my understanding is that the rugby club wanted to go to a new home at Penilee and sell their ground for private development. New excellent facilities and a pay off for the club, who can blame them for that ? the council side of the story however doesn't quite match theirs and I am researching the facts.
I'm moved by the version of events as told by our old reactionary friend 'rightforscotland' you would need a heart of stone not to laugh when you read about his concern for everyone, and his determination to share the rugby club's largess.
Have I judged him harshly ? is their perhaps a decent human being hiding there ? then I read his web again, answer, NO.
RED MIST - There is only one man who talks this interminable gibberish, who never uses one word when he can use three, who can't resist letting us all know how clever he is, I. D. yourself or don't bother writing back.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
"Would you like to explain why the council turned down supposedly £5m
private investment in favour of spending £2m of our money?"
Councillor Terry, I simply asked you to respond to the assertion above.
I'm astonished that you have decided to play into the hands of those who deride you so unfairly on other blogs by moving the goalposts on the debate again. Opening a completely new thread to state that a number of rugby players / coaches have written asking you to respond to legitimate concerns on the original post.
Why not let the thread speak for itself and respond to the points honestly.
I haven't attacked you personally. I find the blogs which do so to be distatsteful. I'm simply responding to your provision of the debating platform by voicing legitimate concerns.
Well done terry. Yet again you belittle your opponents rather than addressing their points. If you had to do research then why post right away? And why do you have to research? You were on the committee that turned them down. Are you saying you were not fully informed when you made your decision?
Of course you could read into the fact their points are identical because their story is more coherent than yours and that you are a liar. And they all wrote to you at the same time because you happened to slander the rugby club in front of me and I made them aware of this.
You also fail to note that the "payoff" for the club would pay for the re-development of public facilities and any left over cash would be theirs to do with as they see fit because it is their asset.
"need a heart of stone not to laugh when you read about his concern for everyone"
I am glad you find screwing kids out of a healthy pursuit is a laughing matter. Which parts did you find particularly funny?
anonymous - I really would like people to ID themselves.
However I haven't as you say played into their plans, you can depend on it that I will answer their posts I'm doing some home work on this.
I find it hard to accept that anyone actually believes that Renfrewshire Council turned down the chance to let someone else pay for Penilee and consequently threw away the chance to spend millions elsewhere, do you honestly buy that ?
Rugby club people are angry, they missed out on a new facility and a lot of money and they want to settle the score, their raison d'etre is now to damage the Labour Council.
If there is any genuine substance in their version of events why are we not in court ? it's a hill of beans.
RFS - I don't need to belittle you I only need print you.
'Fully informed' I did my job, I'd do it again, this is funny that's what this is.
'Identical points, times, liar etc no collusion then, caught out again eh that old arrogance.
'Pay off' as I said you were doing it out of the goodness of your heart weren't you.
'Screwing kids out of a healthy pursuit is a laughing matter' I do wish you would mind that language, are we back to what is rhetorical here ? Well balanced analysis eh ? Actually I enjoy battering kids and throwing them on the fire. You're priceless, I really have to keep telling people you're for real.
Pardon me, but would you mind explaining for the benefit of an Englishman what a Stushie is? Or a hill of beans for that matter. I cannot conceive of a hill composed entirely of beans, surely it would just collapse and become a large sprawling plain of beans? Unless they were baked beans, sautéed in a particularly thick, congealed tomato sauce? I would recommend Hellmann's tomato puree for such a construction. It's great for cavity wall insulation, too. I welcome your thoughts on this matter.
the council side of the story however doesn't quite match theirs and I am researching the facts.
You need to research?
tom tyler - Thank you for your interesting comments, stushie=rammy=steam in=barney, that kind of thing old chap.
" the troubles of two little people in this crazy world don't amount to a hill of beans " Bogart to Bergman 'Cassablanca'
i.e. The case for the rugby club and 'rightforscotland' doesn't amount to a hill of beans, it doesn't stack up.
"i.e. The case for the rugby club and 'rightforscotland' doesn't amount to a hill of beans, it doesn't stack up."
Can you PLEASE point out the flaws in the rugby club plan. So far, I have only heard the proposals from RFS etc. and they seem perfectly valid.
