Decision on future of Tranmere Rovers' former training ground deferred until site visit takes place

Ingleborough Road playing fields

Ingleborough Road playing fields

First published in News
Last updated
Wirral Globe: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

A DECISION on controversial plans to transform Tranmere Rovers' former training ground into a housing estate has been deferred until a site visit has taken place.

Councillors on Wirral's planning committee were expected to approve the plans when they met on Wednesday night.

The club has asked for permission to sell its Ingleborough Road site in Birkenhead, to make way for development of 90 houses.

The scheme goes hand-in-hand with a parallel application to create four full-sized football pitches plus one junior academy pitch and one training area on land near the Solar Campus in Leasowe Road, Leasowe. This has also been deferred until a site visit has taken place.

The schemes have the support of the club's supporters' trust, who recently said development would be in the interests of the community, the club and supporters.

But campaigners say the proposals are 'disrespectful' to the memories of Wirral soldiers killed in the First World War, who have been honoured with a plaque. They have campaigned for the last four years against the plan.

Ingleborough field is a dedicated memorial to 88 former students of Birkenhead Institute who lost their lives in the First World War, among them the renowned war poet Wilfred Owen, who was educated at the school.

Eighty-eight trees representing the fallen soldiers were planted around the field as a "living memorial" to them in the 1920s. The development proposals include a memorial plaque to the 88 men.

A decision over the scheme has been delayed three times in the last two years, Rovers' also withdrew their original application in February 2012 before later re-submitting it.

Among those against the plans is Dean Johnson. He told the Globe earlier this week: "Ingleborough is a memorial for 2014 and these plans are disrespectful. The sale of the land would be a short-term fix for Tranmere, but wouldn't solve their problems long-term.

"The Birkenhead Institute Old Boys have made a concerted effort over the last year to stop this development from going ahead.

"It's been such a personal issue that's caused so much upset and has really galvanised us."

The Globe has asked Tranmere Rovers for a statement on the situation, but the club said it has no comment to make.

A council spokesperson said this week: "It would not be appropriate to comment ahead of the Planning Committee meeting where these plans – and all representations received in relation to them – will be given full consideration."

Comments (70)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:18pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Breakpoint says...

I cannot understand the Wirral Globe bias on this story as they will constantly remind readers why Ingleborough Fields should not be sold. The Wirral Globe makes no mention of what Tranmere Rovers have offered or the consultation with local residents who I believe were in favour of the development.
I also believe that part of the plans include some sort of memorial to Wilfred Owen and the other soldiers from BI who also lost their lives with the trees planted originally to remain.
Dean Johnson also comments that "The sale of the land would be a short-term fix for Tranmere, but wouldn't solve their problems long-term. "
Does Mr Johnson have access to the accounts of Tranmere Rovers as I remember a BBC Panorama programme about 18 months ago that went on to say how well the Tranmere Rovers was run with minimal debts where a club of the stature of Manchester United had accrued massive debts in the same period.
From my point of view I see no reason why the sale cannot go ahead with the memorial being relocated to a more accessible position possibly even closer to Mr Johnson's Wilfred Owen Story Museum with Tranmere Rovers moving the memorial gates to an entrance of the stadium.
While I agree that we should have a memorial times change and we move onwards, afterall Birkenhead Institute School was demolished for houses. There are also many housing / business developments throughout the whole country that have been built over previous historical sites some going back many centuries.
From my original comment of there seeming to be bias from the Wirral Globe against the sale of Ingleborough Fields it would also seem that Tranmere Rovers have not commented on the issue.
As for the sale as commented by Mr Johnson only being a short term fix he does realise that the club has been in existence since 1884 some thirty years before the outbreak of The First World War. Although there is now so much greed in football created by Sky, BT, The FA and the formation of the Premier League football clubs like Tranmere, Burton Albion, Crewe Alexandra and many more all attempt to live within their means there are times that assetts may have to be sold.
Without Tranmere Rovers there would be less local jobs & less opportunities for potential football stars of the future to be discovered as the greedy premier league now look for the cheap overseas options.
As someone who has followed this story with interest I wish Mr Johnson well with his Wilfred Owen Story Museum & Tranmere Rovers with their future developments. All businesses need to move on with the times or they will fail. Maybe Tranmere Rovers & Mr Johnson need to communicate better for an amicable solution to this issue where all parties can benefit with future developments.
This comment is purely my own opinion and I have no allegiance to either party on the story I just think that the Wirral Globe are portrying this very one sided.
I will be interested to read other peoples thoughts and opinions as I continue to follow this story with interest.
I cannot understand the Wirral Globe bias on this story as they will constantly remind readers why Ingleborough Fields should not be sold. The Wirral Globe makes no mention of what Tranmere Rovers have offered or the consultation with local residents who I believe were in favour of the development. I also believe that part of the plans include some sort of memorial to Wilfred Owen and the other soldiers from BI who also lost their lives with the trees planted originally to remain. Dean Johnson also comments that "The sale of the land would be a short-term fix for Tranmere, but wouldn't solve their problems long-term. " Does Mr Johnson have access to the accounts of Tranmere Rovers as I remember a BBC Panorama programme about 18 months ago that went on to say how well the Tranmere Rovers was run with minimal debts where a club of the stature of Manchester United had accrued massive debts in the same period. From my point of view I see no reason why the sale cannot go ahead with the memorial being relocated to a more accessible position possibly even closer to Mr Johnson's Wilfred Owen Story Museum with Tranmere Rovers moving the memorial gates to an entrance of the stadium. While I agree that we should have a memorial times change and we move onwards, afterall Birkenhead Institute School was demolished for houses. There are also many housing / business developments throughout the whole country that have been built over previous historical sites some going back many centuries. From my original comment of there seeming to be bias from the Wirral Globe against the sale of Ingleborough Fields it would also seem that Tranmere Rovers have not commented on the issue. As for the sale as commented by Mr Johnson only being a short term fix he does realise that the club has been in existence since 1884 some thirty years before the outbreak of The First World War. Although there is now so much greed in football created by Sky, BT, The FA and the formation of the Premier League football clubs like Tranmere, Burton Albion, Crewe Alexandra and many more all attempt to live within their means there are times that assetts may have to be sold. Without Tranmere Rovers there would be less local jobs & less opportunities for potential football stars of the future to be discovered as the greedy premier league now look for the cheap overseas options. As someone who has followed this story with interest I wish Mr Johnson well with his Wilfred Owen Story Museum & Tranmere Rovers with their future developments. All businesses need to move on with the times or they will fail. Maybe Tranmere Rovers & Mr Johnson need to communicate better for an amicable solution to this issue where all parties can benefit with future developments. This comment is purely my own opinion and I have no allegiance to either party on the story I just think that the Wirral Globe are portrying this very one sided. I will be interested to read other peoples thoughts and opinions as I continue to follow this story with interest. Breakpoint
  • Score: 15

10:36pm Thu 24 Jul 14

freebase says...

