Newest article: Don't think so by Unnamed SauceYesterday 21:47Yesterday at 21:47:15view thread
Oldest article: Yeovil 1 Boro 3 by Unnamed Sauce17/8/2025 19:41Sun Aug 17 19:41:54 2025view thread
Next thread: Remarkable by Vernon Slain25/11/2025 21:43Tue Nov 25 21:43:46 2025view thread
Treasurer's Report - October 2025
Views: 1352
Here is a link to October's Treasurers report:
https://www.nuneatontownfc.co.uk/news/treasuers-report-october-25
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Good work but:
Views: 1164
Stayaways and dreamers please note:
" The two home games in October pushed the average attendance up to 540, just 60 short of our “Operation 600” target. Hitting 600 would help us push towards our “Back to Nuneaton” target from matchday income."
Maybe a few more reluctant returners could help reach the Return goal more quickly? Just 60?
I'll get my coat.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 1097
600 is the figure needed to put the same amount into the "Back to Nuneaton" fund from gate receipts as we did last season, keeping us on the trajectory to hit the target of £150,000.
£150,000 is the estimate of what it would cost to get the project to planning stage. This won't be all paid out in one go.
Of course, one off donations and any external funding/grants would push us towards the required figure even quicker, but achieving "Operation 600" means we should have the funds available when required, as opposed to having to delay moving forward with the process whilst waitiing for the money to come in.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Good work but:
Views: 863
I have a niggle or two Lee over the Vale View Project. If a vendor is offering a piece of land to rent or buy with the intention of building a football stadium on it,why is the impetus on the buyer or leaseholder to determine that the piece of land is suitable for this ? And secondly,if the liability is on the buyer or leaseholder,does the projected cost of £150,000 say that the Vale View site is not the one to choose ? Especially if any report is detrimental to the FC.
Genuine questions to you Lee and not any attempt to have a dig,I have and will continue my support wheresoever.
Little by little.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 833
Two very reasonable questions:
1) the vendor (the council) are not offering a piece of land, we have approached them. If the council were to get the site through planning and build a stadium (at their cost), it would command a far higher commercial rent than the undeveloped land without planning consent that we are looking to lease.
The value of land to buy or lease varies greatly depending if it is undeveloped without planning consent, undeveloped with planning consent, or developed.
2) the worst case estimate of what it would cost to get Vale View to planning (£150k) is around £60k higher than a site without the claypit, landfill and mineworking history that Vale View has.
However, Vale View can generate additional income that would cover this extra £60k many times over. Of course, should the planning process undercover issues that would materially increase the construction cost to point that the site is no longer the most commercially viable site, we would need to re-visit the site preference.
This is why the council approved "Vale View or an alternative".
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 818
Thank you Lee. An enormous decision is hurtling along. Sincere best wishes.
Little by little.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Good work but:
Views: 917
My advice Lee would be to consider the costs associated with carrying out an Enabling Works Contract.
With a site of this nature, with potential historical land use issues affecting development, it is essential to firstly carry out the survey work necessary to determine the likely problems & then to assess the costs involved with remediating the site, to bring it forward for further development.
The surveys required would comprise the following:-
Coal Mining Risk Assessment.
Extensive Ground Investigation Survey.
Topographical Site Survey.
Also, advice should be sought from NBBC's Tree Officer to establish existing trees that may be subject TPO's.
These surveys should be commissioned by a Civil & Structural Engineering Consultant (appointed by the Club) who can then make recommendations, that in turn can be costed by a Consultant Quantity Surveyor (again appointed by the Club).
Only when the likely cost of remediating the site (via an Enabling Works Contract) is known, can a decision be made as to whether the site is commercially viable or not?
All of this work will need to be paid for by NTFC.
Edited by VoR at 20:53:58 on 21st November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 806
These are the exact studies I mentioned in my update.
We are also aware that the cost these studies would wipe out a large part of our funds, so there are several discussions under way to get these costs paid for us.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 782
It's not just the cost of the study work Lee, NTFC will have to pay for any remediation work.
That could be a serious commercial issue for the Club.
Edit:
I don't know whether you have approached the Coalfields Regeneration Trust but Stockingford is eligible for consideration for Grants, according to the site locator on their website.
