Ellis's bid

[Union City Blue 0]

For the very good reason that the official applications and their recording are a lawful requirement, are you having difficulty in locating the alleged applications in the official and lawful register of said docs. Try sticking with the facts as they unravel, it helps towards the truth of matters.

 

You seem to be very well informed about the process of planning and publication of applications/consent. Do you think GCC might have acted unlawfully in this case?

 

And if that's not bad enough, equally worrying is that the council's Executive Committee was informed by its Executive Member for Planning and Regeneration that planning consent had been granted - while you're adamant that in fact it wasn't. I just don't know who to believe now.

[stewarty 1,878]

Anyone fancy a trip GCC's offices? It would seem to me that their website is both contradictory and not entirely up to date.

 

If nothing else, if Rangers made claims that permission was granted, outline or otherwise. Had it not been, I'm sure some official from GCC would be putting us all straight.

[wabashcannonball 0]

You seem to be very well informed about the process of planning and publication of applications/consent. Do you think GCC might have acted unlawfully in this case?

 

And if that's not bad enough, equally worrying is that the council's Executive Committee was informed by its Executive Member for Planning and Regeneration that planning consent had been granted - while you're adamant that in fact it wasn't. I just don't know who to believe now.

 

 

No m8 I am not adamant about anything, the records are.

+++++++++++++++

Rangers will say that they have played a straight bat with any interested parties, that they haven't made promises about development opportunities around Ibrox, that they never claimed that planning permission for massive retail outlets existed and that these details are all in black and white in their accounts. So why would Ellis be surprised about something that he must have already known? The best guess from their side is that Ellis is a 50-50 candidate. It may happen and it may not. These things are loaded with dangers, they always knew that.

 

This whole charade is getting to be just that, a mind numbing charade. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sos-sports-columnists/Tom-English-Sources-say-that.6168788.jp

Edited March 21, 2010 by wabashcannonball

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

Because the outline would have been more than likely verbal, and everything to be advanced if the fabled super casino became a bookies in downtown Govan, you gotta laff at what people will swallow, due dilligence my arse, it's all in the planning applications, or rather not, right here on our front door.

 

quick question, well, 2 actually (maybe 3).

 

1, would a prospective buyer need to go through the process of due diligance to find out if planning permission was already in place for land that was nothing to do with the 'item' (for item read property, company, organisation or land) that the buyer was interested in, or would the prospective buyer simply need to ask to vendor.

2, would a prospective buyer spend tens of thousands of �£'s before asking that question

3, why would somebody well versed in the processes involved in property development find himself surprised/put off by a lack of pre agreed permissions?

[maineflyer 0]

quick question, well, 2 actually (maybe 3).

 

1, would a prospective buyer need to go through the process of due diligance to find out if planning permission was already in place for land that was nothing to do with the 'item' (for item read property, company, organisation or land) that the buyer was interested in, or would the prospective buyer simply need to ask to vendor.

2, would a prospective buyer spend tens of thousands of �£'s before asking that question

3, why would somebody well versed in the processes involved in property development find himself surprised/put off by a lack of pre agreed permissions?

 

Tell me something .... do you support the Ellis ownership of Rangers?

[wabashcannonball 0]

quick question, well, 2 actually (maybe 3).

 

1, would a prospective buyer need to go through the process of due diligance to find out if planning permission was already in place for land that was nothing to do with the 'item' (for item read property, company, organisation or land) that the buyer was interested in, or would the prospective buyer simply need to ask to vendor.

2, would a prospective buyer spend tens of thousands of �£'s before asking that question

3, why would somebody well versed in the processes involved in property development find himself surprised/put off by a lack of pre agreed permissions?

 

I would have thought that any property developer worth the name would have checked the relevant codicils attached to any land before he or they spent ANY money, anyone can do it online, why would he be surprised to find out now that there is a wheel aff the barra, tells me he didn't even do the basics, another duffy it would appear. Why am I not surprised. Papers or other media can say what they like about planning, the only opinion that counts is the one on the planning application files, appears there isn't any.

In case you are traumatised by this latest development, no pun intended, we have been there before, but it was anything from �£250 million to �£700 million then, the only thing not included was the zips for the back o our heids.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2008/01/06/rangers-s-secret-700m-blueprint-for-ibrox-78057-20275903/

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Furfuxsake it's easy, if I can do it surely a 22 carat property developer would be able to do it. Agreements in principle are exactly that nothing more nothing less.

 

Prior to committing the substantial financial resources required to undertake the detailed

technical work necessary to develop a stadium precinct masterplan plan, and subsequently

applying for outline and/or detailed planning applications, RFC are seeking confirmation

that the Council would be willing to enter into an option agreement which would confirm the

availability of its land for the development.

http://www.glasgowcitycouncil.co.uk/committee_minutes/public/Documents/Live/Executive%20Committee/20084/1100_10_10_2008_2481_Report_Item%206.pdf

 

 

reference executive 422. http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/48242015-3DFC-44C9-8A4E-2E4DD832AF20/0/PRINT4200809.pdf

Edited March 21, 2010 by wabashcannonball

[Union City Blue 0]

All of which leads to an obvious conclusion - that this "planning problems" story is pure spin, put out there by people desperately trying to save face.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

Tell me something .... do you support the Ellis ownership of Rangers?

 

 

I will answer your question when you answer the question i have now asked you 5 times. or reply to my invitation.

[wabashcannonball 0]

All of which leads to an obvious conclusion - that this "planning problems" story is pure spin, put out there by people desperately trying to save face.

 

 

Tbe fair one newspaper did originally report the correct acquisition of planning procedure correctly.

 

"In Glasgow, Rangers were recently granted outline planning permission"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/nov/16/newsstory.sport8

 

 

ETA the whole thing appears to be a crock of shit, with Murray's paw prints all over it another manipulation of fans and facts, but there again he is the ultimate master of that. IMHO Ellis's participation is major fantasy, based on what he has very easily failed to uncover with regard to even the rudimentary planning details.

Edited March 21, 2010 by wabashcannonball

[stewarty 1,878]

Clearly discussions have been held and agreements have been made on some level. In fact, the minutes you referenced above had the following paragraph...

 

RFC had increased its overall aspirations for the site and had announced that it was assessing the

commercial viability of a number of development options, which included the

improvement/redevelopment of the stadium itself, the erection of additional conference/exhibition

facilities, the construction of new hotel accommodation, the construction of new public realm and civic

spaces and the construction of additional residential development, with these proposals being more

ambitious in scale and cost than the plans which currently had planning consent

 

Clearly there is more to it than we know currently.

 

After consideration, the committee......

noted that a further report outlining the full terms of the option agreement and the proposed development

timescales would be brought back to committee for approval in due course.

 

So, it would also appear that, given we haven't heard anything since then, we have not yet gone back with more detailed proposals. But what I take from all this is that there appears to be a genuine desire from GCC to assist Rangers in developing its proposals. Whether there has been detailed approved planning consent or not, I have to agree that the premise that this whole ' there is no planning consent' argument is just spin and semantics.

 

PS - Wabash - good digging!- I began to search for some documents but quickly gave up due to the shite nature of the GCC website search function.