It also seems entirely feasible that a Labour administration might reject the proposal on the basis of their ideals, rather than it's own merits.
Shotgun - I am being told that Renfrewshire Council turned down £5 m and decided to pay for the project by using tax payers money. I'm checking the story to see why we are not in jail. Someone has to do the checking and you certainly won't.
If you are now conducting research into this matter does this mean your original assertion about the club trying to "buy" the land may not be right? And if not thenwhat exactly are you researching?
Terry, Can I save you the research?
The council turned down a lot of revisions of the same plan. They all were for a 99 year lease on the site in return for the spends. Several revisions were needed because SportScotland objected and more pitches had to be added to the plan.
They were then told that the council did not want to see "open space for the locals" vanish ignoring that a) the ground was private and not for public use and b) the council themselves were busy building on existing sports fields.
RFS - See post under anonymous March 19 th. 07 4.00 pm
RFS - Let's get this strait, the council and you disagreed, that is not the same as the council being wrong.
So what you are saying is that you are researching the facts of this case?
In which case do you accept that you previous statement about "wanting to buy" penilee was written before you had command of all the facts?
"RFS - Let's get this strait, the council and you disagreed, that is not the same as the council being wrong. "
Have we to get it strait? How strait? Dowe navigate ships through this straight?
I am saying that the council, in turning down the club's offer, has saddled the tax payer with the cost. I am saying that you are wrong when you claim that the club wanted to buy the ground. You are not the council thank god.
Are there any times that the council is wrong? I only ask because that whole Paisley Town Centre monoblocking was a total disaster and the only people who did not see it coming were the council.
RFS - I should not have said 'buy' does that make it better ?
Is it not the case that the council did not agree with you and the rugby club and that IYO they are wrong and you are right ? so what's new ?
RFS - I don't know, dowe or dowe we not etc I've questioned your age before haven't I ?
No, what you are saying is that you and the council disagreed and it's made you mad as hell, so much so that you now make these puerile arguments.
The council does make mistakes but it hasn't IMO made one over Penilee.
anon - The council and the rugby club did not do the deal, I intend to return to this.
Can I ask why you seem to be happy to accept RFS's opinion without checking the facts.
If you are accusing the Labour Party of making decisions based on their ideals then I plead guilty.
"Can I ask why you seem to be happy to accept RFS's opinion without checking the facts."
That person is a member of the club and has access to the same facts as I have so no checking was required. Again consistency in story.
" should not have said 'buy' does that make it better "
Much. Do you not understand how that makes the club look when you paint them in colours that claim to be depriving an area of a public resource? Had you simply substituted "buy" for "occupy" or "use" we would not have had all this unpleasantness.
Your central argument was that the club wanted to buy the ground and the council fended them off. You made it sound like it was a big bad private company bullying poor public spirited types. So yes, the word “buy” made all the difference.
If you are accusing the Labour Party of making decisions based on their ideals then I plead guilty.
But only guilty to the things you specifically agree with...the rest is you fighting for change from inside, right?
"There is only one man who talks this interminable gibberish, who never uses one word when he can use three, who can't resist letting us all know how clever he is, I. D. yourself or don't bother writing back."
Ok, you got me.....
I'M SPARTICUS!!!!
Shotgun, March 20 7.06 pm there's not much gets past you is there ?
what about those loud bangs I asked you about ?
RFS - This person comes into the same category as you then, and I've explained that I have looked and made enquiries and can't find this stuff, I think there is something inconsistent here.
I made these statements to emphasise the council's commitment to sport for all, one sports club having a 99 yr. lease on council facilities does not, IMO represent the best option.
I think my misuse of the word 'buy' does not explain the quite clearly orchestrated furore about this, I can't speak about the rest of the rugby club members but I know enough about you.
I don't have any wish to see the rugby club disadvantaged in any way but I have every confidence in the council's decision.
"...99 yr. lease on council facilities does not, IMO represent the best option. "
But again you represent only part of the story. The 99 year lease was non-exclusive. The club would be primary tennant but other sports would use the ground as well including football training facilities for local teams of every level, hockey and possibly even more. The club were not looking to close out other options.
