Taylor in training ground U-turn (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

before we all get excited and start reading something into this that isn't there, I suggest you all read about this on the official website as the above doesn't seem to include the finer details such as the fact that the Uni of L666ds 'moved the goalposts' after the original deal was struck and wouldn't move them back.
Roll on 7th August!

odd as Lawn had said the deal had been done several weeks ago.

Have the facilities such as decent changing rooms been improved then?

Come mid winter and flooded fields at Apperley bridge are there any alternative training pitches available?

some great potential signings:no Grant mentioned though. I thought he had potential and one who got the ball, knew what he was doing unlike the headless chicken: aka Daley.

I'm sure if PT wants to, the board will continue to persue this, as obviously there are limitations at Apperley Bridge. Let's hope this can be resolved to suit everyone, and ideally somewhere in our own city or boundries. Is there anyone out there with such facilities in mind..?

And it took untill the day we restarted training to discover this?

Why wasn't all this sorted out earlier and why no mention of looking elsewhere?, As usual incompetance and smoke and mirrors rule in the boardroom at VP, They take the fans for fools altho to be honest you can't blame them because most are and will believe anything the club tells them

This is a bizarre decision at this late stage.Having listened to Michael Flynn's pre-resigning radio interview degrading the Apperley Bridge facilities I wonder how many other players were "conned" before they committed their futures to City?

FAO Chatty ,

Clearly you have some issues with the club. To make the statement of incometance and smoke and mirrors is the normal practice of the boardroom is harsh to say the least without facts.

I am happy to meet with you to discuss in full Peters reasons for withdrawing from Weetwood and any other matters that seem to be bothering you. Feel free to call me on my mobil 07866 606476 or email at the club for an appointment my email is davidbaldwin@the-ban
tams.co.uk

Remember we are fans and we all want want is best for Bradford City Football Club.

Regards

David Baldwin
Director of Operations
Bradford City FC

david baldwin wrote:
FAO Chatty , Clearly you have some issues with the club. To make the statement of incometance and smoke and mirrors is the normal practice of the boardroom is harsh to say the least without facts. I am happy to meet with you to discuss in full Peters reasons for withdrawing from Weetwood and any other matters that seem to be bothering you. Feel free to call me on my mobil 07866 606476 or email at the club for an appointment my email is davidbaldwin@the-ban tams.co.uk Remember we are fans and we all want want is best for Bradford City Football Club. Regards David Baldwin Director of Operations Bradford City FC

David, it would be more benificial to know what steps are being taken to rectify what is a real issue, as most of us prefer to be optimistic - that's why we follow City!!!!.

chatty23 wrote:
And it took untill the day we restarted training to discover this? Why wasn't all this sorted out earlier and why no mention of looking elsewhere?, As usual incompetance and smoke and mirrors rule in the boardroom at VP, They take the fans for fools altho to be honest you can't blame them because most are and will believe anything the club tells them

That's a bit harsh to attack the mentality of our fans, but I do understand where you are coming from regarding the late change of plan.

My concern, when I read the above (and that on the official website) is that the training ground management team changed the goalposts, probably at the last minute, leaving us in the lurch.

However, why wasn't the contract drawn up and signed by both parties months ago? Had the contract specifically mentioned what we could/couldn't do and when we could/couldn't use the facilities, then neither party would have been able to change their minds at the last hour.

Peter Taylor made this one of his biggest priorities and here we are, on the first day of pre-season, back at Apperley Bridge. It wasn't good enough when he took over, so why is it acceptable now??

My biggest concern is that there is absolutely no mention of any other venues we could talk to, or that we will even bother trying!!

We are in discussions with various parties about alternate plans for a training ground.This involves a number of parties and at this stage there is nothing more I can add to this.

Rest assured an improved training facility is top of my priority list and I dont want to affect any onging discussions with 3rd parties while we are still in the early stages.

