I wouldn't have thought so because the work has actually started as a result of them signing it off. I wouldn't have thought it legal to be able to cancel the funding several weeks after work has actually started on site. Also the 4m from the NWDA for remediation work I believe is a loan and not a grant, if that makes a difference I'm not sure?

Just wondering though if this decision could affect St Helens because they also have an agreement but they haven't actually started their remediation work? They have started with some roundabout but haven't demolished the old buildings yet to allow them to start with the remediation.

It is. I've worked on grant awarding projects in the past where we've had to pull funding that we'd offered to businesses because someone at regional level had done their sums wrong and the purse holder was clawing back what they could. Where I currently work we've also had to lose members of staff because funding has been pulled from projects that are already underway. It's usually a caveat in the smallprint.

You are referring to grants though, this is an agreed loan.

I would think it's more likely that funding for work that hasn't started will be pulled first. The cost of the remediation work so far must be in the region of £650,000 if you consider 4m for 6 months work. That would be a lot of money for local government to write-off.
e.g. We will cancel that 4m loan and it will cost us about £650K at local government level, false economy for the government surely?

Are you sure that the remediation is a loan? I thought it (or some of it) was NWDA contaminated land grant funded. The stadium construction (or again, a portion) will be local government loan. For what it's worth, I think we'll be ok as the contact was awarded in the last financial year.

I have my own manufacturing business in Rochdale & secured a 3 part grant for investment in people & equipment, our first payment was given in the middle of last year securing 22 jobs through the NWDA. The second & third part of our grant already approved is now under threat, we know we have lost the third phase but think with all cuts, even though the second phase has been approved we believe is also about to be cut.

Good old Tories, the buffoon Pickles was on the other day saying they would not scrap RDAs if businesses in the region want them, but then went onto say they would like more localised control, ie city against city, which proved so counter productive in the past for the regions.
Ask Bandwagon Dave to help he worth £30m and still claiming £1079 a month mortgage payments, even though he's got a rent free home in Downing Street.

Just like to say that I think your stadium's progress is coming on fantastically well!! Really well done to all involved and I can't wait to watch Wakey play against you in it.

I'm wondering though, is there a "Green" or Sustainability policy that goes with the construction and future operation? If you look at Wembley or the Olympics there tends to be a big emphasis on these issues, so I'm just wondering if this has been factored into your stadium.

Cheers!

The seats are green.

Hahaha

Always a good thing

I think a few of us may disagree with that!

Seriously though, the design and access statement has a lot of stuff about habitats an ecology as there's a brook/wildlife corridor running through the site and the ship canal near by. I think there was some work on sustainable drainage but that may have been the former design. There's also talk of public transport links and cycle storage (just need that cycle lane on the M60 now). The main text related to general sustainability is...



It's a bit thin and non-commital in my opinion. I'd suggest that rainwater harvesting should be a no-brainer on a new build with large roof areas, as should PIR controlled lights throughout and a general building energy management system.

So long as these measures are long-term net revenue positive and not just a costly sop to enviro-mentalists.

I have been informed that the seats will not be green... This isn't my word... just a word from somebody at the club. Just passing on the info I heard... not my word... so it could still be wrong.

Did see Wilky the other day at Brooklyn DIY in Walkden stocking up on tins of red paint.

Oh excellent, cheers for that Iain! That's a great help, much appreciated. Have you got a link to this?

Cheers

Oh hang, I've found it, cheers!

Any more Top Gear related cliche's for us?

That's the entire point of them despite the paranoid stories that the likes of the Mail and Express peddle to cretins.

No, the point of them is to buy off enviro-mentalists who don't like to see progress.

I expect a cost-benefit analysis of "rainwater harvesting" for example has not been done. These devices are best utilised on a large scale to benefit from existing terrain, local climate and economies of scale - and are usually called reservoirs. As a club we can't be throwing money on expensive sops to lobbyist groups

or a large water butt to maximise rain runoff from the stadia roof which could then be used to water the pitch. Mind you if it is installed by United Utilities it will most likely have a number of holes in it allowing for leakage.

You really haven't got a clue have you? Many stadiums and new stands around the country have installed rainwater harvesting and the energy saving measures I mentioned without even publicising it (hence not to pander to the greens) because the measures save them money. Last time I checked, neither water nor electricity were free. I did some work with a league two football team recently and they were desperate to reduce the bill for irrigating the stadium pitch and two training pitches, but they'd worked out that due to the topography of the stadium site it would cost an arm and a leg to retrofit rain gathering facilities to an existing sand, but if they were to replace the stand, it would barely cost any different - hence new builds being the ideal opportunity to work this sort of thing in.

As for the "enviro-mentalists who don't like to see progress" comment - that's wonderful irony from a post arguing against utilising new technology.

Well unless we can see the cost-benefit analysis I suppose we'll just have to take your word for it. Energy-saving devices are fine so long as they are revenue positive, but they usually degenerate into a green sop with white elephants such as windmills and solar panels that will never be profitable without hugely inefficient subsidies from taxpayers (who end up paying more for energy as a result - lose lose).

Any names for the staduim yet.

Do you get all your information from Jeremy Clarkson?

Anyone know what happened to the memorial garden to house the many ashes sprinkled on the pitch?