Search results

During the planning consultation LDC made a claim the ground would be a Trojan horse for other developments. The club denied this. Then the club put in an application for a hotel. My point being, unless something is explicitly in the planning consent, saying doesn’t mean much.

Personally, I think the confusion started when specific items of infrastructure were introduced as being part of the transport subsidy. I agree with you about the coach parking and everyone can understand the concept of charging for parking. But items like footpaths, cycle paths and cycle racks...

I don’t agree with your understanding. If your understanding is correct then many of us receive double or even triple subsidies. I typically use the train, and the footpath. Double.

Possibly. But the reason for removing the subsidy was because there was a supposed double subsidy. Whilst it is the case Seagulls Travel is a separate company and offering a supposed premium service this was not the reason given for the club withdrawing funding.

To determine the payment, there will have been an estimate of train/bus numbers, however crude.

I felt Barber was blunt. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

You make a good point. If the club are double subsidising then surely the obvious approach is to remove the subsidy which isn’t being used, ie pro-rata down the Southern Road/Bus subsidy by 2000, instead of removing the subsidy which is being used. Instead the club now has a situation where...

A sustainable travel plan was part of the planning. I don’t think this necessarily means it has to be part of the ticket.

The more I think about it, the more conflating of travel zone and infrastructure seems a little disingenuous. We need some infrastructure, like the footpaths he mentions. How else can we get to the ground? I’m not aware of any other business making a point of subsidising basic access.

I found this email from Paul Barber in another thread. He explains the double-subsidy. I have pasted the complete email so I don’t lose any context. We’ve had a message from Paul Barber in relation to this issue: “A few emails today stemming from Seagulls Travel’s email to their customers...

The question you’re referring to was the removal of subsidy for Seagulls Travel, a separate and non-Albion business which runs coaches from various parts of the county. I didn’t understand Barber’s point about it being a double subsidy. I also thought he was rather blunt with the person who...