You also fail to note that a survey carried out by the developers into local opinion favoured a rugby over a football solution because of the social and anti-social implications.
"RFS - This person comes into the same category as you then, and I've explained that I have looked and made enquiries and can't find this stuff, I think there is something inconsistent here."
Yup, I agree. If you are at odds with 100 other people who is more likely to be wrong?
RFS - I didn't hide anything I've already explained I can't find any reference to this stuff and I still wouldn't support a 99 yr. lease.
Your comments about social and anti social implications are predictable and prejudiced, if it's true though I can only conclude that you are not a typical rugby type.
RFS - I only have your word and you know what I think that's worth don't you.
Are these 100 people anything like you ?
The survey was conducted by the developer and formed part of one of the proposal supporting document. So you would already know this because it will have passed through your hands?
Local people are angry at a 10 year "sole use" Penilee deal between Labour Councillors in Renfewshire and St Mirren FC, with absolutely no reference to the needs of the local community . The deal would effectively handover a £3½ miliion publicly funded devlopment to St Mirrens football team for a one off payment of £120,000 and then £10,000pa, taking the vast amount of the fields and a substantial part of the pavillion into a "sole use" deal which:
Allows St Mirren SOLE access to a changing area, SOLE access to a gym facility and to offices within the pavillion.
SOLE use of the grass pitches and a training area,
This would leave only a synthetic pitch and a lesser area within the pavillion for sports community use. A football academy would be a great opportunity for the development of football in Renfrewshire, but there are concerns in local communities that it could hinder the development of other activities that are currently established at the playing fields.
local actvist - " Local people are angry" you are either speaking from a position of ignorance or you are deliberately misleading people. It's not a ten year sole use deal, it's being proposed for the good of the local community and, St. Mirren's contribution will be far more than you are saying.
Sole use means that when someone has an area booked or gets the area as part of the agreement then it is for their sole use, this applies to the times of use as agreed, and is exactly the same as all other council facilities, Penilee is no different from anywhere else.
I hope this helps but you should bear in mind that this is still early days for the project and more changes could possibly be made.
Cllr Kelly,
I am neither ignorant or misleading people. I got my facts fom the council Community and Family care policy board paper (13 March). Perhaps you should talk to local people about what is going on. There is a public meeting on Monday night at Ralston Pimary School, 7.30pm. Pehaps you and your labour colleagues would like to come along and hear what local think.
Local Activist - You're interpretation of the paper is different from mine, and IMO you have went to some lenghths to try to turn a good news story into a bad one but, I'm confident that the truth will come out and the people will welcome the initiative which will become the envy of the whole of Renfrewshire, delivered of course by Labour.
The Labout candidate for Ralston as I understand it, will be there.
Cllr Terry Kelly said...
RFS - I didn't hide anything I've already explained I can't find any reference to this stuff and I still wouldn't support a 99 yr. lease.
So let's see...
You do not support a 99 year lease to a rugby club whih would be shared by other sports and facilities...but you do support selling off school sports fields and playgrounds?
You call yourself a socialist?
Cllr Kelly,
I am not trying to turn good news into bad. I am trying to ensure that the community get a fair deal. How can you justify that this is a fair deal?
The majority of the funding is public & lottery funding, a minimal amount is funding from St Mirren, who at the end of the day are getting a great deal from this.
I hope the truth comes out. As for the envy of Renfrewshire, if it is like everything else Labour has done, we wont be the envy of anyone!!
"The Labout(sic) candidate for Ralston as I understand it, will be there."
Well, he'll have plenty of time on his hands, won't he?
Big Jim
We are also trying to make sure that the community get's a fair deal, do you disagree with this ?
How can you justify saying that this is bad for the community ? You sound deliberately negative, as if you want it to be bad, a clear case of someone with their own agenda.
Your anti Labour attitude makes your stance on this untrustworthy, it wouldn't really matter what we did you would find something wrong with it.
That's because you are more interested in damaging Labour than you are in getting the best deal for the community, that at least is quite obvious.
BIG JIM is it ? wow ! - I better be careful.
The comments you have sent me make it very obvious that you're raison d'etre is to damage Labour.