Edited by VoR at 21:13:54 on 21st November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 813
It would only become a serious issue if we didn't have contingency plans in place ☺️
I'm quite happy to have a chat at a game sometime should you like to know more.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Good work but:
Views: 780
I think you have a duty to convince the supporters of the new Club that Vale View is the correct choice for the new Stadium, not me!
I know what is in front of you & the hurdles you have to overcome, more importantly the financial demands.
I only want the best for NTFC but you have only just entered a very long tunnel.
Edited by VoR at 21:45:01 on 21st November 2025
Edited by VoR at 21:45:51 on 21st November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 884
If you don’t consider yourself a supporter of the new club, why are you on here so often?
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Brilliant!
Views: 854
Well said.
I have my own theories on that but I am far too much of a gentleman to air them on here.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Brilliant!
Views: 793
It just makes no sense.
I don’t pretend to watch often, but am still interested in the team, the players, the scores, the memories, the ground plans (in a positive way, not thinking I know best way) and will watch whatever games I can when travel and family commitments allow, and consider myself a supporter with some merch etc!
If he doesn’t consider himself a fan, why bother commenting so frequently. It makes no sense whatsoever
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Brilliant!
Views: 862
To be fair I think he is interested as am I - and I have not watched a single game at the new club.
I do not believe for one moment that there is anyone who watches town now or who used to watch that doesn’t want the new club to be successful.
We all have our reasons for either backing the new club by watching or staying away.
Personally it’ll take far more than a a couple of promotions from village leagues to convince me the club is viable. There is no doubt that this new incarnation seems to be doing everything right this time off the field but it’s early days yet and for me personally there are still unanswered questions from one or two at the new club that were involved with the last failure. That’s not to say it was their fault but for me the third financial collapse since 1990 has left a bitter taste. The first time Boro were saved at the last minute - the second time IN liquidated the club and the third time- we we all know how that ended up.
Rebuilding the towns football club will take time but trust also needs rebuilding because at the end of the day people spend their hard earned supporting it.
My own personal opinion is that despite having a population to support a high level no league club, the town just does not back the Institution in sufficient numbers to make the thing viable without a big investor. And getting locals to trust the thing with their cash each week ain’t easy when you consider the mayhem the club has offered for many years.
Fair play to those who still carry a torch for it by backing it at the turnstile
but I don’t believe for one minute that any lapsed supporters who are still pissed off after yet another collapse don’t wish the institution well.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Brilliant!
Views: 838
The best option for NTFC at the moment (IMO) is to plan for a long stay at The Oval (a minimum of another 5 years) & allocate funds to pay for works to upgrade the Stadium to Level 7/Step 3.
That will give the supporters the comfort of knowing that the new Club's future home in the short-term is guaranteed.
If the Town can secure a further 5-year Agreement (with a 10-year Option) to stay at The Oval, they can also apply to the Football Foundation for Grants to upgrade The Oval to Level 7/Step 3, if improvement works are necessary.
That will take the pressure off chasing the dream at Vale View.
Again (IMO) once the cost of remediating the Vale View site to bring it forward for Development has been properly costed, following the study work that needs to be undertaken & paid for by NTFC, the possibility of building a new Stadium on that site can be assessed as to whether it is commercially viable.
In the meantime, at least they can still continue to build a future at The Oval.
Edited by VoR at 19:06:44 on 22nd November 2025
Edited by VoR at 19:10:56 on 22nd November 2025
Edited by VoR at 19:12:13 on 22nd November 2025
Edited by VoR at 19:13:37 on 22nd November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Brilliant!
Views: 767
Really, VoR? You think we should pay to develop a stadium where we are not even the main tenants? That is financial madness. Let's just pretend that we agree another 5 years with Bedworth. We pay to build a better stand, put cover at both ends and enhance the floodlights. Maybe we can gain a couple of promotions in that time. Then we come to negotiate another term - and Bedworth say "Hey, it's a much better stadium than before - the price has to double". In the meantime, of course, we have used all the funds that we had raised toward our own stadium. Madness to even think of that route!
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Brilliant!