How can Dean comment about it being a short term fix

The vitriol towards the local club from its own paper is astounding

Craig manning Leighton Marles hang your heads in shame

Free tickets for you guys waiting at the floral box office

Yolk never sing alone
How can Dean comment about it being a short term fix The vitriol towards the local club from its own paper is astounding Craig manning Leighton Marles hang your heads in shame Free tickets for you guys waiting at the floral box office Yolk never sing alone freebase
  • Score: 4

12:01am Fri 25 Jul 14

Jack Boot says...

This is the first time I've seen a comment longer than the actual article on this site, and also such a short one following it.

Both say the same thing.

BUILD OVER THIS WAR MEMORIAL FOR PROFIT

Not a good idea...
This is the first time I've seen a comment longer than the actual article on this site, and also such a short one following it. Both say the same thing. BUILD OVER THIS WAR MEMORIAL FOR PROFIT Not a good idea... Jack Boot
  • Score: -8

10:54am Fri 25 Jul 14

freebase says...

Jack Boot wrote:
This is the first time I've seen a comment longer than the actual article on this site, and also such a short one following it.

Both say the same thing.

BUILD OVER THIS WAR MEMORIAL FOR PROFIT

Not a good idea...
where do i say build over a war memorial for profit????

i actually state the globes bias to wards one side of the arguemtn is shocking

nothing else.

Hello Dean (jack boot ) Johnson
[quote][p][bold]Jack Boot[/bold] wrote: This is the first time I've seen a comment longer than the actual article on this site, and also such a short one following it. Both say the same thing. BUILD OVER THIS WAR MEMORIAL FOR PROFIT Not a good idea...[/p][/quote]where do i say build over a war memorial for profit???? i actually state the globes bias to wards one side of the arguemtn is shocking nothing else. Hello Dean (jack boot ) Johnson freebase
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Breakpoint says...

Jack Boot wrote:
This is the first time I've seen a comment longer than the actual article on this site, and also such a short one following it.

Both say the same thing.

BUILD OVER THIS WAR MEMORIAL FOR PROFIT

Not a good idea...
Jack Boot - this comment is typical of the bias on this issue To try to keep the discussion balanced:
Yes if / when Tranmere Rovers sell Ingleborough Fields they will make a profit, the developer of Ingleborough Fields will then make a profir from developing the site and selling the houses, the purchasers of the houses when they come to sell up and move on will make a profit (should the housing market remain positive).
Dean Johnson it appears is making a living from this story, before the Ingleborough Fields campaign who had actually heard of Dean Johnson, his Wilfred Owen Story Museum in Birkenhead and he had not started with the stage shows of the Wilfred Owen Story. So as Tranmere Rovers will make a profit out of the sale isn't Dean Johnson maing profit by raising the profile of his own business due to this campaign.
Didn't the campaigners even at one point show a picture of Ingleborough Fields with war memorial grave stones on it which they had to remove and apologise for, surely this shows complete disrespect & disregard for our war dead to raise the profile of their campaign.
What has also failed to be mentioned is the money Tranmere Rovers earn from the sale will go to either the Solar Campus or Woodchurch development with the Woodchurch development being used for the whole community, maybe either development can be named after Birkenhead Institute or Wilfred Owen.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Boot[/bold] wrote: This is the first time I've seen a comment longer than the actual article on this site, and also such a short one following it. Both say the same thing. BUILD OVER THIS WAR MEMORIAL FOR PROFIT Not a good idea...[/p][/quote]Jack Boot - this comment is typical of the bias on this issue To try to keep the discussion balanced: Yes if / when Tranmere Rovers sell Ingleborough Fields they will make a profit, the developer of Ingleborough Fields will then make a profir from developing the site and selling the houses, the purchasers of the houses when they come to sell up and move on will make a profit (should the housing market remain positive). Dean Johnson it appears is making a living from this story, before the Ingleborough Fields campaign who had actually heard of Dean Johnson, his Wilfred Owen Story Museum in Birkenhead and he had not started with the stage shows of the Wilfred Owen Story. So as Tranmere Rovers will make a profit out of the sale isn't Dean Johnson maing profit by raising the profile of his own business due to this campaign. Didn't the campaigners even at one point show a picture of Ingleborough Fields with war memorial grave stones on it which they had to remove and apologise for, surely this shows complete disrespect & disregard for our war dead to raise the profile of their campaign. What has also failed to be mentioned is the money Tranmere Rovers earn from the sale will go to either the Solar Campus or Woodchurch development with the Woodchurch development being used for the whole community, maybe either development can be named after Birkenhead Institute or Wilfred Owen. Breakpoint
  • Score: 7

2:38pm Fri 25 Jul 14

freebase says...

or leigh marles or Dean Johnson

perhaps have an area of reflection in the new area
or leigh marles or Dean Johnson perhaps have an area of reflection in the new area freebase
  • Score: 3

2:44pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Pollexfen says...

The simple brick plinth put forward by Tranmere Rovers as a new memorial is insignificant and out of proportion to the scale of the sacrifice of the death of Old Boys of Birkenhead Institute school in WW1 who are remembered on these playing fields. Sadly at no point have the Club been prepared to meet, talk or enter into any correspondence with Birkenhead Institute Old Boys about what we might consider a fitting memorial to be. The Old Boys have had no choice as a result, but to campaign against the proposals.
It is the case that TRFC have been in business since before the First World War just as it is a fact that one of the Old Boys remembered played for the Club prior to his death in 1915.
Old Boys of Birkenhead Institute have a long history of playing important roles within the Club, including Chairman, Shareholders and Directors, so we wish the Club itself no harm. We think that there other options available which would achieve the same outcomes without the loss of the playing fields and which would benefit all parties but with a Club that will not give us the courtesy of a hearing, these will never be explored.
TRFC will not talk or give comments to the Globe either so is it the Newspaper’s fault if the publicity appears one sided?
Birkenhead Institute was demolished to make way for a new school, not housing.
It may be seen from Council Cabinet (March 2013) minutes that of the proceeds of the sale of Ingleborough Road only a small proportion was going towards the new facilities with the rest going towards reducing Club debt. It remains to be seen what the owner of Tranmere Rovers will see fit to do with that multi million profit they intend to make from the sale of the land, but not wasting a penny more than they have to on a decent, respectful memorial seems to be part of the plan.

