Newest article: Re: Never look at gift horse in the mouth by Stockingford BlueYesterday 13:39Yesterday at 13:39:29view thread
Oldest article: League leaders are "at home" tonight
by Unnamed Sauce9/9/2025 09:44Tue Sep 9 09:44:53 2025
1 personview thread
Next thread: Tom Tonks by Dougie 828/6 13:02Sun Jun 28 13:02:59 2026view thread
Vale view
Views: 857
Looks like the new council don’t think it’s suitable to have the new stadium there. More talks in July about it
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 741
Why should we expect a different outcome from our dealing with the local council than we got when looking for a ground when leaving Manor park? Twenty odd years ago there were more sites available than at present. They could not find us a site then, which meant us having to look elsewhere, and with the help ? Of a third party , Mr Robinson , we ended up at the ill fated Liberty Way. If , as seems likely, the issue has now turned political , then I would say that our hopes of getting a better outcome this time is Zero!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 665
The final hurdle to be cleared on the Planning Application would be a vote by the Planning Committee!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 648
We know. But if the offer of the site is withdrawn then that is immaterial.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 609
If there is divided opinion among the political parties at NBBC, that could have a bearing on the Planning Committe vote, when the time comes!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 597
If you read the article on the Cov Telegraph web site, the council themselves are putting forward the many challenges. Such as site access, traffic management, local infastructure , and the potential impact on the surrounding recidential areas. If the site owners, The Council, have reservations, then it would seem a forgone conclusion that it would never get to the planning stage.
Edited by Stockingford Blue at 22:43:14 on 22nd June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Vale view
Views: 557
IMO, they are all valid reasons to object, given the scale of the proposals.
Again, IMO, WCC Highways would be a major consultee.
They key driver for me is the underlying ground conditions & where the Engineers can find original ground?
I would have serious reservations about the potential amount of abnormal ground to be encountered in the construction & the extent of the exceptional costs arising?
It would be useful to carry out a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey across the entire site. That would identify any solid obstructions up to a depth of 3 metres, including finding out if there are any mineshafts that have been capped.
GPR Surveys are also used in preliminary Archeological surveys to find any potential items of interest.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 541
This is what's under the Vale View site -
Haunchwood road is bottom right next to the long gone Haunchwood house in the main drawing- the rubbish filled clay pit is above the.coal seams obviously.
https://largeimages.bgs.ac.uk/seadragon/mra-amps.html?id=00102XPO
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 521
This is what's under the Vale View site -
Haunchwood road is bottom right - the rubbish filled clay pit is above the.coal seams obviously.
https://largeimages.bgs.ac.uk/seadragon/mra-amps.html?id=00102XPO
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 522
The site was the ancient Haunchwood - in the later 19th century the Haunchwood brick and tile company excavated their second claypit there which was around 80feet deep. Underneath this claypit their existed workings of the Haunchwood Howells colliery whose shafts were behind the miners arms - they worked the slate and two yard seems just in from where the coal field outcropped at the surface where the Vale View houses now. The coal seems dipped towards the west and the Nowells pit shafts would have been around 600 feet deep. Then the clay pit was filled with household rubbish so the site has underlying issues but none of this should prevent light weight construction although costs may rise.
I see this site as a massive fight with local residents- it's access is poor into all ready constrained roads.
Mining abandonment plans for the whole of the UK are now available to view free online and Nuneaton is comprehensively covered with many plans for all local collieries including both Haunchwood pits, Griff pits, Stockingdord. Colliery and the Nuneaton collieries at Stockingford.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 500
The Main Stand will not be lightweight construction.
Any of the other stands that are erected, if of sizeable capacity, will not be lightweight construction.
It's not only the 'dead load' of the structures that count, it's also the live load of the people in the stands that count.
Also, stands have to withstand uplift in high winds, so the foundations not only need enough mass to transfer the column loads vertically to the bearing strata but also have to act as ground anchors.
At the other end of the scale, the new Trinity Road Stand at Villa Park is anchored into the ground with friction piles, to resist the uplift.