Views: 729
Exactly what happened to Poole Town.
After a few years moving from ground to ground (including Bournemouth) they moved to the county ground. However they needed to spend money to get it to SL standard. They did, only to get evicted soon after.
Actually - happened to a club locally that played at Liberty Way.
The club built an adequate stadium, made some improvements and then split the ground from the club. As they did not pay the rent they were evicted.
>>>> Former Nuneaton Boro fan <<<<
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Brilliant!
Views: 758
Technically, if NTFC gain another promotion, then both the new Club & Bedworth United will be playing at Level 8/Step 4, although the Greenbacks look to be struggling to maintain that status at the moment (I hope they stay up!)
The Oval currently has a ground-grading for Level 8/Step 4.
It would then be necessary (arguably) for NTFC to apply for a new ground-grading at The Oval for Level 7/Step 3.
That FA inspection will reveal if any upgrading work needs to be carried out.
Then comes the tricky bit, who pays for those works?
You have to assume that as it is only NTFC who want to progress, then it is reasonable that they pay for the works.
As an aside, to successfully apply for a Football Foundation grant requires a minimum 10-year lease.
IMO, these discussions need to be had sooner rather than later.
It could come down to a case of 'needs must?'
Edit:
Level 7/Step 3 requires segregation to be in place.
Edited by VoR at 12:20:41 on 23rd November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Brilliant!
Views: 662
None of this is tricky regarding Bedworth Oval.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Brilliant!
Views: 694
You have been posting (Junk) on here for quite I while now so how have you missed the fact that the main raison d’etre of the new club is to move back to Nuneaton.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Brilliant!
Views: 769
Level 7 is southern league premier.
If/when either club get to that level it’s going to be a massive step up to get to conf-north.
In fact, I would say getting to conf north too quick would be a massive set back.
Look at SLP now - Stourbridge look doomed. Old adversaries like Kettering, bromsgrove, Worcester and Redditch are hardly dominating.
In NPL - A club like FCUM have struggled to get higher.
>>>> Former Nuneaton Boro fan <<<<
Edited by VS Boro at 13:18:48 on 23rd November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Brilliant!
Views: 728
You can forget all about NTFC playing at Level 6/Step 2 (NLN) for the foreseeable future.
If my suspicions are correct about The Oval's new 3G pitch (my question about the specification has never been answered) then that Stadium is only suitable up to Level 7/Step 3.
The new Stadium proposal at Vale View is for Level 8/Step 4 with a future upgrade to Level 7/Step 3 plus a 'throw away' comment in FWP's Feasibility Report about 'future proofing' the new Club.
In Ian Cook's recent radio interview, he suggested a start of construction works on the Vale View site at the end of 2028 (3 years away), IMO, that would be a good result.
So attention in the short-term, IMO, needs to focus on the ground-grading at The Oval.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 1144
I know its just me, but moving to VV is just pandering to the walking part time useless so called fans and boozers of stockingford, far more travelling for me and most others.
It will never get planning permission there IMO.
This will result in less attendance from me.
I wont buy a season ticket there.
But then I'll be dead in next 10 years anyway.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
V V
Views: 1034
Tbh not a great option for me either. Whereas LW The Oval and even at a push MOP were/are all easier to get to.
I've just had the misfortune to drive from Attleborough and up through Whitestone. Always hellish after dark but often complicated by strange 4 way sets of temporary traffic lights like those I got stuck at this morning near the cemetery. Protecting one small pile of mud on the verge. Fortunately I knew enough alternatives to avoid the latest Gridlock on the way back.
The thought of an evening drive across town, I agree, is a daunting one. Easy on paper but I would need to set off about 6pm for an evening k.o.
Being utterly selfish, LW or The Oval are a doddle for me.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: V V
Views: 905
My Dad & I were season ticket holders for 3 years whilst we were at Liberty Way. Based in Galley Common and Stockingford, we would drive down to Liberty Way for Saturday and evening games. It was never really a problem, I recall frequently going down Donnithorne Avenue en-route to avoid the main bulk of the traffic.
Yes, my Dad took me down to Manor Park when I was a kid, which was only a mile away, but LW was a trek.