Birkenhead Institute Old Boys
The simple brick plinth put forward by Tranmere Rovers as a new memorial is insignificant and out of proportion to the scale of the sacrifice of the death of Old Boys of Birkenhead Institute school in WW1 who are remembered on these playing fields. Sadly at no point have the Club been prepared to meet, talk or enter into any correspondence with Birkenhead Institute Old Boys about what we might consider a fitting memorial to be. The Old Boys have had no choice as a result, but to campaign against the proposals. It is the case that TRFC have been in business since before the First World War just as it is a fact that one of the Old Boys remembered played for the Club prior to his death in 1915. Old Boys of Birkenhead Institute have a long history of playing important roles within the Club, including Chairman, Shareholders and Directors, so we wish the Club itself no harm. We think that there other options available which would achieve the same outcomes without the loss of the playing fields and which would benefit all parties but with a Club that will not give us the courtesy of a hearing, these will never be explored. TRFC will not talk or give comments to the Globe either so is it the Newspaper’s fault if the publicity appears one sided? Birkenhead Institute was demolished to make way for a new school, not housing. It may be seen from Council Cabinet (March 2013) minutes that of the proceeds of the sale of Ingleborough Road only a small proportion was going towards the new facilities with the rest going towards reducing Club debt. It remains to be seen what the owner of Tranmere Rovers will see fit to do with that multi million profit they intend to make from the sale of the land, but not wasting a penny more than they have to on a decent, respectful memorial seems to be part of the plan. Birkenhead Institute Old Boys Pollexfen
  • Score: -3

3:46pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Gingerthinker says...

Jack Boot wrote:
This is the first time I've seen a comment longer than the actual article on this site, and also such a short one following it.

Both say the same thing.

BUILD OVER THIS WAR MEMORIAL FOR PROFIT

Not a good idea...
The memorial will be infinitely better and far more accessible if the plans are allowed to go through.

But you're happy to tread all over the hopes of the communities involved for what exactly ??

Your username is apt.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Boot[/bold] wrote: This is the first time I've seen a comment longer than the actual article on this site, and also such a short one following it. Both say the same thing. BUILD OVER THIS WAR MEMORIAL FOR PROFIT Not a good idea...[/p][/quote]The memorial will be infinitely better and far more accessible if the plans are allowed to go through. But you're happy to tread all over the hopes of the communities involved for what exactly ?? Your username is apt. Gingerthinker
  • Score: 2

4:11pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Breakpoint says...

Pollexfen wrote:
The simple brick plinth put forward by Tranmere Rovers as a new memorial is insignificant and out of proportion to the scale of the sacrifice of the death of Old Boys of Birkenhead Institute school in WW1 who are remembered on these playing fields. Sadly at no point have the Club been prepared to meet, talk or enter into any correspondence with Birkenhead Institute Old Boys about what we might consider a fitting memorial to be. The Old Boys have had no choice as a result, but to campaign against the proposals.
It is the case that TRFC have been in business since before the First World War just as it is a fact that one of the Old Boys remembered played for the Club prior to his death in 1915.
Old Boys of Birkenhead Institute have a long history of playing important roles within the Club, including Chairman, Shareholders and Directors, so we wish the Club itself no harm. We think that there other options available which would achieve the same outcomes without the loss of the playing fields and which would benefit all parties but with a Club that will not give us the courtesy of a hearing, these will never be explored.
TRFC will not talk or give comments to the Globe either so is it the Newspaper’s fault if the publicity appears one sided?
Birkenhead Institute was demolished to make way for a new school, not housing.
It may be seen from Council Cabinet (March 2013) minutes that of the proceeds of the sale of Ingleborough Road only a small proportion was going towards the new facilities with the rest going towards reducing Club debt. It remains to be seen what the owner of Tranmere Rovers will see fit to do with that multi million profit they intend to make from the sale of the land, but not wasting a penny more than they have to on a decent, respectful memorial seems to be part of the plan.

Birkenhead Institute Old Boys
Pollexfen, a few good points raised, this is exactly what I looking to discuss in a civilised way. Your opinion is very welcomed by me as I have previously stated I have no affinity either way but the sale of Ingleborough Fields will benefit the local area, however Tranmere Rovers need to put in their plans a respectful monument to our fallen heroes.
[quote][p][bold]Pollexfen[/bold] wrote: The simple brick plinth put forward by Tranmere Rovers as a new memorial is insignificant and out of proportion to the scale of the sacrifice of the death of Old Boys of Birkenhead Institute school in WW1 who are remembered on these playing fields. Sadly at no point have the Club been prepared to meet, talk or enter into any correspondence with Birkenhead Institute Old Boys about what we might consider a fitting memorial to be. The Old Boys have had no choice as a result, but to campaign against the proposals. It is the case that TRFC have been in business since before the First World War just as it is a fact that one of the Old Boys remembered played for the Club prior to his death in 1915. Old Boys of Birkenhead Institute have a long history of playing important roles within the Club, including Chairman, Shareholders and Directors, so we wish the Club itself no harm. We think that there other options available which would achieve the same outcomes without the loss of the playing fields and which would benefit all parties but with a Club that will not give us the courtesy of a hearing, these will never be explored. TRFC will not talk or give comments to the Globe either so is it the Newspaper’s fault if the publicity appears one sided? Birkenhead Institute was demolished to make way for a new school, not housing. It may be seen from Council Cabinet (March 2013) minutes that of the proceeds of the sale of Ingleborough Road only a small proportion was going towards the new facilities with the rest going towards reducing Club debt. It remains to be seen what the owner of Tranmere Rovers will see fit to do with that multi million profit they intend to make from the sale of the land, but not wasting a penny more than they have to on a decent, respectful memorial seems to be part of the plan. Birkenhead Institute Old Boys[/p][/quote]Pollexfen, a few good points raised, this is exactly what I looking to discuss in a civilised way. Your opinion is very welcomed by me as I have previously stated I have no affinity either way but the sale of Ingleborough Fields will benefit the local area, however Tranmere Rovers need to put in their plans a respectful monument to our fallen heroes. Breakpoint
  • Score: 1

6:02pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Jack Boot says...

Breakpoint... Oooh whats in a name.... is it PJ?

Lets build over a war memorial, which was given free to a local football club for stewardship and a fantastic training ground very close to Prenton Park, make a massive profit and err name it after Wilfred Owen ? there's already one of those, check it out on Tollemache Rd. This is an empty, cynical backhander which stinks of short term opportunistic greed.

See how long the profiteers stick around once this deal is done.

Why do we need another memorial when the one we have is not only fitting, its unique, organic and provides a positive contribution to the well being of our young people.