I hope that sits ok with you in respects to the fact that we are not going to let this drop away.

david baldwin wrote:
We are in discussions with various parties about alternate plans for a training ground.This involves a number of parties and at this stage there is nothing more I can add to this. Rest assured an improved training facility is top of my priority list and I dont want to affect any onging discussions with 3rd parties while we are still in the early stages. I hope that sits ok with you in respects to the fact that we are not going to let this drop away.

I appreciate this, and having spoken with you at an open day once, got the feeling that you are very much involved as a fan as well as someone who works for the club. Wishing you (and all) the very best in your endevours for next season and beyond.

Some interesting comment and clearly the club read these forums and are clearly rattled by what chatty has stated. I do not think he expressed himself very well but we were all told several weeks ago that the deal had been signed off and from memory it was a five year lease. So had the lease been signed off at our end but not at the other end or was it truly signed off in the accepted meaning of that phrase. If so has the landlord reneged from a signed agreement? Clarification is required from City especially as this was a central plank in Taylor's aim to get us out of the division. Do we have a signed agreement or not. Lawn seemed to indicate we had but PT says not? clarification required

I understood that the Leeds facilities included use of a gymnasium for weight training etc. If that is correct then where will that fitness work now be done. I apologise if my understanding is incorrect but clearly more needs to be told to the supporters about this sorry situation.

Are the club going to try resurrect a form of gymnasium in the shop building? I suggested this as a possibility before as that building is not entirely used at present.

With the cut backs announced recently it is doubtful the council will be spending additional money at Apperley Bridge or will be able to provide suitable facilities within the city so how is PT going to achieve the fitness levels he demands of his players.

As Waynus says the move to better facilities was central to PT's plans for the future of the club:he sounds optimistic that he can make do with obviously second rate training facilities but will this adversely affect us later in the season?

I think this deserves further detailed comment from the club.

I am still very optimistic for the future as PT has gathered a decent crop of players with youth intermingled with experience

david baldwin wrote:
We are in discussions with various parties about alternate plans for a training ground.This involves a number of parties and at this stage there is nothing more I can add to this. Rest assured an improved training facility is top of my priority list and I dont want to affect any onging discussions with 3rd parties while we are still in the early stages. I hope that sits ok with you in respects to the fact that we are not going to let this drop away.

David

Supporters appreciate your swift response to this article. We are reassured that Apperley Bridge appears to be a temporary arrangement.

After all it was Mark Lawn who stated in April" The training ground is the one thing we've been a little bit slack over the years.If I'd been chairman when we were in the Premier League, I'd have got it done then."

All the best for the forthcoming season.

I don't understand why the board were even brought into this discussion when it is PT himself who has said he isn't now happy with the availabilty of certain areas of the facilities at certain times. It is a reflection on Mr Baldwin that he has come forward to try explain a little more so fans don't get too dismayed at this recent turnaround. As with any business they will not ruin ongoing negotiations regarding resources or targets they are in discussion with/about. And why do fans really need to be involved or concerned about something the manager has in hand is quite firm about? Apperley Bridge will be a temporary arrangement until a new, more functional training facility is available.

I am very pleased to see a direct response from the club to these issues. This is much appreciated David. Is this a new strategy from the club to be involved in these forums for the forthcoming season. If so, we realize you are a very busy man, but this would be a wonderful gesture from the club, to keep the true fans updated on the major issues. Once again thank you for your time and Come On City !!

I think Chatty23 may be Junction23 or at least related, from the bbc message boards, i.e. a huddersfield fan.

By the sounds of it the club have done the right thing, Weetwood wanted to change the arrangement which didn't suit us so we told them to get stuffed and look elsewhere. Perfect common sense and no smoke and mirrors or excuses from the club, just the truth.

There are a number of pretty good training facilities within travelling distance of Bradford so provided the arrangement is right I can't see it taking long to fix somethign else up.