It is equally obvious that you are prepared to use anything, and anybody ( including the good people of Ralston ) to achieve this.
gmwcjWould it not make more sense if we carried this debate out in one place rather than across several blog entries?
Anyway, Terry, in response to local activist's comments about St Mirrens "sole" use of various facilities at Pennilee you said "You're interpretation of the paper is different from mine"
I believe local activist is referring to the Report on the Penilee Project by Director of Education & Leisure to thre Community & Family Care Policy Board on 13 March 2007.
On page 2, point 4 "Proposal" subpoint 4.2 reads:
"Agreement to this proposal would require some changes to the design of the interior of the pavillion to allow St Mirren Football Club sole access to a changing are and to create non-commercial gym facility and offices within the pavillion.".
I've got no point to make, I just thought it would be useful for everyone to know what we're discussing.
Attended the meeting at Ralston Primary School last night to see what all the fuss is about. The vast majority of the audience (approx 130) seemed to have major concerns that public & lottery money is being used to give St Mirren FC a top class training facility, while Renfrewshire Sports/community clubs haven't been given the same option to be involved.SNP(Cllr Lawson) & Lib Dem (Cllr McGregor) appear to share the community concern about the speed of the deal. Far from trying to stop this deal they are asking for more time to ensure that it is the best for everyone.The opposition parties are not against St Mirren. They stated that last night. There were no Labour Councillors at the meeting, although a Mr Sharkey, Labours candidate for Paisley East tried to put forward Labours view on the deal, which seems to be that it is best for all groups involved.THis was not the majority view. Perhaps in view of the feeling at last nights meeting it would be a good idea to have wider consultation sooner rather than later.
What do you think Cllr kelly and anyone else who reads your blog?
Andy - I've no problem with that the document is in the public domain.
It's also the case that this project is a work in progress and it could change from what it is at present.
confused buddie - This is a good news story for the people of Ralston, St.Mirren and Renfrewshire. What we are seeing is the Lib. Dems. And the SNP desperately trying to turn it into a bad one, simply because their noses are out of joint because it's being done by the Labour Council.
My understanding from people who were there, is that some people had their eyes opened by what Mr. Sharkie had to say, he seems to have exposed Cllrs. McGregor and Lawson. They are clearly motivated by damaging Labour and they are quite prepared to use the good people of Ralston to do that.
Are you sure that your people were at the same meeting ??? Mr Sharkey failed to expose Cllr McGregor or Cllr Lawson, far from it, he made them look very good!!!!! I have voted Labour in the past but after last night definitely consider SNP or Lib Dem, if Labour Councillors carry on the way Mr Shakey did. As far as I have heard fom others who attended the meeting the Lib Dem & SNP Councillors were very well received , unlike Mr Sharkey who couldn't defend this deal very well.
confused buddie - You are confused indeed but we will see in due course who is right.
I maintain it's a Lib. Dem. SNP stitch up, the people of Ralston are being used by them, so what's new ?
"BIG JIM is it ? wow ! - I better be careful."
I'm flattered.
"The comments you have sent me make it very obvious that you're raison d'etre is to damage Labour."
One does one's best.
It is equally obvious that you are prepared to use anything, and anybody ( including the good people of Ralston ) to achieve this.
What the Hell are you on about? Indeed, what the Hell are you on?
Gomez - Using the people of Ralston for your own ends has touched a nerve hasn't it.
I still haven't a bloody clue what you're on about. Me, using the people of Ralston for my own ends? I made a joke about the chances of your buddy getting into the Ralston seat and you turn it into some political conspiracy? Jeez Terry, you really are paranoid, aren't you? Either that or you're really as stupid as you pretend.
What about the letter from Wendy Alexander MSP to Ralston residents. Is she not saying what the local community , SNP and Lib Dems were saying all along?????
Is it just the Labour Councillors who are out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent?????
confused buddie - you got one thing right, you certainly are confused, either that or politically motivated !!!!!
Typical politician, can't answer a question! Did Wendy embarrass you with her letter ?
confused buddie - absolutely not it's you who seems embarrassed here, or maybe it's as you say you're just confused.
Post a Comment