Brighton's American Express Community Stadium unveiled (From The Argus)

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Won't the "large logos" require another planning application? Especially as the building, which at the moment is just a set of struts rather than the one in the picture, was meant to "nestle" in the Downs. Perhaps the sponsor should have been "Nestlé"...

censored wrote:
Wow. That's beautiful and the "large logos" on the exterior can surely only enhance this architectural gem.

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Won't the "large logos" require another planning application? Especially as the building, which at the moment is just a set of struts rather than the one in the picture, was meant to "nestle" in the Downs. Perhaps the sponsor should have been "Nestlé"...

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Won't the "large logos" require another planning application? Especially as the building, which at the moment is just a set of struts rather than the one in the picture, was meant to "nestle" in the Downs. Perhaps the sponsor should have been "Nestlé"...

taes84 wrote:

Christophe Hawtree wrote: Won't the "large logos" require another planning application? Especially as the building, which at the moment is just a set of struts rather than the one in the picture, was meant to "nestle" in the Downs. Perhaps the sponsor should have been "Nestlé"...

Another boring comment.......... What a pointless argument u make, have you not thought that all things take time.... A stadium isnt going to go up over night is it............ Like ive said before.......... time to move on instead of complaining, the stadium is going to be there, the Goverment accepted it...... The security word is very app for this - Same-Beat (hopefully ill get broken record next)

Easy 10 wrote:

Christophe Hawtree wrote: Won't the "large logos" require another planning application? Especially as the building, which at the moment is just a set of struts rather than the one in the picture, was meant to "nestle" in the Downs. Perhaps the sponsor should have been "Nestlé"...

Oh get over it you cantankerous old cackbadger. Do you submit a planning application when you paint your house ? Or hang an England flag out of your window ? The days of planning apps and public enquiries are OVER. The club and the fans won, the NIMBYS lost, and the proof is in that "sets of struts"...sorry, perhaps you mean wonderful gleaming white arches and graceful stands, which now stand resplendent in that scrubby little field. VIVA AMEX

Easy 10 wrote:

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Won't the "large logos" require another planning application? Especially as the building, which at the moment is just a set of struts rather than the one in the picture, was meant to "nestle" in the Downs. Perhaps the sponsor should have been "Nestlé"...

Oh get over it you cantankerous old cackbadger. Do you submit a planning application when you paint your house ? Or hang an England flag out of your window ? The days of planning apps and public enquiries are OVER. The club and the fans won, the NIMBYS lost, and the proof is in that "sets of struts"...sorry, perhaps you mean wonderful gleaming white arches and graceful stands, which now stand resplendent in that scrubby little field.

VIVA AMEX

stinky pete wrote:
"The Argus broke the news last month when it discovered an internet domain name linking the two had been registered."

That's a bit cheeky, I don't think you can take the credit for that.

Old Dog wrote:
Should have gone to specsavers! Looks like the Eeyore Eyesore to me!

mark by the sea wrote:

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Won't the "large logos" require another planning application? Especially as the building, which at the moment is just a set of struts rather than the one in the picture, was meant to "nestle" in the Downs. Perhaps the sponsor should have been "Nestlé"...

go look at it, obviously you not ventured out of hove? or look at the clubs own photos!
great deal for the club.. add the money from amex, to the euro and FA grant plus the road money for the club and the future is bright, any idea when first concert is planned? fat boy slim?

cheezburger wrote:
Thats not an image of the stadium, its a mock -up of what the stadium might look like. Artists impressions always make me laugh.

cheezburger wrote:
Thats not an image of the stadium, its a mock -up of what the stadium might look like. Artists impressions always make me laugh.

Sheil wrote:
Why oh why does the Albion have so many KNOCKERS-it's unbelievable!Persona lly I feel very grateful for Tony Bloom & Amex.Do other clubs suffer with such derrogatory comments I wonder?

Number Six wrote:
I still think it should be called The Council Tip. That is what you associate with seagulls and sh1t, after all

Cap'n Pugwash wrote:

stinky pete wrote:
"The Argus broke the news last month when it discovered an internet domain name linking the two had been registered."

That's a bit cheeky, I don't think you can take the credit for that.

"The Argus got this news from a popular Albion forum last month when it revealed an internet domain name linking the two had been registered."

There-fixed it for you.

Hillbilly Bob wrote:

Easy 10 wrote:

Christophe Hawtree wrote: Won't the "large logos" require another planning application? Especially as the building, which at the moment is just a set of struts rather than the one in the picture, was meant to "nestle" in the Downs. Perhaps the sponsor should have been "Nestlé"...