Peter Taylors number 1 priority......"WE MUST GET AWAY FROM APPERLEY BRIDGE"!!
NOW......Taylor says....Hes happy to stay......as the groundsman is a "City supporter" oh.....and he works hard??!!
YOU CANT MAKE THIS STUFF UP!!
But as someone has already stated......DONT WORRY THE CITY SUPPORTERS WILL SWALLOW IT!!
And just to make sure you do......we can all talk to Mr Baldwin!!!

bradfordmark wrote:
I am very pleased to see a direct response from the club to these issues. This is much appreciated David. Is this a new strategy from the club to be involved in these forums for the forthcoming season. If so, we realize you are a very busy man, but this would be a wonderful gesture from the club, to keep the true fans updated on the major issues. Once again thank you for your time and Come On City !!

GET OFF YOUR KNEES!!
The reason Baldwin is responding, is because the whole business makes Taylor and Lawn LOOK STUPID!!

David if a statement had been released at the same time as the return to Apperly Bridge about it being temporary it would have cleared up any confusion.
Good luck for next season and I hope we all will be singing from the same song sheet minus vuvuzealas lol

david baldwin wrote:
We are in discussions with various parties about alternate plans for a training ground.This involves a number of parties and at this stage there is nothing more I can add to this. Rest assured an improved training facility is top of my priority list and I dont want to affect any onging discussions with 3rd parties while we are still in the early stages. I hope that sits ok with you in respects to the fact that we are not going to let this drop away.

Cheers David. As always, you have come forward and been has open as the situation allows. It may not seem it, but your efforts are much appreciated (well, by the majority anyway).

Fans were obviously going to be restful when Taylor's priority goes belly-up and we end up back at first base. However, it is good to know you are still actively seeking a new venue.

My only issue is that a contract was not drawn-up and signed by both parties weeks ago (when agreement was first reached). Had that been the case, Weetwood would not have been able to change the goalposts or if they had, we could have sued for breach of contract or (worst case scenario) been able to sort out a replacement well before the start of pre-season.

Thanks again.

tyker wrote:
Some interesting comment and clearly the club read these forums and are clearly rattled by what chatty has stated. I do not think he expressed himself very well but we were all told several weeks ago that the deal had been signed off and from memory it was a five year lease. So had the lease been signed off at our end but not at the other end or was it truly signed off in the accepted meaning of that phrase. If so has the landlord reneged from a signed agreement? Clarification is required from City especially as this was a central plank in Taylor's aim to get us out of the division. Do we have a signed agreement or not. Lawn seemed to indicate we had but PT says not? clarification required I understood that the Leeds facilities included use of a gymnasium for weight training etc. If that is correct then where will that fitness work now be done. I apologise if my understanding is incorrect but clearly more needs to be told to the supporters about this sorry situation. Are the club going to try resurrect a form of gymnasium in the shop building? I suggested this as a possibility before as that building is not entirely used at present. With the cut backs announced recently it is doubtful the council will be spending additional money at Apperley Bridge or will be able to provide suitable facilities within the city so how is PT going to achieve the fitness levels he demands of his players. As Waynus says the move to better facilities was central to PT's plans for the future of the club:he sounds optimistic that he can make do with obviously second rate training facilities but will this adversely affect us later in the season? I think this deserves further detailed comment from the club. I am still very optimistic for the future as PT has gathered a decent crop of players with youth intermingled with experience

Did it ever say that contracts had been signed Tyker? I thought it had said we had an agreement for new training facilities, but that is significantly different to signing a contract.

Can you confirm?

shaun from richmond wrote:

bradfordmark wrote:
I am very pleased to see a direct response from the club to these issues. This is much appreciated David. Is this a new strategy from the club to be involved in these forums for the forthcoming season. If so, we realize you are a very busy man, but this would be a wonderful gesture from the club, to keep the true fans updated on the major issues. Once again thank you for your time and Come On City !!

GET OFF YOUR KNEES!!
The reason Baldwin is responding, is because the whole business makes Taylor and Lawn LOOK STUPID!!