It was financed by those who lost their sons, who probably took great comfort in knowing Birkenhead's Youth would continue to benefit from the loss of the 88..... I've been upto to Ingleborough on a sunny Sunday and it has a thriving, energetic atmosphere, and now TRFC want to concrete over this memorial, and replace it with a big, inscribed brick, get real.

I am not Dean Johnson, I'm prettier than him!
Breakpoint... Oooh whats in a name.... is it PJ? Lets build over a war memorial, which was given free to a local football club for stewardship and a fantastic training ground very close to Prenton Park, make a massive profit and err name it after Wilfred Owen ? there's already one of those, check it out on Tollemache Rd. This is an empty, cynical backhander which stinks of short term opportunistic greed. See how long the profiteers stick around once this deal is done. Why do we need another memorial when the one we have is not only fitting, its unique, organic and provides a positive contribution to the well being of our young people. It was financed by those who lost their sons, who probably took great comfort in knowing Birkenhead's Youth would continue to benefit from the loss of the 88..... I've been upto to Ingleborough on a sunny Sunday and it has a thriving, energetic atmosphere, and now TRFC want to concrete over this memorial, and replace it with a big, inscribed brick, get real. I am not Dean Johnson, I'm prettier than him! Jack Boot
  • Score: -3

9:51pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Lurkinhead says...

Pollexfen wrote:
The simple brick plinth put forward by Tranmere Rovers as a new memorial is insignificant and out of proportion to the scale of the sacrifice of the death of Old Boys of Birkenhead Institute school in WW1 who are remembered on these playing fields. Sadly at no point have the Club been prepared to meet, talk or enter into any correspondence with Birkenhead Institute Old Boys about what we might consider a fitting memorial to be. The Old Boys have had no choice as a result, but to campaign against the proposals.
It is the case that TRFC have been in business since before the First World War just as it is a fact that one of the Old Boys remembered played for the Club prior to his death in 1915.
Old Boys of Birkenhead Institute have a long history of playing important roles within the Club, including Chairman, Shareholders and Directors, so we wish the Club itself no harm. We think that there other options available which would achieve the same outcomes without the loss of the playing fields and which would benefit all parties but with a Club that will not give us the courtesy of a hearing, these will never be explored.
TRFC will not talk or give comments to the Globe either so is it the Newspaper’s fault if the publicity appears one sided?
Birkenhead Institute was demolished to make way for a new school, not housing.
It may be seen from Council Cabinet (March 2013) minutes that of the proceeds of the sale of Ingleborough Road only a small proportion was going towards the new facilities with the rest going towards reducing Club debt. It remains to be seen what the owner of Tranmere Rovers will see fit to do with that multi million profit they intend to make from the sale of the land, but not wasting a penny more than they have to on a decent, respectful memorial seems to be part of the plan.

Birkenhead Institute Old Boys
Pollexfen quote "We think that there other options available which would achieve the same outcomes without the loss of the playing fields and which would benefit all parties but with a Club that will not give us the courtesy of a hearing, these will never be explored.".


To be honest, given the antics of Dean Johnson, and some of the Old Boys, I am not surprised Tranmere Rovers elected not to respond, as whatever their point, it would probably have been twisted, in the manner of photoshopped war graves, which incidentally, Dean Johnson stated was not meant to mislead, but was merely symbolic!

That said, regardless of whether the club choose to engage with you Pollexfan, perhaps you could share with us what these other available options are, that would achieve the same outcomes without the loss of the playing fields and which would benefit all parties?

I think many people would be interested to know how you would suggest the same revenue could be generated by TRFC with the playing fields remaining intact, and I would personally be more than happy for you to put your proposals on the table, in the interest of openness and clarity, in order that the public could take a balanced view on whether they were in fact viable / reasonable.
[quote][p][bold]Pollexfen[/bold] wrote: The simple brick plinth put forward by Tranmere Rovers as a new memorial is insignificant and out of proportion to the scale of the sacrifice of the death of Old Boys of Birkenhead Institute school in WW1 who are remembered on these playing fields. Sadly at no point have the Club been prepared to meet, talk or enter into any correspondence with Birkenhead Institute Old Boys about what we might consider a fitting memorial to be. The Old Boys have had no choice as a result, but to campaign against the proposals. It is the case that TRFC have been in business since before the First World War just as it is a fact that one of the Old Boys remembered played for the Club prior to his death in 1915. Old Boys of Birkenhead Institute have a long history of playing important roles within the Club, including Chairman, Shareholders and Directors, so we wish the Club itself no harm. We think that there other options available which would achieve the same outcomes without the loss of the playing fields and which would benefit all parties but with a Club that will not give us the courtesy of a hearing, these will never be explored. TRFC will not talk or give comments to the Globe either so is it the Newspaper’s fault if the publicity appears one sided? Birkenhead Institute was demolished to make way for a new school, not housing. It may be seen from Council Cabinet (March 2013) minutes that of the proceeds of the sale of Ingleborough Road only a small proportion was going towards the new facilities with the rest going towards reducing Club debt. It remains to be seen what the owner of Tranmere Rovers will see fit to do with that multi million profit they intend to make from the sale of the land, but not wasting a penny more than they have to on a decent, respectful memorial seems to be part of the plan. Birkenhead Institute Old Boys[/p][/quote]Pollexfen quote "We think that there other options available which would achieve the same outcomes without the loss of the playing fields and which would benefit all parties but with a Club that will not give us the courtesy of a hearing, these will never be explored.". To be honest, given the antics of Dean Johnson, and some of the Old Boys, I am not surprised Tranmere Rovers elected not to respond, as whatever their point, it would probably have been twisted, in the manner of photoshopped war graves, which incidentally, Dean Johnson stated was not meant to mislead, but was merely symbolic! That said, regardless of whether the club choose to engage with you Pollexfan, perhaps you could share with us what these other available options are, that would achieve the same outcomes without the loss of the playing fields and which would benefit all parties? I think many people would be interested to know how you would suggest the same revenue could be generated by TRFC with the playing fields remaining intact, and I would personally be more than happy for you to put your proposals on the table, in the interest of openness and clarity, in order that the public could take a balanced view on whether they were in fact viable / reasonable. Lurkinhead
  • Score: 3

11:14pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Breakpoint says...

Jack Boot wrote:
Breakpoint... Oooh whats in a name.... is it PJ?

Lets build over a war memorial, which was given free to a local football club for stewardship and a fantastic training ground very close to Prenton Park, make a massive profit and err name it after Wilfred Owen ? there's already one of those, check it out on Tollemache Rd. This is an empty, cynical backhander which stinks of short term opportunistic greed.