Oh get over it you cantankerous old cackbadger. Do you submit a planning application when you paint your house ? Or hang an England flag out of your window ? The days of planning apps and public enquiries are OVER. The club and the fans won, the NIMBYS lost, and the proof is in that "sets of struts"...sorry, perhaps you mean wonderful gleaming white arches and graceful stands, which now stand resplendent in that scrubby little field. VIVA AMEX

I love this comment. I cannot wait to go to a game in the new stadium. Hoping to get tickets soon.

chipmunk77 wrote:

Hillbilly Bob wrote:

Easy 10 wrote:

Christophe
Hawtree wrote: Won't the "large logos" require another planning
application? Especially as the building, which at the moment is just a
set of struts rather than the one in the picture, was meant to "nestle"
in the Downs. Perhaps the sponsor should have been
"Nestlé"...

Oh get over it you cantankerous old cackbadger.
Do you submit a planning application when you paint your house ? Or
hang an England flag out of your window ? The days of planning apps and
public enquiries are OVER. The club and the fans won, the NIMBYS lost,
and the proof is in that "sets of struts"...sorry, perhaps you mean
wonderful gleaming white arches and graceful stands, which now stand
resplendent in that scrubby little field. VIVA AMEX

I love
this comment. I cannot wait to go to a game in the new stadium. Hoping
to get tickets soon.

hahaha, cantankerous old cackbadger!
best comment on here so far!
no doubt he'll have to go count all the plug sockets at the stadium
just like he did at the Jubilee library!
security words: moany-to$$wit!

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
Brilliant news. Looking forward to my going to my first game at The Amex.

davyboy wrote:

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
Brilliant news. Looking forward to my going to my first game at The Amex.

me too! it has to have a name, so why not the name of its sponsor. you have the emirates, the galpharm, so what is wrong with the american express community stadium. some people really need to get a life!

Old Dog wrote:
Should have gone to specsavers! Looks like the Eeyore Eyesore to me!

Old Dog wrote:
Should have gone to specsavers! Looks like the Eeyore Eyesore to me!

Plantpot wrote:
How about the "Failed the planning enquiry but sits in three Labour marginals" stadium? Or the "What persuaded the Minister to give permission that wasn't discussed in public at the enquiry?" arena. Or even the "Why weren't LDC allowed to have jurisdiction over their own land?" ground.

Cap'n Pugwash wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
How about the "Failed the planning enquiry but sits in three Labour marginals" stadium? Or the "What persuaded the Minister to give permission that wasn't discussed in public at the enquiry?" arena. Or even the "Why weren't LDC allowed to have jurisdiction over their own land?" ground.

My god-even now you people still churn out the same old cr@p and lies don't you?

If it failed the planning enquiry what are they doing building it? Please read this slowly so you might finally understand: The were two Public Enquiries, the 2nd one needed because the first one wasn't conducted properly. Got that now? As for your suggestion that there wasn't public discussion about EVERY aspect of the planning process-shows exactly how ill-informed, bitter and out of touch you pathetic NIMBYs are. Anyway, like tens of thousands of pro-stadium supporters we don't give a sh1t what your prejudiced NIMBY minds think. There IS a stadium nearing completion and you have to learn to live with it.

Plantpot wrote:
How about the "Failed the planning enquiry but sits in three Labour marginals" stadium? Or the "What persuaded the Minister to give permission that wasn't discussed in public at the enquiry?" arena. Or even the "Why weren't LDC allowed to have jurisdiction over their own land?" ground.

Christophe Hawtree wrote:

chipmunk77 wrote:

Hillbilly Bob wrote:

Easy 10 wrote:

Christophe
Hawtree wrote: Won't the "large logos" require another planning
application? Especially as the building, which at the moment is just a
set of struts rather than the one in the picture, was meant to "nestle"
in the Downs. Perhaps the sponsor should have been
"Nestlé"...

Oh get over it you cantankerous old cackbadger.
Do you submit a planning application when you paint your house ? Or
hang an England flag out of your window ? The days of planning apps and
public enquiries are OVER. The club and the fans won, the NIMBYS lost,
and the proof is in that "sets of struts"...sorry, perhaps you mean
wonderful gleaming white arches and graceful stands, which now stand
resplendent in that scrubby little field. VIVA AMEX

I love
this comment. I cannot wait to go to a game in the new stadium. Hoping
to get tickets soon.

hahaha, cantankerous old cackbadger!
best comment on here so far!
no doubt he'll have to go count all the plug sockets at the stadium
just like he did at the Jubilee library!
security words: moany-to$$wit!

The allegation about the sockets was an outright lie by Councillor David Smith for which he was officially reprimanded. I cannot bring myself to speak to him again.

I am right to point out that the stadium is not yet finished. And many a shop front requires planning permission when it is changed. As for the "large logos", one need only cite the case of the Conservatives rejecting the mural which Community Base wanted on its wall by Queen's Road. Will the Conservatives reject the "large logos"?