Well said bradfordmark. Shaun, get lost and go support your local team Darlington as I've suggested before!

I seldom comment on here but watch what is being said with great interest and intrugue. I would like to applaud db for providing genuine feedback from the club. Some might say we are only being given snippets of what is actually occuring but tbh I'd rather be drip-fed truth as apposed to wild speculation and heresay. Hats off sir, more of the same please.

CTID

Bingley Chicken wrote:

shaun from richmond wrote:

bradfordmark wrote: I am very pleased to see a direct response from the club to these issues. This is much appreciated David. Is this a new strategy from the club to be involved in these forums for the forthcoming season. If so, we realize you are a very busy man, but this would be a wonderful gesture from the club, to keep the true fans updated on the major issues. Once again thank you for your time and Come On City !!

GET OFF YOUR KNEES!! The reason Baldwin is responding, is because the whole business makes Taylor and Lawn LOOK STUPID!!

Well said bradfordmark. Shaun, get lost and go support your local team Darlington as I've suggested before!

CHEERS CHICKEN!!

Waynus71 wrote:

tyker wrote:
Some interesting comment and clearly the club read these forums and are clearly rattled by what chatty has stated. I do not think he expressed himself very well but we were all told several weeks ago that the deal had been signed off and from memory it was a five year lease. So had the lease been signed off at our end but not at the other end or was it truly signed off in the accepted meaning of that phrase. If so has the landlord reneged from a signed agreement? Clarification is required from City especially as this was a central plank in Taylor's aim to get us out of the division. Do we have a signed agreement or not. Lawn seemed to indicate we had but PT says not? clarification required I understood that the Leeds facilities included use of a gymnasium for weight training etc. If that is correct then where will that fitness work now be done. I apologise if my understanding is incorrect but clearly more needs to be told to the supporters about this sorry situation. Are the club going to try resurrect a form of gymnasium in the shop building? I suggested this as a possibility before as that building is not entirely used at present. With the cut backs announced recently it is doubtful the council will be spending additional money at Apperley Bridge or will be able to provide suitable facilities within the city so how is PT going to achieve the fitness levels he demands of his players. As Waynus says the move to better facilities was central to PT's plans for the future of the club:he sounds optimistic that he can make do with obviously second rate training facilities but will this adversely affect us later in the season? I think this deserves further detailed comment from the club. I am still very optimistic for the future as PT has gathered a decent crop of players with youth intermingled with experience

Did it ever say that contracts had been signed Tyker? I thought it had said we had an agreement for new training facilities, but that is significantly different to signing a contract.

Can you confirm?

the inference was that it had been signed:if it did not say it had been signed apologises but then why did Lawn make the statement in the first instance: with the time you have you will no doubt be able to research the original item and maybe you could produce it as it appeared initially.

But then in my posting you will see that I asked for clarification but then......... you ignore that point--I state "Do we have a signed agreement or not. Lawn seemed to indicate we had but PT says not? clarification required. I understood that the Leeds facilities included use of a gymnasium for weight training etc.................
.............."

chatty23 wrote:
And it took untill the day we restarted training to discover this? Why wasn't all this sorted out earlier and why no mention of looking elsewhere?, As usual incompetance and smoke and mirrors rule in the boardroom at VP, They take the fans for fools altho to be honest you can't blame them because most are and will believe anything the club tells them

Chatty23 you make a valid point of asking why it's taken until the day we restart training to sort this out and no one can say things behind the scenes at VP have ever been transparent!!
Glad to see there's still idiots on here who are quick to suggest you dont suppport the club just because you have a different point of view.
Anyway back to todays issue, i seem to remember that Marley Stadium had decent pitches and facilities, although it is some years since i was last played there!! Can anyone on here comment on their current state and their suitability?