See how long the profiteers stick around once this deal is done.

Why do we need another memorial when the one we have is not only fitting, its unique, organic and provides a positive contribution to the well being of our young people.

It was financed by those who lost their sons, who probably took great comfort in knowing Birkenhead's Youth would continue to benefit from the loss of the 88..... I've been upto to Ingleborough on a sunny Sunday and it has a thriving, energetic atmosphere, and now TRFC want to concrete over this memorial, and replace it with a big, inscribed brick, get real.

I am not Dean Johnson, I'm prettier than him!
Jack Boot I asked for discussion quite obviously from both sides to this discussion, why you have decided to have a go at me I do not know when I have supported both sides. Your comments show what I was afraid of that I would be attacked by an internet troll.
I appreciate your support for the memorial but your small mindeness shows the reason why Ingleborough will be sold against the wishes of the campaigners, your underhand tactics (photoshopping war garaves onto pictures of Ingleborough Fields) show weaknesses in your arguments.
As i have previously said I have no affinity with either side, I will accept whatever decision our council make but Jack Boot look at my response to the comment from Pollexfen, discussion & communication is what's needed not internet sniping from trolls like yourself.
I don't expect a response from you at the time I posted this as you are probably tucked up in bed by now.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Boot[/bold] wrote: Breakpoint... Oooh whats in a name.... is it PJ? Lets build over a war memorial, which was given free to a local football club for stewardship and a fantastic training ground very close to Prenton Park, make a massive profit and err name it after Wilfred Owen ? there's already one of those, check it out on Tollemache Rd. This is an empty, cynical backhander which stinks of short term opportunistic greed. See how long the profiteers stick around once this deal is done. Why do we need another memorial when the one we have is not only fitting, its unique, organic and provides a positive contribution to the well being of our young people. It was financed by those who lost their sons, who probably took great comfort in knowing Birkenhead's Youth would continue to benefit from the loss of the 88..... I've been upto to Ingleborough on a sunny Sunday and it has a thriving, energetic atmosphere, and now TRFC want to concrete over this memorial, and replace it with a big, inscribed brick, get real. I am not Dean Johnson, I'm prettier than him![/p][/quote]Jack Boot I asked for discussion quite obviously from both sides to this discussion, why you have decided to have a go at me I do not know when I have supported both sides. Your comments show what I was afraid of that I would be attacked by an internet troll. I appreciate your support for the memorial but your small mindeness shows the reason why Ingleborough will be sold against the wishes of the campaigners, your underhand tactics (photoshopping war garaves onto pictures of Ingleborough Fields) show weaknesses in your arguments. As i have previously said I have no affinity with either side, I will accept whatever decision our council make but Jack Boot look at my response to the comment from Pollexfen, discussion & communication is what's needed not internet sniping from trolls like yourself. I don't expect a response from you at the time I posted this as you are probably tucked up in bed by now. Breakpoint
  • Score: 4

7:30am Sat 26 Jul 14

Muir the Merrier says...

All parties involved will benefit if petty arguments and bias can be put to one side, TRFC, the local community and those who wish to honour the fallen.

As an aside from the Ingleborough issue it would be nice if The Globe gave their own professional football club more positive column inches, maybe the same amount of publicity certain local 'celebrities' seem to warrant.

I suggest the sports editor, if there is one checks out the back page of this weeks Birkenhead News.
All parties involved will benefit if petty arguments and bias can be put to one side, TRFC, the local community and those who wish to honour the fallen. As an aside from the Ingleborough issue it would be nice if The Globe gave their own professional football club more positive column inches, maybe the same amount of publicity certain local 'celebrities' seem to warrant. I suggest the sports editor, if there is one checks out the back page of this weeks Birkenhead News. Muir the Merrier
  • Score: 3

9:08am Sat 26 Jul 14

Jack Boot says...

Breakpoint, I did not have a go at you, I merely poo pooed your renaming idea, you come into this forum asking for a balanced discussion but when you receive a response not to your liking you accuse me of being a troll! very balanced, I suggest you get over yourself and put away your hidden agenda.

Again I say leave the war memorial alone, and let the Rovers pay off their debts another way, ie by not getting relegated and employing players and staff who can keep away from the bookies.
Breakpoint, I did not have a go at you, I merely poo pooed your renaming idea, you come into this forum asking for a balanced discussion but when you receive a response not to your liking you accuse me of being a troll! very balanced, I suggest you get over yourself and put away your hidden agenda. Again I say leave the war memorial alone, and let the Rovers pay off their debts another way, ie by not getting relegated and employing players and staff who can keep away from the bookies. Jack Boot
  • Score: -2

9:50am Sat 26 Jul 14

Positive thinker says...

Not this old chestnut again
Not this old chestnut again Positive thinker
  • Score: -2

11:18am Sat 26 Jul 14

uncatom says...

TRFC supporters coming out like scalded cats to support their club, how pathetic of many of you to continue to use the DJ argument to defend the indefensible sale of this field, It is not your field, it should never have been sold / given to you, it is a memorial field paid for by sincere Birkenhead people, TRFC never had any intention to use the field as a proper training facility, just as a blank check or bargaining chip for future funds, the self serving councillors who agreed to this are as much to blame, in fact one might wonder who runs the council, as TRFC seem to able to pick and choose which tracts of land they require at will.
Any how not to worry, I am certain your wish will be granted and the sale will go ahead, forget about the sacrifice over a hundred years ago after all as many of the clubs supporters have written on here in the past who cares ? its just a few trees and a dilapidated building.

Lest we forget.
TRFC supporters coming out like scalded cats to support their club, how pathetic of many of you to continue to use the DJ argument to defend the indefensible sale of this field, It is not your field, it should never have been sold / given to you, it is a memorial field paid for by sincere Birkenhead people, TRFC never had any intention to use the field as a proper training facility, just as a blank check or bargaining chip for future funds, the self serving councillors who agreed to this are as much to blame, in fact one might wonder who runs the council, as TRFC seem to able to pick and choose which tracts of land they require at will. Any how not to worry, I am certain your wish will be granted and the sale will go ahead, forget about the sacrifice over a hundred years ago after all as many of the clubs supporters have written on here in the past who cares ? its just a few trees and a dilapidated building. Lest we forget. uncatom
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Lurkinhead says...

uncatom wrote:
TRFC supporters coming out like scalded cats to support their club, how pathetic of many of you to continue to use the DJ argument to defend the indefensible sale of this field, It is not your field, it should never have been sold / given to you, it is a memorial field paid for by sincere Birkenhead people, TRFC never had any intention to use the field as a proper training facility, just as a blank check or bargaining chip for future funds, the self serving councillors who agreed to this are as much to blame, in fact one might wonder who runs the council, as TRFC seem to able to pick and choose which tracts of land they require at will.
Any how not to worry, I am certain your wish will be granted and the sale will go ahead, forget about the sacrifice over a hundred years ago after all as many of the clubs supporters have written on here in the past who cares ? its just a few trees and a dilapidated building.