Ironically, I grew up in Randle Road, which is spitting distance from Vale View. I admire the new club's optimism, but it's going to take an effort to get it up and running. All the very best to them all however, they are actually out there doing something, kudos to them all.
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: V V
Views: 922
I just asked CoPilot a series of questions relating to the new ground debate and it answered:
Vale View is the most practical and strategically aligned option for these reasons:
Council Support: It’s already under active consideration by Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council for a long-term lease to Nuneaton Town FC.
Space Availability: Large enough for a full-size stadium (5,000 capacity), a ¾ training pitch, and parking.
Lower Legal Barriers: No conflicting long-term leases like Gala Fields has.
Community Fit: Preferred by the club and positioned for grant funding opportunities (FA, Football Foundation).
Fair enough!
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: V V
Views: 988
It's actually not bad. About 15 minutes drive from Whitestone.
I did it every Wednesday night from June until the clocks changed to drop my son at Vale View for football training.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: V V
Views: 999
Agreed. If I left the Whitestone Shops at 18-55 on a Tuesday Night I would be at Vale View at 19-10 to 19-15 Depending on how I caught the (Permanent) Traffic Lights.
Trouble is 6 Minutes into the Journey I would be Thinking:-
If I was going to LW I would be Parked up by now.
12 Minutes into the Journey I would be at Abbey Street (Morrisons) or Manor Park.
But to complete my Drive to Vale View I've still got to Drive 3 Quarters of a Mile up Tompkinson Road at 20MPH.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 703
Yes I agree, not an easy route to Vale View from that side of Nuneaton
Tomkinson Road is very busy and the junction with Croft Road by the canal bridge is awful, a bottleneck and not fit for purpose.
Cutting down Northumberland Ave is an option, but that has a bad junction with Croft Road aswell.
Vale View great if you live in Stockingford or Camp Hill though as it's walkable.
Can see a lot of local residents who live nearby objecting to the planning application though sadly.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 716
The traffic flows at the Tomkinson Road/Croft Road junction & the Greenmoor Road/Croft Road junction will be of concern to WCC Highways.
Also, the traffic flows down Northumberland Avenue.
For example, a possible solution would be to signalise those junctions & to properly co-ordinate the signalisation.
Works like this would form part of a Section 278 Highways Works Agreement, which would be a Condition of the granting of a satisfactory Planning Permission.
They would have to be paid for by NTFC, as would any other highways improvement works deemed necessary/instructed by WCC Highways.
All of this will become apparent when NTFC have commissioned & paid for a Traffic Impact Assessment & carried out local traffic studies.
It appears that Dynamic Transport Planning are already onboard. They have contributed to FWP's Feasibility Report that has been presented to NBBC.
WCC Highways move at their own pace & they are a very important Consultee.
Also, National Highways will be consulted. They are interested in the impact a new Stadium at Vale View would have on the A444/M6 Junction 3 & the A5 Corridor.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 748
How will 400-500 people turning up in stockingford when I would wager a large majority are from the area for 3 hours affect the A5 or the M6 junction 3
😂😂😂😂 your funny
Retired Boro fan
Tottenham and Austin FC sufferer
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 724
Traffic conditions will be considered by the Planners, according to the intended maximum Stadium capacity, based on the Traffic Impact Assessment & Local Traffic Survey Data.
Also, with reference to the details presented by NTFC in their resultant Travel Plan.
The choices on Stadium capacity are as follows:-
Level 8/Step 4 - 1350
Level 7/Step 3 - 1950
Level 6/Step 2 - 3000
Level 5/Step 1 - 4000
EFL levels 2 to 4 - 5000
It should be borne in mind that WCC Highways requirements/restrictions could possibly determine the maximum size of the new Stadium at Vale View.
That's why a top quality Travel Plan, well thought out, could help to mitigate the effect matchday traffic will have on the local area.
Edit:
It cannot be assumed that a large percentage of the support will come from the Stockingford & Camp Hill area.
The Travel Plan needs to cater for supporters travelling from all parts of the town & the wider area.