nice flat playing surface followed by a hot shower what more do they need,poncey **** facilities wont make em play any better, i hope mr baldwin does post reguarly on this site and stop all this ****,if,when,who,bu
t,rumour,bloke down the pub said c,mon city.

shaun from richmond wrote:
Peter Taylors number 1 priority......"WE MUST GET AWAY FROM APPERLEY BRIDGE"!! NOW......Taylor says....Hes happy to stay......as the groundsman is a "City supporter" oh.....and he works hard??!! YOU CANT MAKE THIS STUFF UP!! But as someone has already stated......DONT WORRY THE CITY SUPPORTERS WILL SWALLOW IT!! And just to make sure you do......we can all talk to Mr Baldwin!!!

Shaun, why don't you post YOUR mobile number and email on here so's David can contact you directly on these matters....!?! Cough Cough...!!! And yes it is DB's mobile number as I've spoken to him on that number myself, just in case you doubt anything else that comes out of Valley Parade!! CTID

All the players looked happy at Apperley Bridge today, some fans will moan about anything, simples.

tyker wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

tyker wrote:
Some interesting comment and clearly the club read these forums and are clearly rattled by what chatty has stated. I do not think he expressed himself very well but we were all told several weeks ago that the deal had been signed off and from memory it was a five year lease. So had the lease been signed off at our end but not at the other end or was it truly signed off in the accepted meaning of that phrase. If so has the landlord reneged from a signed agreement? Clarification is required from City especially as this was a central plank in Taylor's aim to get us out of the division. Do we have a signed agreement or not. Lawn seemed to indicate we had but PT says not? clarification required I understood that the Leeds facilities included use of a gymnasium for weight training etc. If that is correct then where will that fitness work now be done. I apologise if my understanding is incorrect but clearly more needs to be told to the supporters about this sorry situation. Are the club going to try resurrect a form of gymnasium in the shop building? I suggested this as a possibility before as that building is not entirely used at present. With the cut backs announced recently it is doubtful the council will be spending additional money at Apperley Bridge or will be able to provide suitable facilities within the city so how is PT going to achieve the fitness levels he demands of his players. As Waynus says the move to better facilities was central to PT's plans for the future of the club:he sounds optimistic that he can make do with obviously second rate training facilities but will this adversely affect us later in the season? I think this deserves further detailed comment from the club. I am still very optimistic for the future as PT has gathered a decent crop of players with youth intermingled with experience

Did it ever say that contracts had been signed Tyker? I thought it had said we had an agreement for new training facilities, but that is significantly different to signing a contract.

Can you confirm?

the inference was that it had been signed:if it did not say it had been signed apologises but then why did Lawn make the statement in the first instance: with the time you have you will no doubt be able to research the original item and maybe you could produce it as it appeared initially.

But then in my posting you will see that I asked for clarification but then......... you ignore that point--I state "Do we have a signed agreement or not. Lawn seemed to indicate we had but PT says not? clarification required. I understood that the Leeds facilities included use of a gymnasium for weight training etc.................

.............."

Tyker, you accuse me of 'ignoring the point...'. Where did I do that? I'm not sure why you have taken my response to heart. Just in case you missed it, there were TWO questions I put to you. I wasn't incinuating you were wrong, I simply asked for clarification.

Was the sunshine getting to you!!

Waynus71 wrote:

tyker wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

tyker wrote:
Some interesting comment and clearly the club read these forums and are clearly rattled by what chatty has stated. I do not think he expressed himself very well but we were all told several weeks ago that the deal had been signed off and from memory it was a five year lease. So had the lease been signed off at our end but not at the other end or was it truly signed off in the accepted meaning of that phrase. If so has the landlord reneged from a signed agreement? Clarification is required from City especially as this was a central plank in Taylor's aim to get us out of the division. Do we have a signed agreement or not. Lawn seemed to indicate we had but PT says not? clarification required I understood that the Leeds facilities included use of a gymnasium for weight training etc. If that is correct then where will that fitness work now be done. I apologise if my understanding is incorrect but clearly more needs to be told to the supporters about this sorry situation. Are the club going to try resurrect a form of gymnasium in the shop building? I suggested this as a possibility before as that building is not entirely used at present. With the cut backs announced recently it is doubtful the council will be spending additional money at Apperley Bridge or will be able to provide suitable facilities within the city so how is PT going to achieve the fitness levels he demands of his players. As Waynus says the move to better facilities was central to PT's plans for the future of the club:he sounds optimistic that he can make do with obviously second rate training facilities but will this adversely affect us later in the season? I think this deserves further detailed comment from the club. I am still very optimistic for the future as PT has gathered a decent crop of players with youth intermingled with experience

Did it ever say that contracts had been signed Tyker? I thought it had said we had an agreement for new training facilities, but that is significantly different to signing a contract.

Can you confirm?

the inference was that it had been signed:if it did not say it had been signed apologises but then why did Lawn make the statement in the first instance: with the time you have you will no doubt be able to research the original item and maybe you could produce it as it appeared initially.

But then in my posting you will see that I asked for clarification but then......... you ignore that point--I state "Do we have a signed agreement or not. Lawn seemed to indicate we had but PT says not? clarification required. I understood that the Leeds facilities included use of a gymnasium for weight training etc.................


.............."

Tyker, you accuse me of 'ignoring the point...'. Where did I do that? I'm not sure why you have taken my response to heart. Just in case you missed it, there were TWO questions I put to you. I wasn't incinuating you were wrong, I simply asked for clarification.

Was the sunshine getting to you!!

no sunshine here mate; massive thunder storms for the last few days catching the edges of Hurricane Alex.


I simply wrote my understanding of the situations and asked for clarification. Dave Baldwin must have seen my post but has been slow in answering my questions whilst jumping all over someone who had expressed a not too dissimilar question but who,shall we say, was more down to earth about it.

It all seems very odd:was PT in or out of the loop in the negotiations:it appears not until 1 July.

Marley stadium would seem to have better facilities: they had when I was a lad playing there many many years ago.They have all weather pitches and the like. It may be difficult though to re-arrange events there if City want, as it appears, unfettered usage 24/7 and maybe that is where the leeds uni deal went sour..

tyker wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

tyker wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

tyker wrote: Some interesting comment and clearly the club read these forums and are clearly rattled by what chatty has stated. I do not think he expressed himself very well but we were all told several weeks ago that the deal had been signed off and from memory it was a five year lease. So had the lease been signed off at our end but not at the other end or was it truly signed off in the accepted meaning of that phrase. If so has the landlord reneged from a signed agreement? Clarification is required from City especially as this was a central plank in Taylor's aim to get us out of the division. Do we have a signed agreement or not. Lawn seemed to indicate we had but PT says not? clarification required I understood that the Leeds facilities included use of a gymnasium for weight training etc. If that is correct then where will that fitness work now be done. I apologise if my understanding is incorrect but clearly more needs to be told to the supporters about this sorry situation. Are the club going to try resurrect a form of gymnasium in the shop building? I suggested this as a possibility before as that building is not entirely used at present. With the cut backs announced recently it is doubtful the council will be spending additional money at Apperley Bridge or will be able to provide suitable facilities within the city so how is PT going to achieve the fitness levels he demands of his players. As Waynus says the move to better facilities was central to PT's plans for the future of the club:he sounds optimistic that he can make do with obviously second rate training facilities but will this adversely affect us later in the season? I think this deserves further detailed comment from the club. I am still very optimistic for the future as PT has gathered a decent crop of players with youth intermingled with experience

Did it ever say that contracts had been signed Tyker? I thought it had said we had an agreement for new training facilities, but that is significantly different to signing a contract. Can you confirm?

the inference was that it had been signed:if it did not say it had been signed apologises but then why did Lawn make the statement in the first instance: with the time you have you will no doubt be able to research the original item and maybe you could produce it as it appeared initially. But then in my posting you will see that I asked for clarification but then......... you ignore that point--I state "Do we have a signed agreement or not. Lawn seemed to indicate we had but PT says not? clarification required. I understood that the Leeds facilities included use of a gymnasium for weight training etc................. .............."