Lest we forget.
Hi uncatom,

To be fair, Dean Johnson is prominently featured in the article in his customary "rent-a-quote" privileged relationship with the Globe, so it's a bit rich to criticise Rovers fans for continuing to "use the DJ argument".

I will agree with you that this is a debatable issue - god knows, we ourselves have had numerous debates over the years on here, an that is why I invited Pollexfen, earlier in this thread, to set down his proposals "which would achieve the same outcomes without the loss of the playing fields and which would benefit all parties", as if these are credible, they deserve to be heard and debated.

Back to the friend of the Globe and relentless attention seeker though, have you seen this Uncatom?

http://www.wirralglo
be.co.uk/news/113663
83.Electro_pop_Mal_s
_New_Brighton__comeb
ack_/?ref=var_0

I think you would agree it is a rather tenuous and desperate attempt to general a news story out of what is thinly-veiled direct promotion of this person? I remember some time ago, I pointed out to you just how often Dean Johnson appears in the Globe, usually for the most spurious of reasons, when the real subtext is self-promotion. Well, just to update you, the man has appeared prominently in 3 Globe articles in the last week alone. Now, wouldn't you say that was excessive?

Uncatom, I appreciate you have strong views over Ingleborough, and even though I don't agree with them I can respect them, but:
1) When you say "it is not your {TRFC's} field", I thing you will find that it is.
2) As regards Dean Johnson, perhaps those of you who do have heartfelt concerns over this planning proposal should find a better mouthpiece other than this self-serving "rent-a-quote", as he clearly does muddy the waters and do your cause ( i.e. the very cause he claims to support) a huge disservice, with his antics and behaviour over the years.
[quote][p][bold]uncatom[/bold] wrote: TRFC supporters coming out like scalded cats to support their club, how pathetic of many of you to continue to use the DJ argument to defend the indefensible sale of this field, It is not your field, it should never have been sold / given to you, it is a memorial field paid for by sincere Birkenhead people, TRFC never had any intention to use the field as a proper training facility, just as a blank check or bargaining chip for future funds, the self serving councillors who agreed to this are as much to blame, in fact one might wonder who runs the council, as TRFC seem to able to pick and choose which tracts of land they require at will. Any how not to worry, I am certain your wish will be granted and the sale will go ahead, forget about the sacrifice over a hundred years ago after all as many of the clubs supporters have written on here in the past who cares ? its just a few trees and a dilapidated building. Lest we forget.[/p][/quote]Hi uncatom, To be fair, Dean Johnson is prominently featured in the article in his customary "rent-a-quote" privileged relationship with the Globe, so it's a bit rich to criticise Rovers fans for continuing to "use the DJ argument". I will agree with you that this is a debatable issue - god knows, we ourselves have had numerous debates over the years on here, an that is why I invited Pollexfen, earlier in this thread, to set down his proposals "which would achieve the same outcomes without the loss of the playing fields and which would benefit all parties", as if these are credible, they deserve to be heard and debated. Back to the friend of the Globe and relentless attention seeker though, have you seen this Uncatom? http://www.wirralglo be.co.uk/news/113663 83.Electro_pop_Mal_s _New_Brighton__comeb ack_/?ref=var_0 I think you would agree it is a rather tenuous and desperate attempt to general a news story out of what is thinly-veiled direct promotion of this person? I remember some time ago, I pointed out to you just how often Dean Johnson appears in the Globe, usually for the most spurious of reasons, when the real subtext is self-promotion. Well, just to update you, the man has appeared prominently in 3 Globe articles in the last week alone. Now, wouldn't you say that was excessive? Uncatom, I appreciate you have strong views over Ingleborough, and even though I don't agree with them I can respect them, but: 1) When you say "it is not your {TRFC's} field", I thing you will find that it is. 2) As regards Dean Johnson, perhaps those of you who do have heartfelt concerns over this planning proposal should find a better mouthpiece other than this self-serving "rent-a-quote", as he clearly does muddy the waters and do your cause ( i.e. the very cause he claims to support) a huge disservice, with his antics and behaviour over the years. Lurkinhead
  • Score: 6

12:08pm Sat 26 Jul 14

freebase says...

well put uncatom.


however

if manning and marles did proper investagative journalism rather than just acting as rent a quotes they would know the site visit is to look at the solar campus site and not to look at ingleborough.

the globe really do need to employ real journalists

no wonder the wirral news get all the good stories
well put uncatom. however if manning and marles did proper investagative journalism rather than just acting as rent a quotes they would know the site visit is to look at the solar campus site and not to look at ingleborough. the globe really do need to employ real journalists no wonder the wirral news get all the good stories freebase
  • Score: 2

2:46pm Sat 26 Jul 14

uncatom says...

Hello Lurkin, I think you understand what I mean when I say the field doesn't belong to TRFC , yes they have purchased it but they will never own it, it is and always will be owned by those good Birkenhead people who paid for it and by the souls that it was meant to commemorate and money changing hands will never alter that, more is the disgrace that should be applied to the worthless councillors that disposed of it for a bit of so called "hospitality" no doubt they will take their overstuffed faces to the proceedings on armistice day for the drinkies afterwards , by the way I never nominated DJ as my mouthpiece.
Hello Lurkin, I think you understand what I mean when I say the field doesn't belong to TRFC , yes they have purchased it but they will never own it, it is and always will be owned by those good Birkenhead people who paid for it and by the souls that it was meant to commemorate and money changing hands will never alter that, more is the disgrace that should be applied to the worthless councillors that disposed of it for a bit of so called "hospitality" no doubt they will take their overstuffed faces to the proceedings on armistice day for the drinkies afterwards , by the way I never nominated DJ as my mouthpiece. uncatom
  • Score: -1

3:08pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Lurkinhead says...

uncatom wrote:
Hello Lurkin, I think you understand what I mean when I say the field doesn't belong to TRFC , yes they have purchased it but they will never own it, it is and always will be owned by those good Birkenhead people who paid for it and by the souls that it was meant to commemorate and money changing hands will never alter that, more is the disgrace that should be applied to the worthless councillors that disposed of it for a bit of so called "hospitality" no doubt they will take their overstuffed faces to the proceedings on armistice day for the drinkies afterwards , by the way I never nominated DJ as my mouthpiece.
Hi again uncatom,

Yes, I did know what you meant, but I wanted to draw a distinction between your opinion and fact.