Edited by VoR at 21:21:57 on 22nd June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 461
Why do you always assume that you alone know how, and why basic construction works. The people running the club are exactly that; running the club. They know where they want to take the club, what is possible, and are realistic in dealing with the financial issues that are involved in getting the club back into the town. If Vale View, or any other site is made available then I am 100% sure that they will take into consideration all technical issues that are involved, and most importantly, consult with construction consultants , and local authority advisers as to what can, or cannot be achieved. Showing an interest is fine, but can you refrain from constantly telling the people who are actively involved with the club, how to do their jobs, and how they should be spending money.
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Vale view
Views: 467
This is a football forum, a vehicle for supporters to air their views.
No censorship!
Edit:
I was replying to AV, we are having a discussion.
Edited by VoR at 08:28:40 on 23rd June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 417
SUPPORTER
A Noun
a person who approves of and encourages a cause, team or an idea
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Vale view
Views: 476
We’re talking about a small clubhouse
and integrated main stand with a fence around the ground and a couple of small metal covers over a few steps of terracing not a huge cantilevered stand. The stands at Liberty way were light weight and they were a lot bigger than what will be built for the new club.
None of this will be sitting on piles - they’d have to be 60-80 odd
foot to reach solid ground through the fill.
And I’m fully aware the difference between dead and live loads. The money the club could source will pay for a very basic small ground which the plans indicate.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 474
That's not what FWP have designed, if you look at their Plans.
Town's stated intention is for the Vale View Stadium to be suitable for playing in the National League, with phased construction to eventually achieve that ambition.
4,000 capacity, including 500 seats.
250 lux floodlighting level.
The Main Stand is designed as a 500-seater, with 250 seats added at a future date.
It will include a Supporters Bar & Corporate facilities, all on two levels.
What you are proposing is akin to many of the football Stadiums that Town have played at over the past two seasons, mostly small community facilities, with a Clubhouse & small, lightweight pre-fabricated steel structures with metal cladding, all suitable for playing in the County Leagues, with minimum capacities.
This is Town's dilemma.
What they will build from the outset, at minimum cost & is affordable does not match up to their final aspiration.
That will have to be very carefully explained to the Planners.
Edit:
FWP's budget cost plan includes a provisional sum of £100k for Piling works.
It also makes no allowance for exceptional costs of remediating the existing site & dealing with abnormal ground conditions. Those costs are excluded at this stage.
That is why an extensive Ground Investigation Report is required, along with a Coal Authority site development appraisal.
Edited by VoR at 07:54:17 on 23rd June 2026
Edited by VoR at 07:56:44 on 23rd June 2026
Edited by VoR at 08:04:01 on 23rd June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 326
Is the land capable of installing rotating knives.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 327
There is a perfectly good site, Gala Field, situated in the sporting hub of Nuneaton, that has none of the problems faced by all of the many sites that have been named in the past.
Councillor Bannister is the recently elected Reform Ward Councillor for Attleborough.
He talks about NBBC doing everything reasonably possible to help Town return to Nuneaton that is also realistic & cites viablity & sustainability in his statements.
So, what's the problem!?
Offer Gala Field to NTFC & start negotiations!
Simples!
Just my thoughts!
Edit:
It's time for this Council to make better commercial use of Gala Field, it is a prime sporting development site.
Edited by VoR at 21:14:38 on 24th June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 309
That's a bit like a homeless family looking around and someone saying "Hey - there's a simple solution. Just offer them that house where VoR lives - that will cure their homelessness without complication." And, of course, you would just relinquish your right to your home and let them move in, wouldn't you?
Do you really not understand that someone else holds the lease to Gala Field. You may like it as much as you can, but unless one of the current tenants leaves and the demand for two pitches is dropped, it's a non-starter. So will you please stop prattling on about it?
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Vale view
Views: 327
I thought that the old running track had been leased to Nuneaton Harriers / Nuneaton Griff FC by NBBC. I could be mistaken of course.
Little by little.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 315
It has, but VoR's Gala Field tinted glasses won't let him see it.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 590
Well it’s a Councillor rather than the officers so he seems to have come up with this himself or been pushed by colleagues.
Previously the council cabinet agreed in principle to a lease.