Tyker, you accuse me of 'ignoring the point...'. Where did I do that? I'm not sure why you have taken my response to heart. Just in case you missed it, there were TWO questions I put to you. I wasn't incinuating you were wrong, I simply asked for clarification. Was the sunshine getting to you!!

no sunshine here mate; massive thunder storms for the last few days catching the edges of Hurricane Alex. I simply wrote my understanding of the situations and asked for clarification. Dave Baldwin must have seen my post but has been slow in answering my questions whilst jumping all over someone who had expressed a not too dissimilar question but who,shall we say, was more down to earth about it. It all seems very odd:was PT in or out of the loop in the negotiations:it appears not until 1 July. Marley stadium would seem to have better facilities: they had when I was a lad playing there many many years ago.They have all weather pitches and the like. It may be difficult though to re-arrange events there if City want, as it appears, unfettered usage 24/7 and maybe that is where the leeds uni deal went sour..

I understand all that, but I never questionned your post. I simply asked you questions in relation to your own, such as "did Lawn actually say the contracts had been signed"? I wasn't trying to be funny with you, I just asked if you knew. Instead of answering, you accused me of ignoring parts of your post and slipped in a couple of digs. Not necessary mate.

At the end of the day, I agree with most of your post. If the contract had been signed, why wasn't the detail actually checked beforehand to ensure this couldn't happen. If the contract hadn't been signed, why not?

As you say, it isn't just about better playing surfaces, it is the whole package a training facility can offer, such as showers, gymnasium, somewhere to eat together etc. This couldn't happen at Apperley, but it is now the situation we find ourselves in.

One final point. I don't think Marley will be fit for purpose. Their playing surfaces cut up badly, especially in the winter months. I played there for many years and we were always having postponements due to the state of the pitches. As for the synthetic surface, there is only 1 pitch and that gets used throughout the morning/day by other users. Besides, where would the gym work be done and how would the players eat together before returning for an afternoon session?

Waynus71 wrote:

tyker wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

tyker wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

tyker wrote: Some interesting comment and clearly the club read these forums and are clearly rattled by what chatty has stated. I do not think he expressed himself very well but we were all told several weeks ago that the deal had been signed off and from memory it was a five year lease. So had the lease been signed off at our end but not at the other end or was it truly signed off in the accepted meaning of that phrase. If so has the landlord reneged from a signed agreement? Clarification is required from City especially as this was a central plank in Taylor's aim to get us out of the division. Do we have a signed agreement or not. Lawn seemed to indicate we had but PT says not? clarification required I understood that the Leeds facilities included use of a gymnasium for weight training etc. If that is correct then where will that fitness work now be done. I apologise if my understanding is incorrect but clearly more needs to be told to the supporters about this sorry situation. Are the club going to try resurrect a form of gymnasium in the shop building? I suggested this as a possibility before as that building is not entirely used at present. With the cut backs announced recently it is doubtful the council will be spending additional money at Apperley Bridge or will be able to provide suitable facilities within the city so how is PT going to achieve the fitness levels he demands of his players. As Waynus says the move to better facilities was central to PT's plans for the future of the club:he sounds optimistic that he can make do with obviously second rate training facilities but will this adversely affect us later in the season? I think this deserves further detailed comment from the club. I am still very optimistic for the future as PT has gathered a decent crop of players with youth intermingled with experience

Did it ever say that contracts had been signed Tyker? I thought it had said we had an agreement for new training facilities, but that is significantly different to signing a contract. Can you confirm?

the inference was that it had been signed:if it did not say it had been signed apologises but then why did Lawn make the statement in the first instance: with the time you have you will no doubt be able to research the original item and maybe you could produce it as it appeared initially. But then in my posting you will see that I asked for clarification but then......... you ignore that point--I state "Do we have a signed agreement or not. Lawn seemed to indicate we had but PT says not? clarification required. I understood that the Leeds facilities included use of a gymnasium for weight training etc................. .............."