Edited by VoR at 09:27:19 on 24th November 2025
Edited by VoR at 09:32:44 on 24th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 570
How will 10-20 cars travelling to the Whitestone area from Stockingford departing at different times for potentially a 30-60 min period window have any affect on the A5 or m6 junction 3 at around10pm on Tuesday night ?
Retired Boro fan
Tottenham and Austin FC sufferer
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 628
This how consultants make so much money.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Eureka!
Views: 720
You have answered your own questions, grasshopper.
They make (made) their money by repeating long lists ad nauseam with lots of long words embedded in them, intended to frighten the uninformed and/or gullible. In the hope that someone will then pay them eventually, to lead us all out of the darkness and into the Promised Land. It's a power thing.
As we all grow older we also grow less useful. Some of us can accept that fact gracefully and with dignity. Some cannot.
Even though he admits to no longer supporting the club, he still wants to be needed. He still needs to be wanted.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: V V
Views: 656
All of this Consultancy work will have to be paid for by NTFC & the Reports/Proposals submitted as part of the Planning Application.
NTFC already have Consultants onboard, they have contributed to FWP's Feasibilty Report.
I assume FWP have introduced those Consultants to NTFC.
Edit:
A good Travel Plan is crucial.
Edited by VoR at 17:04:57 on 24th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 540
The project consultants will be employed by other consultants in consultation with the clubs consultants no doubt.
I havn't been consulted about this yet though my consutants will consult with the clubs consultants to keep me informed.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 597
That's not forgetting the other Consultees.
Nobody has mentioned the Statutory Authorities yet!?
Electricity, Gas, Water & Telecoms.
What assets/infrastructure do they have in the area. Do they have sufficient capacity to service the new Stadium. Does it need upgrading.
More cost?
Has anyone made any enquiries of the Stats?
Edited by VoR at 21:43:08 on 24th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 490
How on earth have otter clubs built new stadiums.
>>>> Former Nuneaton Boro fan <<<<
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 556
The amount of spare time you have why don’t you enquire ?
Retired Boro fan
Tottenham and Austin FC sufferer
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 610
The amount of shit talked will require extra large sewers.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: V V
Views: 631
I need to go to Asda in town and then pop over to the Ricoh
Sounds like that might be a absolute disaster to do in a few years - working at magna park I might need to consider that aswell it seems
Luckily I can work from home - huge relief with all that additional traffic coming
Retired Boro fan
Tottenham and Austin FC sufferer
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 635
You make writing drivel a full time occupation. I have got to the stage where I just ignore your posts. Life is too short to read such nonsense.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: V V
Views: 671
Get a life man! , stop spamming us with the same shit over and over.
Does all this make you feel clever?
You are just retired and bored aren't you?
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: V V
Views: 760
We all know it will not be easy wherever we find a site. The only sites that do not pose residence problems are on industrial sites; like Liberty way. Since the club are restricted to sites offered by the local authority they have little say in where such sites will be. The club faced this problem when moving from Manor park, hence the purchase of land off the nuns. The club do not have the funds to facilitate such a move now.
As regards the traffic and or highways problem . What impact will over two thousand extra cars have on Heath end road when the Arbury estate site is developed? You can bet your pension that development will get the go ahead regardless of local opposition! !
Edited by Stockingford Blue at 11:00:41 on 24th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: V V
Views: 998
Its ok to travel to Middlesbrough on a Tuesday night though.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 1040
That narrows it down a bit then ....
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 980
Unfortunately we are dealt with a situation where options are scarce and I assure you we don't have the luxury of being able to pander to anyone.
As a matter of interest, what location wouldn't result in your attending less?
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Good work but:
Views: 866
Just a thought, but has anybody thought of liaising with the Griff & Harriers, and create a community stadium for Nuneaton at Gala Fields?
A facility with a 3G pitch could be booked out also, benefitting the Leisure Centre, it could be a cash cow. I know it's been covered so many times on these threads, but there's space there for infrastructure and for parking. The accessibility is decent (with an alternative road in from the small industrial estate for emergency vehicles etc.)
If there isn't a chance, then it's a huge shame. It's next to Attleborough so plenty of pubs, within walking distance of the town, on bus routes, as mentioned space for parking, a training facility, expansion, and both Griff & Boro play in blue and white!