As I have previously said, I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with you on this issue, and I accept that your views are sincere, but nevertheless, I believe fact and opinion should not be confused.

Can I just check with you please uncatom - you know when you say ".... that it should be applied to the worthless councillors that disposed of it for a bit of so called hospitality", are you in fact making a specific allegation, or again, is that just conjecture on your part? If it is an allegation, then please name names, as to be fair, I too would be appalled at that.

As regards DJ, of course you didn't nominate him as your mouthpiece, and that's my point really. There is genuine opposition to the Ingleborough proposals, I think everyone accepts that, but that cause has been largely hijacked by one man. What I was suggesting earlier, and I apologise if I wasn't clear, was that those of you who are genuine should not allow a tawdry one man band to monopolize the campaign, and not only skew the focus to be about himself, but also bring your otherwise honourable campaign into disrepute.

Surely we can agree to disagree, and let matters take their course, without our own opinions being confused with fact, and without shameless exhibitionists using one side of the argument for their own ends?
[quote][p][bold]uncatom[/bold] wrote: Hello Lurkin, I think you understand what I mean when I say the field doesn't belong to TRFC , yes they have purchased it but they will never own it, it is and always will be owned by those good Birkenhead people who paid for it and by the souls that it was meant to commemorate and money changing hands will never alter that, more is the disgrace that should be applied to the worthless councillors that disposed of it for a bit of so called "hospitality" no doubt they will take their overstuffed faces to the proceedings on armistice day for the drinkies afterwards , by the way I never nominated DJ as my mouthpiece.[/p][/quote]Hi again uncatom, Yes, I did know what you meant, but I wanted to draw a distinction between your opinion and fact. As I have previously said, I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with you on this issue, and I accept that your views are sincere, but nevertheless, I believe fact and opinion should not be confused. Can I just check with you please uncatom - you know when you say ".... that it should be applied to the worthless councillors that disposed of it for a bit of so called hospitality", are you in fact making a specific allegation, or again, is that just conjecture on your part? If it is an allegation, then please name names, as to be fair, I too would be appalled at that. As regards DJ, of course you didn't nominate him as your mouthpiece, and that's my point really. There is genuine opposition to the Ingleborough proposals, I think everyone accepts that, but that cause has been largely hijacked by one man. What I was suggesting earlier, and I apologise if I wasn't clear, was that those of you who are genuine should not allow a tawdry one man band to monopolize the campaign, and not only skew the focus to be about himself, but also bring your otherwise honourable campaign into disrepute. Surely we can agree to disagree, and let matters take their course, without our own opinions being confused with fact, and without shameless exhibitionists using one side of the argument for their own ends? Lurkinhead
  • Score: 3

3:51pm Sat 26 Jul 14

uncatom says...

Sorry Lurkin, can't name names, and even if I could I doubt that the allegations would get very far, as I am sure you are aware this council has managed to side swerve many local allegations of disgraceful wrong doing recently, but you must admit there appears to be a very very close relationship betwixt WBC and TRFC, property deals, land deals, over a million quids worth of sponsorship money, not exactly strangers are they?
Sorry Lurkin, can't name names, and even if I could I doubt that the allegations would get very far, as I am sure you are aware this council has managed to side swerve many local allegations of disgraceful wrong doing recently, but you must admit there appears to be a very very close relationship betwixt WBC and TRFC, property deals, land deals, over a million quids worth of sponsorship money, not exactly strangers are they? uncatom
  • Score: -1

4:50pm Sat 26 Jul 14

colindyas says...

The local development framework seems to be protecting unwanted industrial buildings from redevelopment as housing (Moreton) yet supporting the development of housing on valuable green field sites. Oh dear, what a mess.
Having moved to Wirral from North London, where acres of former amenity land is lost for ever under non-descript housing, most of which was "built to let", I'd say don't do this.
And as for the "penance" of creating amenity space in Leasowe, it's meaningless. Its miles away from Prenton and reminds me of the promise to re-build New Brighton Lido once the developers built their casino, super market, and leisure box. As we know the Lido will never be built.
Leave the space alone and allow the local community (the people who actually live there not work or visit there ) to define its future as a valuable social asset
The local development framework seems to be protecting unwanted industrial buildings from redevelopment as housing (Moreton) yet supporting the development of housing on valuable green field sites. Oh dear, what a mess. Having moved to Wirral from North London, where acres of former amenity land is lost for ever under non-descript housing, most of which was "built to let", I'd say don't do this. And as for the "penance" of creating amenity space in Leasowe, it's meaningless. Its miles away from Prenton and reminds me of the promise to re-build New Brighton Lido once the developers built their casino, super market, and leisure box. As we know the Lido will never be built. Leave the space alone and allow the local community (the people who actually live there not work or visit there ) to define its future as a valuable social asset colindyas
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Jack Boot says...

THESE OLD BUILDINGS DO NOT BELONG TO US ONLY;...THEY HAVE BELONGED TO OUR FOREFATHERS AND THEY WILL BELONG TO OUR DESCENDANTS, UNLESS WE PLAY THEM FALSE.

THEY ARE NOT.....OUR PROPERTY, TO DO AS WE LIKE WITH. WE ARE ONLY THE TRUSTEES FOR THOSE THAT COME AFTER US."
William Morris 1889
THESE OLD BUILDINGS DO NOT BELONG TO US ONLY;...THEY HAVE BELONGED TO OUR FOREFATHERS AND THEY WILL BELONG TO OUR DESCENDANTS, UNLESS WE PLAY THEM FALSE. THEY ARE NOT.....OUR PROPERTY, TO DO AS WE LIKE WITH. WE ARE ONLY THE TRUSTEES FOR THOSE THAT COME AFTER US." William Morris 1889 Jack Boot
  • Score: -3

10:05pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Reremnart says...

uncatom wrote:
Sorry Lurkin, can't name names, and even if I could I doubt that the allegations would get very far, as I am sure you are aware this council has managed to side swerve many local allegations of disgraceful wrong doing recently, but you must admit there appears to be a very very close relationship betwixt WBC and TRFC, property deals, land deals, over a million quids worth of sponsorship money, not exactly strangers are they?
Neither are the editor of this paper and a certain Mr Dean Johnston strangers judging by the amount of inches given this failed folk singer/museum owner who seems to me and many others to be using this issue as a publicity tool for both his museum and his stage show, which like his singing career seems to be a flop judging by the reportedly bad ticket sales for it`s performance at the Floral Pavilion.