Tyker, you accuse me of 'ignoring the point...'. Where did I do that? I'm not sure why you have taken my response to heart. Just in case you missed it, there were TWO questions I put to you. I wasn't incinuating you were wrong, I simply asked for clarification. Was the sunshine getting to you!!

no sunshine here mate; massive thunder storms for the last few days catching the edges of Hurricane Alex. I simply wrote my understanding of the situations and asked for clarification. Dave Baldwin must have seen my post but has been slow in answering my questions whilst jumping all over someone who had expressed a not too dissimilar question but who,shall we say, was more down to earth about it. It all seems very odd:was PT in or out of the loop in the negotiations:it appears not until 1 July. Marley stadium would seem to have better facilities: they had when I was a lad playing there many many years ago.They have all weather pitches and the like. It may be difficult though to re-arrange events there if City want, as it appears, unfettered usage 24/7 and maybe that is where the leeds uni deal went sour..

I understand all that, but I never questionned your post. I simply asked you questions in relation to your own, such as "did Lawn actually say the contracts had been signed"? I wasn't trying to be funny with you, I just asked if you knew. Instead of answering, you accused me of ignoring parts of your post and slipped in a couple of digs. Not necessary mate.

At the end of the day, I agree with most of your post. If the contract had been signed, why wasn't the detail actually checked beforehand to ensure this couldn't happen. If the contract hadn't been signed, why not?

As you say, it isn't just about better playing surfaces, it is the whole package a training facility can offer, such as showers, gymnasium, somewhere to eat together etc. This couldn't happen at Apperley, but it is now the situation we find ourselves in.

One final point. I don't think Marley will be fit for purpose. Their playing surfaces cut up badly, especially in the winter months. I played there for many years and we were always having postponements due to the state of the pitches. As for the synthetic surface, there is only 1 pitch and that gets used throughout the morning/day by other users. Besides, where would the gym work be done and how would the players eat together before returning for an afternoon session?

ok; I know not and was trying to get something from the club given that they seemed to be watching these pages:perhaps some questions regarding smoke and mirrors are easily denied yet valid questions about contracts apparently being signed and agreed and then not being signed appear to be too difficult to answer which makes me wonder about this new found openness. Perhaps Mr Baldwin was taking a leaf out of George Osbourne's book. " we will be clear ,concise and open" and then found not to be those at all..

So I know not and you and I should get answers why the supporters were lead to believe the deal had been done when apparently it had not.

I too played at Marley years ago so did not know it's current state:if it is as bad as you say then it is a pointless exercise. I can not remember anything in the Bradford area which would be adequate for the purpose of professional training.

If that is so then sadly PT will be trying to get us promoted without the full pack of goods he required.

Can gym work not be done in the redundant shop area? a suggestion and no more than that. Did not Jim Jeffreys not use that area and gym equipment.

To be fair to David (Baldwin), he has always been open and honest and has provided his telephone number and email for anyone wanting a further discussion. He can't be on here all day, every day, addressing concerns of all fans. He wouldn't get his 'day job' done, would he?

As for the original articles, I have found them and it was the T&A (surprise surprise) that made it sound like contracts had been signed. However, Lawn was quoted as saying a deal had been agreed nothing else.

Yes, a gym could be established in the club shop. However, we no longer own that, so it would depend on Surridge agreeing to it. An agreement could be made and we could use the upstairs as a gym, but it wouldn't be ideal and could only work as a temporary fix.

If you are still unclear as to our position, why don't you pick up the phone and speak to David. Alternatively, if you are concerned about the cost (being overseas isn't cheap), why not ping him an email.