Somebody is determined to kibosh this!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 545
Yes, you are right. Hence my previous comment regarding the withdrawal of the site.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 538
The site has to be commercially viable for Town.
The costs of the project could quite easily escalate as more information about the site becomes available.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Vale view
Views: 556
The cost of the site is immaterial if the site owners withdraw the offer of the lease!
Edited by Stockingford Blue at 18:55:10 on 22nd June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 527
If the Chief Planning Officer recommends that a satisfactory Planning Permission is granted, it shouldn't be taken as read when it comes to the Chamber & the Planning Committee vote.
The saving grace can be the Chairman who has the casting vote.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 540
Councillors can’t pre determine a planning application. Against the law so they can’t vote on party blocs. You are incorrect!
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Vale view
Views: 496
Planning commitee members also have to undertake a degree of training related to the planning system. Don't expect local councillors to go against their local residents though even if officers recommend approval.
I see the same issues as occurred with Jubilee centre - locals won't have the fuss and many were glad when manor park went. Football crowds equal noise, disturbance and potential anti social behaviour .
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 515
I am not suggesting a party bloc.
There may be enough like-minded opinion among a group of the Councillors to sway the vote.
There are 13 members on the Planning Committee, with the Chairman having the casting vote.
That's a lot of opinion!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 713
I think the optimism was,,, very optimistic
I believe the council “agreed in principal”. That cost nothing to say and meant nothing.
>>>> Former Nuneaton Boro fan <<<<
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Vale view
Views: 707
That’s true but I find it very hard to believe this is an “evidence led” change given the survey hasn’t been undertaken and the officers don’t have the resources. This is someone who has put a stop to it for their own reasons! IMHO
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Vale view
Views: 713
This was posted by VOR sounds quite good.
You can lead a horse to water!
If you don't ask, you don't get!
The Town & the Griff groundshare at Gala Field.
The Pingles Stadium is used for the Junior sides from both clubs.
Both clubs can apply for Grants.
Nuneaton Harriers stay happily as they are at the Pingles Stadium, without bring tied into maintaining Gala Field.
Just my thoughts!
Edit:
Avenue Road is on the ringroad.
There is an existing 4-way signalised junction serving the Pingles & Gala Field.
There is a good bus service.
It's only a 15-minute walk from the town centre.
The Planning Consultant could put together a good Travel Plan for the site.
If additional car parking is needed it could be built on the former 9-hole pitch & putt course.
Gala Field is screaming out for a 3G pitch.
If Town were invited to discuss building a new, modern Stadium on that site, I am sure that would promote more interest in the local business community & other potential investors?
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
LW
Views: 727
drive past it almost every day.
White elephant. A testament to the stupidity of many.
Such a waste.
We have a football ground ....that no-one is allowed to use for football.
Only in Nuneaton.
BUT: the toffs have a Paddel court in the centre of town. So it's not all bad news.
"Ignore" button coming up on this one, once the thread is hijacked.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: LW
Views: 545
Liberty way was a disaster for the club and support dropped - many manor park stalwarts stopped going due to the location. If town went back there the ceiling for the club would be lower. It may however be the only option in the long term.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 497
I'm not saying that LW was anything like MP. Although that was well past it's best by the time I kept being drawn back to it, the atmosphere in the CABE could still be terrific.
Like you ( I think) I'm saying that events taking us to LW were way out of the remit or control of most ordinary fans. The Cup runs, the Bloors sale-etc were all horribly mismanaged. Nevertheless, my family and I also had some fund days at LW too. It was not as homely, and not as central-but it was a base in the town.
Personally I would have preferred to develop MP and stay there.
However -as you conclude-it may be the only option in the long term. I can't see how it could happen in the current climate without a few lobotomies or at minimum a lot of heads banged together.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 646
Do wonder for how long the current owners of LW will want to keep it, expensive purchase with probably little return from the Rugby Club, would not be surprised if it does not go up for sale before too long
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 607
Who would have the money to purchase it?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 630
it was a relatively cheap purchase for cash compared to what it would be worth with planning approval. Smurthwaite didnt realise the potential. But all conditional on the Nuns agreeing ti release their covenant on the land.
