Quote Adeybull="Adeybull"Yes you have missed the point, even though it has been explained to you several times now. 1. The issue has nothing to do with buildings at Headingley - how many times do we have to say this before it sinks in - its to do with sponsorship (and I gather now part-ownership) of Leeds rugby UNION. 2. The issue likewise has nothing to do with the provision of a pool and other sports facilities at Odsal. the Council propose to knock down the existing sports centre (with pool) and free up the land for development, and be partners in the new and much-expanded facilities (including pool) at the OSV. It may have escaped your attention, but local authorities sort of have an obligation to provide such facilities (unlike universities providing cricket pavilions, but I have already said that even so that is not an issue here). 3. The building of the stadium has been stated will not involve council money, and it has already been stated that money already pledged to the OSV by other partners is not for building a stadium. 4. You have yet again ducked answering the charges I laid against you. So, in the circumstances, I am happy to accept your apology, although I'd better just mention its "[iun[/ireservedly".'" 4- suppose you will find the answer here possibly? www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/m ... field-town I am as much of a hypocrite as you are being a worried taxpayer and all that

Quote Adeybull="Adeybull"Yes you have missed the point, even though it has been explained to you several times now. 1. The issue has nothing to do with buildings at Headingley - how many times do we have to say this before it sinks in - its to do with sponsorship (and I gather now part-ownership) of Leeds rugby UNION. 2. The issue likewise has nothing to do with the provision of a pool and other sports facilities at Odsal. the Council propose to knock down the existing sports centre (with pool) and free up the land for development, and be partners in the new and much-expanded facilities (including pool) at the OSV. It may have escaped your attention, but local authorities sort of have an obligation to provide such facilities (unlike universities providing cricket pavilions, but I have already said that even so that is not an issue here). 3. The building of the stadium has been stated will not involve council money, and it has already been stated that money already pledged to the OSV by other partners is not for building a stadium. 4. You have yet again ducked answering the charges I laid against you. So, in the circumstances, I am happy to accept your apology, although I'd better just mention its "[iun[/ireservedly".'" 4- suppose you will find the answer here possibly? www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/m ... field-town I am as much of a hypocrite as you are being a worried taxpayer and all that

Seems a better way . . . . . [ifor the moment[/i

Earlier plan that involved Tesco was not given approval due to Ken Morrison's objection. Then this "famous Bradford man" did nothing, hence why I no longer shop at Morrisons

Think you will find it had little to do with Ken (or Asda or the Co-op or the other commercially-motivated objectors), and everything to do with politics and the then-financial state of BCFC. Allegedly.

I`m sure that (as usual, Adey) you`ll be correct in saying that, the trouble for Morrisons was that their declared opposition, effective or not, wasn`t the best way to win friends and influence people in the Bradford area. At least not to influence people in a positive fashion.



I still have (somewhere) replies to my letters from one of their directors (Mr Owen?) , about this and he was quite adamant it would damage Morrisons` business and that they were perfectly entitled to fight it (I`ve no argument with their right to object of course, that`s absolutely true). I do still believe that Morrisons lost much public goodwill with their stance though.