My original post did not express an opinion about the stadium, but was interpreted that way by the defensive Albion supporters.

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Exactly. That was thirty seconds' work. And the point is: why are there all those sockets in the floor when, as a recent report states, the overwhelming public concern is that there should be more books and shelves.

Councillor David Smith is also, of course, notorious for declaring, in reply to a Question about, er, music libraries, that he wishes he could challenge me to a duel. I do not know if this might liven up the opening match at whatever the stadium gets called.

Beethoven wrote:
What are folks quibbling over ? This is great News!
To have such a pestigious sponsor, known the world over is a real coup.

Frankly, I would have thought that they would only have been interested in a Premier League club, if at all.
The money will be a help and it is onwards and upwards for The Albion...

Plantpot wrote:
How about the "Failed the planning enquiry but sits in three Labour marginals" stadium? Or the "What persuaded the Minister to give permission that wasn't discussed in public at the enquiry?" arena. Or even the "Why weren't LDC allowed to have jurisdiction over their own land?" ground.

Plantpot wrote:
How about the "Failed the planning enquiry but sits in three Labour marginals" stadium? Or the "What persuaded the Minister to give permission that wasn't discussed in public at the enquiry?" arena. Or even the "Why weren't LDC allowed to have jurisdiction over their own land?" ground.

Masterchav wrote:

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Exactly. That was thirty seconds' work. And the point is: why are there
all those sockets in the floor when, as a recent report states, the
overwhelming public concern is that there should be more books and
shelves.
Councillor David Smith is also, of course, notorious for declaring, in
reply to a Question about, er, music libraries, that he wishes he could
challenge me to a duel. I do not know if this might liven up the
opening match at whatever the stadium gets called.

So you
DID count them then?

Christophe Hawtree wrote:

Masterchav wrote:

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Exactly. That was thirty seconds' work. And the point is: why are there
all those sockets in the floor when, as a recent report states, the
overwhelming public concern is that there should be more books and
shelves.
Councillor David Smith is also, of course, notorious for declaring, in
reply to a Question about, er, music libraries, that he wishes he could
challenge me to a duel. I do not know if this might liven up the
opening match at whatever the stadium gets called.

So you
DID count them then?

The way in which Councillor David Smith wrote his letter was deliberately to give readers the impression I had gone round and counted every socket in the building rather than point to that mysterious floorbound set of hundreds of sockets. And for that he was officially reprimanded. He seems to live in a rage.

Masterchav wrote:

Christophe Hawtree wrote:

Masterchav wrote:

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Exactly. That was thirty seconds' work. And the point is: why are there
all those sockets in the floor when, as a recent report states, the
overwhelming public concern is that there should be more books and
shelves.
Councillor David Smith is also, of course, notorious for declaring, in
reply to a Question about, er, music libraries, that he wishes he could
challenge me to a duel. I do not know if this might liven up the
opening match at whatever the stadium gets called.

So you
DID count them then?

The way in which Councillor David Smith
wrote his letter was deliberately to give readers the impression I had
gone round and counted every socket in the building rather than point
to that mysterious floorbound set of hundreds of sockets. And for that
he was officially reprimanded. He seems to live in a
rage.

David Smith living in a rage? At least he doesn't make
regular, irrelevant and personal attacks on Councillors in the Argus.

Plantpot wrote:

Cap'n Pugwash wrote:

Plantpot wrote: How about the "Failed the planning enquiry but sits in three Labour marginals" stadium? Or the "What persuaded the Minister to give permission that wasn't discussed in public at the enquiry?" arena. Or even the "Why weren't LDC allowed to have jurisdiction over their own land?" ground.

My god-even now you people still churn out the same old cr@p and lies don't you? If it failed the planning enquiry what are they doing building it? Please read this slowly so you might finally understand: The were two Public Enquiries, the 2nd one needed because the first one wasn't conducted properly. Got that now? As for your suggestion that there wasn't public discussion about EVERY aspect of the planning process-shows exactly how ill-informed, bitter and out of touch you pathetic NIMBYs are. Anyway, like tens of thousands of pro-stadium supporters we don't give a sh1t what your prejudiced NIMBY minds think. There IS a stadium nearing completion and you have to learn to live with it.

I'm afraid that is utter codswallop. The stadium failed the only enquiry held to consider it, and it was managed by two inspectors. The second enquiry was highly irregular, and greeted with great surprise by planning professionals - it had nothing to do with mismanagement whatsoever. It was clearly held because politically the first enquiry reached the wrong conclusion. The Minister used their discretion to ignore their own planning laws. The first planning approval was withdrawn because it was based on the wrong facts - even after months of deliberation. I do rejoice in one fact though - I will never set foot in the place, like the vast majority of people from B&H.