It could be something, we, as folk from Nuneaton (the largest town in Warwickshire & no sporting stadium as such) could be seriously proud of.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 839
Apparently NBBC will not allow any construction on Gala Field, as it provides a clear boundary between Attleborough and Coton (or so I'm led to believe). I was told that they will not even allow a fence around the football pitches.
Oh - and please don't start the Gala Field debate again. We have enough trouble on that front from another poster who won't shut up about it!
Edited by Greg (NBFC) at 09:56:03 on 21st November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 835
It's such a shame that these restrictions are in-place. What an ideal location.
Thanks, I just wanted clarity on the situation. Yes, I know it's been covered so many times but in amongst all the noise, I don't think I ever actually learned why it couldn't be considered.
What a saga, reminds me of the old Elliott Park debacle!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 864
It's also tenanted by Griff and used for junior football. It is not free for us anyway.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 987
Bedworth oval or Liberty way.
Lee, love all you guys have done but VV is a no hoper, you wont get permission and the NBBC, will be gone under local gov re org. Suggest you get a deal with Bedworth for next 5 years.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
Edited by BoroughPod at 17:43:12 on 20th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 841
It should be borne in mind that The Oval only currently has a ground-grading for Level 8/Step 4.
If work is needed to bring the Stadium up to Level 7/Step 3 standard, it will have to be paid for by someone?
Level 7/Step 3 requires segregation.
Segregation requires facilities for Away fans.
Yes, it is very realistic that the Town would need to remain at The Oval for another 5 years.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 925
Will the Boro Council begone under the local government reorganisation?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 819
Yes by 2028 latest, all borough councils in warwickshire (and elswhere) will be gone.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 1124
Was told we budgeted on 300 att. So anything over went to back to chavsville fund.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 1106
Of course,to achieve an average of 600 would require more than a one-off increase of 60. Just a thought.
Little by little.
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Yes but
Views: 951
You know exactly what I am saying.
Come out from behind the keyboard and go watch a game is what I'm saying to anyone who wants change more quickly than it is happening at present.
For those who don't want to do that-fine. Individual choice. But pretty pointless imho to keep banging on and on and ON about new developments and EFL floodlights if not prepared occasionally to make a practical contribution.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
What's the Incentive?
Views: 938
To go & attend a game. Current Individuals running the FC have done a Fantastic job - Could not have been done better.
Wasting a very hard earned 150K on getting Vale View to Planning is not a great aspiration. It will then be Defeated at this Point by Objections from Residents.
Get a long Term Agreement to stay at the Oval or at a push, look if there are any possibilities of Returning to LW.
If some Sceptics attend more we get to the Point of Wasting 150K quicker. What's the Incentive?
Regular Posters on here do not want Vale View. Don't worry - it will never happen, but some Organisations will be made better off by getting it to Planning.
The longer it takes to raise the 150K the better, it means that Reaching the Point of Reality has a better chance of happening, thus avoiding a Massive waste of hard earned Cash.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: What's the Incentive?
Views: 951
The first priority is to obtain a Coal Mining Risk Assessment, followed by an extensive Ground Investigation Report.
That will effectively spend most of the 'Back to Nuneaton' funds presently accumulated.
That will determine whether the site is commercially viable & will be money well spent.
It will also determine whether it is worth continuing to pursue a satisfactory Planning Permission.
The Ground Investigation works will cause temporary major disruption to the use of the sports pitches that exist & will require remediation works, which will likely be at NTFC's cost.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Yes but
Views: 947
I'm a SC member and don't remember being consulted on a ground location.
Apologies if wrong on that.
See you all at Lutt on Sat, a truly awful ground, sorry LTFC.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Good work but:
Views: 1024
We have a few high profile fixtures coming up shortly along with Xmas , new year and Easter Saturday fixtures all being well with a league title run in that and hopefully still involved come March April , this could push that figure towards 600 in the coming weeks and months hopefully
Achievable in my opinion but I’m always a half full type of fella
reply to this article | return to the front page
6 people
Previous thread: Vase by Lord of the Manor I'm24/11/2025 13:23Mon Nov 24 13:23:31 2025view thread