So no chance of any sale at all in the medium term. Maybe in the longer term if the owners frustrated.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 554
It might be worth Town's Board considering putting together a consortium to buy the Main Stadium off the current owners.
They could then discuss a proper groundshare with the Nuns & look at installing a hybrid Desso Grassmaster pitch, suitable for playing both football & rugby.
If both clubs get on well as partners, they could then look at improving the pitches outside the Main Stadium & installing a 3G pitch.
There is a lot of potential for sport development on that site.
Just my thoughts!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 517
Buy the main stadium, the Nun’s clubhouse and access routes otherwise the old issues will return.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 520
They don't need to buy the Nuns Clubhouse.
Just the Main Stadium & negotiate accesses.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 426
And end up where we were before. No thanks
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 447
The Town & the Nuns could enter into a Joint Venture Partnership to further develop the sporting facilities at LW, there is a lot of potential.
Until Town's new Main Stand is built, they could use the Nuns Clubhouse.
Accesses to the site would also be shared.
The Nuns are a Members Club & have very little income through the turnstile, so such an arrangement could help them financially, with Town owning & maintaining the Main Stadium.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 414
Seeing as you are the font of all knowledge; why did that not work last time? Also, which bit of " We would not sell Liberty Way to the football club for a million pounds" gives you grounds for optimism?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 418
I don't think that comment made at that time is being considerate & respectful towards the Nuns.
Any future development of LW in whatever guise needs to show the Nuns the utmost respect.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 424
That comment was made at the time by the current stadium owner. How was thar disrespectful to the Nuns?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 420
Time passes very quickly, circumstances change, situations change, attitudes change.
I don't think any possibilities should be ruled out, particularly those that accord with NBBC's views.
I just don't think that comment is helpful to anyone, particularly the Nuns.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 447
If you do not learn from history , you will repeat the same mistakes.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 425
Yep which is why the Nuns won’t groundshare with the football club again after what was done to them last time.
Plus they now have a lease rent free
And the ground owner still has the potential to make ten times the amount of what he paid for the land.
So as I said earlier the only possibility for any of this is in the long term. Certainly not the short and medium term.
All focus should be getting NBBC to be more reasonable. And to push back against vested interests even if they are in the ruling party!
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 414
I feel that all of the goodwill with the fans that the new regime has generated since the demise would evaporate overnight if a return to LW was proposed. Just my thoughts.
Little by little.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 501
Only one problem with Liberty Way. The owner won’t sell it.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 512
Correct me if I am wrong but I think both of them are not youngsters.
It is usual for most sensible people to consider their pension planning, particularly as they get older.
I would expect them to sell the Main Stadium site at some point.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 402
Correct me if I'm wrong but only yesterday you said in reply to my post the LW ship has sailed. Now you are backing it.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 413
My preference, as you know is Gala Field.
The Pingles is the sporting hub in this town & a new Stadium there would, IMO, be complementary to the Athletics Stadium & the Leisure Centre.
I think the Town, the Griff & the Harriers, all working in partnership would have good possiblities.
That said, there must always be a hope for a return to LW, no how remote a possibility but it's a long shot at best.
I am not hopeful of seeing Town playing at LW in my lifetime.
Edited by VoR at 16:15:08 on 23rd June 2026
Edited by VoR at 16:15:40 on 23rd June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 411
How about a farmers field preferbly off Longshoot. That would suit me.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 389
you've got no effin chance
their building estates on every square meter.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 385
House builders usually get in there first
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 410
I give it you again " The Windmill "
clubhouse already on site with Town ( Boro ) teams using it
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 376
How much would it cost to build a stadium there?. A lot less than Vale View I would guess.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 409
It would. But you will still have the issues that the councelor has highlighted at Vale View. Access to site is off Mancetter road, which at that point is residential . The site has housing on two sides which was the major stumbling block when searching for a site in the past. When this issue was discussed in the past, I put forward Haunchwood as a site that I believe would not have such issues. The council, has put forward in a recent proposal , they have said they would like to place a new cemetery opposite the Haunchwood site. If this proposal is followed through , then the access road to the Hauchwood site woud be opened up again to two way traffic, thus enabling easier access to that site.
