John Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 The option of the IOMG taking the bowl of the hands of the Corpy was put forward and really would have been the best approach, but it seems that it was not an option. Its a shame really as in 10 years, the Bowl will still be an un-used, run down and shabby could have been. If the Govt owed it all that would change is that it would not be run down and shappy. I expect it would remain under used as they barely use the pitch in the middle of the NSC. The idea that it would be used nightly for training sesions for kids is a nonsense as they would insist on protecting the surface. As I said before if they want the latter far better to build a few decent training pitches with flood lights around the island either linked or or seperate from existing clubs. It was to have an astro pitch and there where plans to utilise it ... still its a shame, but I can see people's reasoning for voting against Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Does anyone know how much the Douglas Corporation receive in Rates from the current NSC operations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 That's the kind of question needs asking. Any answers councillor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Ten Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 How about seeing who voted which way?I'm sure someone knows. I am with you on this one, I want to see who the nodding Council dogs were! Why should we as ratepayers of Douglas pay for this twice i.e through our rates and our taxes. Well done to all the Councillors for voting against this non essential nicety Last Ten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxmann Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Well done Douglas Corporation, using your heads for a change. Whats up with Onchan Park Stadium, could that not be a cheaper option. I fully agree with Thanku, I am sure Onchan Stadium could be developed quite cheaply , and wouldn't cost to the taxpayer as much, as would be required to sort the Bowl out,and the difference being that Onchan being more far sighted would appreciate the development, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Does anyone know how much the Douglas Corporation receive in Rates from the current NSC operations? Surely the question should be how much does it cost to run the NSC and how much of that is funded by the public through entrance fees etc., the Corpy and IOMG? I was a proponent of amalgamating local and national government, but the Corpy's decision makes me think that perhaps local tensions end up delivering the right decision. My main concern was that the decision for the IOM to host the games was dependent on certain facilities being available. If they are not, then lets do it within our current capabilities, with a little polish and presentation certainly. As for spending more on sports facilties, I think there are fantastic facilties already here. But nothing for the non-sporty (not lazy or lethargic) members of the community. There are no family recreational facilities at all now. No where to go as a family and have a bit of fun, lark around and have a good evening out. To promote activity, you don't really need to promote competitive sports, just family based leisure. All we have is the cinemas (one a dirty flea-pit), swimming (too cold for that) and ..... please remind me. Or have I missed something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Looking forward to Ramsey Bowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 How about seeing who voted which way?I'm sure someone knows. I am with you on this one, I want to see who the nodding Council dogs were! Why should we as ratepayers of Douglas pay for this twice i.e through our rates and our taxes. Well done to all the Councillors for voting against this non essential nicety Last Ten Why would voting in favour make me a nodding dog? I enjoy sport and the benefits it brings to life. The bowl will now just be an run down could have been. In 10 years time, it will still be there no better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Why would voting in favour make me a nodding dog? I enjoy sport and the benefits it brings to life. The bowl will now just be an run down could have been. In 10 years time, it will still be there no better. I understand that the pitch and drainage could do with being improved, better toilet facilities and general renovation/maintenance of the standing arears. I do not understand why it needed to be rebuilt with 3,000 seats under cover except for the common wealth youth games. That to me was where the complete waste of funds was whilst providing absolutely nothing in terms of grass roots sports and what they require to play the games. I also understand that floodlights would be useful to get year round use however I have grave concerns that again they would be a white elephant and little used to protect the pitch I could not see that the FA would be happy for hordes of kids to have training sessions during the dark wet winter nights. I hear mention of an astroturf pitch to aleviate this but then you no longer have a stadium with a grass pitch. In my view this was the correct decision from the facts I have seen as I have yet to see any real evidence that we have a demand for a 3,000 all seater stadium for the odd football match when it it appears rare that many football matches are watched by even crowd that even breaks into three figures. Finally as I said before if it was a good deal for Douglas Corp to put up 50% of the money as they owned the stadium why are Government not willing to put up that 50% in return for ownership of the stadium. If Govt are not prepared to I do not see why Douglas Corpy should be expected to and I write this as a non Doouglas rate payer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 The question has to be asked, why did we put in a bid to host a high profile event when we haven't even sorted out the infrastructure required. If the games are centred around the bowl as it currently is, we are going to look like a pretty half assed 'country', again! This is not to say that the councllors made the wrong decision, but were they advised in advance of the financial requirement and did they agree in principle? My feeling is that somehow the bowl must be upgraded or this will be an embarrasment to us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 intresting information on the the effect of govenment funded buildings and the like. something like for every £1 the govenment put in it makes £2.50GDP and brings back £0.56 to the govenment in taxs doc from page 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 what credit crunch ? Our esteemed representatives (?) the Bucks Road gang have got upset (cos nobody's going to spoil their party) and threatening Douglas Corpy with pinching their bowl if they don't cough up with their pocket money. Things never change, nobody's going to kick sand in their faces, (except Westminster) "we are the government" whether there is no moneyin the coffers or not, and yet again it's the 'land-grab' syndrome. I would rather see a properly funded hyperbaric chamber than a high-felluting football field, all for 22 people chasing a bag of wind around a field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 what credit crunch ? Our esteemed representatives (?) the Bucks Road gang have got upset (cos nobody's going to spoil their party) and threatening Douglas Corpy with pinching their bowl if they don't cough up with their pocket money. Things never change, nobody's going to kick sand in their faces, (except Westminster) "we are the government" whether there is no moneyin the coffers or not, and yet again it's the 'land-grab' syndrome. I would rather see a properly funded hyperbaric chamber than a high-felluting football field, all for 22 people chasing a bag of wind around a field If this goes through and my MHK votes for it they can kiss my vote goodbye at the general election. Whether or not it is a good idea, when we are being preached to about savings, tightening belts etc it just sends out the wrong message and will only lead to potential problems in the future as everytime the Govt try to negotiate with the unions, staff or anybody about wether something is affordable and expectations should be cut back the first thing that will be mentioned would be the money spent on the Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy One Mate Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Let the Bowl go!!!!!!!! Why dont government spend their 1.7M on the NSC dosent that stand for NATIONAL SPORTS CENTRE. Isnt there a football pitch in the middle, floodlighting, covered seating and toilets. With their money they could easily pay for the plastic pitch in the centre. Oh their is also a nice running track that could be used for all the teams to parade around. Am I missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Is there not a question that is not being asked --- and should be. In view of the desperate financial situation that the Isle of Man now finds itself in should the Isle of Man not now withdraw it’s hosting of the games completely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.