Edited by Stockingford Blue at 14:18:51 on 24th June 2026
Edited by Stockingford Blue at 14:20:20 on 24th June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 353
Different council up the windmill
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 333
Playing out of town do you mean ?
Little by little.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 332
Are you expecting to get a site close to the town then?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 362
Not at all. I don’t think we will get a site in Nuneaton and will end up at the Oval permanently and work with the council to develop it. Just my thoughts.
Little by little.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 302
The day it is confirmed that “ Nuneaton Town” will play at Bedworth Oval for ever would be the same day I would declare I had seen my final game.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 294
Why? If there was no other alternative i would rather have a club playing at the Oval than no club at all
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 248
Everyones allowed an opinion.
Personally, I can understand people not wanting to watch at the oval forever.
It's a good venue as a ground share with the view of returning to Nuneaton, but if it was the permanent home, you're not really representing Nuneaton- you're another Bedworth side.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 254
Of course you are still representing Nuneaton, you support your club wherever they play
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 288
During a ground share agreement- yeps.
If it becomes the permanent home- not so much.
We're all allowed opinions Davey, we can all see things differently...
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 276
With that attitude we would loose the club again
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 282
I'm sure he has valid reasons for making such a decision. Having to travel to Bedworth, although not very far, still makes it feel as though we are at an away game. If ,as seems likely, we stay there for the long term. Without match day income, we will find it increasingly difficult to be competitive. If that was the case then I believe quite a few others will make the same decision.
Edited by Stockingford Blue at 12:10:04 on 26th June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 307
I think if thats the only scenario then I think a merger would be best for both clubs.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 253
That senario has been discused on forum before. It was not well received then, and I don't think it would be accepted by many now. If the council are unable to find the club a suitable site back in town , then I suppose there are few options left . But a merger means that both clubs lose their identities, which to their respective supporters is unthinkable. Like others, I am quite happy that we have been given a team to watch again following the disastrous events of three years ago. However, had we not reformed I would not have taken my support to Bedworth, or any other club.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 277
Yes I agree ...
Bedworth are struggling financially ( so I believe ) I also think they wouldn't want a merger given our past record and the fears we would eventually take over the ground, change the name which would see the disappearance od Bedworth United.
But financially it makes sense for both teams
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 224
I believe that the Town playing permanently at the Oval would be the least problematic solution for NBBC.
I say that because in Councillor Bannister's statement he refers to a permanent home within the Borough (not the town?).
Any other option would put a great deal of emphasis/the onus on NTFC to back up their plans/ambitions/aspirations financially, in the long-term, given the Council have offered a 49-year lease on Vale View.
This will also be a requirement for any Grant applications, particularly with the Football Foundation, who have very strict conditions for awarding Grants.
So, what is NTFC CIC (limited by guarantee) Ltd's future succession plans, beyond the existing Board members, who will continue their hard work & dedication in future years/generations, to ensure the Club continues its progression?
No matter what the current opinion is about a merger between the Town & the Greenbacks, putting emotion to one side, practicalities might force both Clubs down that route at some point?
As a reminder, the 3G pitch at the Oval will need to be renewed in 10 years time & funds will need to be accumulated over that period, to pay for the work. I assume Bedworth United are planning for that requirement by continuing on with their Retention Fund?
Just my thoughts!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 200
"As a reminder, the 3G pitch at the Oval will need to be renewed in 10 years time & funds will need to be accumulated over that period, to pay for the work. I assume Bedworth United are planning for that requirement by continuing on with their Retention Fund?"
As long as we playing at the Oval as a separate entity, Beduff has an ongoing source of additional income it can save toward the next pitch regeneration.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 205
I agree.
NTFC are making their contribution.
Whether the existing arrangement is fair financially, who knows?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 217
What is the name of our club? Why are the club, and council , having dialogue? If you know the answer to these questions, and have read the statements released by both parties, then you surely realise that your post is irrelevant.
Bedworth replaced their pitch last year, without needing your advice on how to pay for it.
Edited by Stockingford Blue at 12:20:28 on 27th June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 203
Yes & those Board Members representing NTFC in those discussions/negotiations are each in turn a Person with Significant Control (PSC) & can be ultimately held accountable for their actions/decision making.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 231
And they don't know that?
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 255
Just a thought .... Has Town explored this option at any time, or has it always been " our own ground "
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 152
I think Bedworth might have something to say about that.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 168
All I was saying is ..... Did we ....
Look into any ground share agreement with anyone or was it always gonna be somewhere to play until we sort a permanent ground out for ourselves?
We must of known it was gonna take years and a very tall order to find somewhere.
Im not being negative its just reality...
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 173
Would the Pingles not be a feasible site for a stadium. Only used a couple of times a year for a fun fair. Plenty of land there.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 111
Thats a good idea, somebody as said before that the old running track was given to the Griff and why dont we ground share ,we will be back at Nuneaton close to the rail link and road transport ,we will not upset any neighbours either.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 70
I did not mean to share with Griff. I was proposing a new stadium on the land down near Avenue Road,
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 70
I do apolagise, must of misunderstood the message good call though .
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 74
The only viable site in my opinion.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 150
That is a good question. I know that in the past that was considered, but the council wanted us to incorporate a running track. This was considered an unsuitable option to the club because of the limitations that would impose. The council ,obviously, later built the pingles stadium to house the Harriers, and in more recent times to accommodate the Griff. There is still enough of the site left for the club, but our initial refusal may be a reason why the site is not being given as an option now.
Edited by Stockingford Blue at 12:27:06 on 28th June 2026
Edited by Stockingford Blue at 12:28:45 on 28th June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 157
I think the later. The Oval was convenient, and was of a standard that would allow progression. However, progression will stall with one more promotion.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 231
Fans forum on the 16th July, come and ask the question.
Im guessing it will be resounding 'no'
---
Hope is not a plan.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: LW
Views: 266
You're mistaking my question...
Was it ever explored particularly from day 1of Town and ruled out .... not.... could it be explored now?
Edited by Lord of the Manor at 12:22:58 on 27th June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 206
The Oval is a big site & is not restrained on two sides for further development.
IMO, it could be re-developed to National League standard.
The one drawback is the 3G pitch specification, which will need to meet National League/NLN requirements.
Refer back to the recent post by the Maidstone United supporter.
One rider I would put on that is that I believe the National League will eventually prevent the use of 3G pitches in the top division, to align themselves with the EFL.
Just my thoughts!
Edited by VoR at 11:35:51 on 27th June 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 245
That might be the only commercially viable move. Unpopular as it maybe.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 397
That may well be the case. I cannot think of anywhere in the town that does not have issues. The council may well be just giving lip servive to the club to give the impression that they are trying to help.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 326
Permanency at the Oval under current agreement is not viable for Boro long term. Alright if they want to stop at step 4 but with no income from beer and food sales anything higher would not be affordable. Need own club and catering facilities to be able to afford progression. The only way to increase income at present is to increase ticket prices, and you can only go so far with that. Be interesting to know how much Bedworth make at every Boro home game from beer sales and food.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: LW
Views: 331
Apparantly the club is losing approx £98,0000 from bar takings and food takings.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 298
You can’t lose what you don’t have. I think we might be staying at this level for a few years
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 298
That sort of loss is not sustainable long term. A lot of money to have to make up.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: LW
Views: 316
Yes. And that will be the case for the foreseeable future.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: LW
Views: 326
Yes, it is not in the long term interest of the club to remain at the Oval. However, without an alternative, the club will have to accept the situation they find themselves in.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: LW
Views: 324
a lot of very interesting views expressed
imo i think your post hits the nail on the head.
i cannot see how the club can compete at higher levels.
next season imo will tell us a lot
or a few home truths whichever way you want to take it.
i have absolutely no idea how the people running the club perceive the future/limits.
any ideas or plans/visions Mark ?????
your usually in the sensible " ballpark "
reply to this article | return to the front page
Previous thread: NBBC Playing Pitch Strategy by VoR28/6 16:07Sun Jun 28 16:07:16 2026view thread