May I also agree with my fellow TRFC fan regarding the amount of coverage given to what is after all the Borough`s premier sports club which is truly lamentable IMO. There has, on many occasions, been more column inches dedicated to Vauxhall Motors. a club playing several divisions in the Football pyramid below Tranmere and one that is not even based in the Borough of Wirral. Sometimes the question has to be asked whether there is a bias against the club coming from the Editors office.
[quote][p][bold]uncatom[/bold] wrote: Sorry Lurkin, can't name names, and even if I could I doubt that the allegations would get very far, as I am sure you are aware this council has managed to side swerve many local allegations of disgraceful wrong doing recently, but you must admit there appears to be a very very close relationship betwixt WBC and TRFC, property deals, land deals, over a million quids worth of sponsorship money, not exactly strangers are they?[/p][/quote]Neither are the editor of this paper and a certain Mr Dean Johnston strangers judging by the amount of inches given this failed folk singer/museum owner who seems to me and many others to be using this issue as a publicity tool for both his museum and his stage show, which like his singing career seems to be a flop judging by the reportedly bad ticket sales for it`s performance at the Floral Pavilion. May I also agree with my fellow TRFC fan regarding the amount of coverage given to what is after all the Borough`s premier sports club which is truly lamentable IMO. There has, on many occasions, been more column inches dedicated to Vauxhall Motors. a club playing several divisions in the Football pyramid below Tranmere and one that is not even based in the Borough of Wirral. Sometimes the question has to be asked whether there is a bias against the club coming from the Editors office. Reremnart
  • Score: 2

11:52pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Positive thinker says...

You would think they were building a housing estate to house
all the Roma Gipo's the way there harping on
You would think they were building a housing estate to house all the Roma Gipo's the way there harping on Positive thinker
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Sun 27 Jul 14

uncatom says...

How ridiculous to accuse the Globe of bias toward TRFC, you actually have your own header at the top of the page, this week alone there have three or four articles sporting the TRFC logo, methinks the upset is that the Globe has dared to publish this article, as to TRFC being the Boroughs premier sports club well that is debatable, Breakpoint states that TRFC is run with minimal debts, yet when they were relegated I seem to remember some one on the radio saying what a blow it was and how the club would struggle with a drop in revenue, and how it would affect earnings and people abilities to pay their mortgages etc, and of course the then outstanding loan to be repaid to the hamper man, which if to be believed has been written off. oh what tangled webs we weave.
How ridiculous to accuse the Globe of bias toward TRFC, you actually have your own header at the top of the page, this week alone there have three or four articles sporting the TRFC logo, methinks the upset is that the Globe has dared to publish this article, as to TRFC being the Boroughs premier sports club well that is debatable, Breakpoint states that TRFC is run with minimal debts, yet when they were relegated I seem to remember some one on the radio saying what a blow it was and how the club would struggle with a drop in revenue, and how it would affect earnings and people abilities to pay their mortgages etc, and of course the then outstanding loan to be repaid to the hamper man, which if to be believed has been written off. oh what tangled webs we weave. uncatom
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Breakpoint says...

uncatom wrote:
How ridiculous to accuse the Globe of bias toward TRFC, you actually have your own header at the top of the page, this week alone there have three or four articles sporting the TRFC logo, methinks the upset is that the Globe has dared to publish this article, as to TRFC being the Boroughs premier sports club well that is debatable, Breakpoint states that TRFC is run with minimal debts, yet when they were relegated I seem to remember some one on the radio saying what a blow it was and how the club would struggle with a drop in revenue, and how it would affect earnings and people abilities to pay their mortgages etc, and of course the then outstanding loan to be repaid to the hamper man, which if to be believed has been written off. oh what tangled webs we weave.
I did say Tranmere Rovers was run with minimal debts, look at other premier & football leagues clubs, Coventry, Shrewsbury, Leeds Utd, Portsmouth, Bury, QPR, Sheffield Wed, Luton Town (now league), Manchester United & City, Chelsea. Out of all those clubs they all spend far beyond therir means and have all relied on rich investors or gone into administration over the previous years.
If a football club is relegated there will be a drop in revenue as I do believe that the lower down the football pyramid you go the less money you receive from The FA, The Football League, The TV Companies and less in sponsorship rights.
Tranmere Rovers have said that due to relegation budgets need to be cut due to less revenue - this is bar far a more than sensible way of running a business against Shrewsbury who were also relegated and have signed i thing about 15 players since the end of last season.
I am far from being an expert in the football field of business but it doesn't seem as though Tranmere Rovers are doing too much wrong on the business front.
[quote][p][bold]uncatom[/bold] wrote: How ridiculous to accuse the Globe of bias toward TRFC, you actually have your own header at the top of the page, this week alone there have three or four articles sporting the TRFC logo, methinks the upset is that the Globe has dared to publish this article, as to TRFC being the Boroughs premier sports club well that is debatable, Breakpoint states that TRFC is run with minimal debts, yet when they were relegated I seem to remember some one on the radio saying what a blow it was and how the club would struggle with a drop in revenue, and how it would affect earnings and people abilities to pay their mortgages etc, and of course the then outstanding loan to be repaid to the hamper man, which if to be believed has been written off. oh what tangled webs we weave.[/p][/quote]I did say Tranmere Rovers was run with minimal debts, look at other premier & football leagues clubs, Coventry, Shrewsbury, Leeds Utd, Portsmouth, Bury, QPR, Sheffield Wed, Luton Town (now league), Manchester United & City, Chelsea. Out of all those clubs they all spend far beyond therir means and have all relied on rich investors or gone into administration over the previous years. If a football club is relegated there will be a drop in revenue as I do believe that the lower down the football pyramid you go the less money you receive from The FA, The Football League, The TV Companies and less in sponsorship rights. Tranmere Rovers have said that due to relegation budgets need to be cut due to less revenue - this is bar far a more than sensible way of running a business against Shrewsbury who were also relegated and have signed i thing about 15 players since the end of last season. I am far from being an expert in the football field of business but it doesn't seem as though Tranmere Rovers are doing too much wrong on the business front. Breakpoint
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Jack Boot says...

The Rovers are not doing too well on...

1. Business - in debt
2. Footbal Pitch - Relegated
3. Ethical - Want to bulild over a war memorial for profit ( see No1), like to bet against themselves.

All above board really for today's footballing community.
The Rovers are not doing too well on... 1. Business - in debt 2. Footbal Pitch - Relegated 3. Ethical - Want to bulild over a war memorial for profit ( see No1), like to bet against themselves. All above board really for today's footballing community. Jack Boot
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Lurkinhead says...

uncatom wrote:
How ridiculous to accuse the Globe of bias toward TRFC, you actually have your own header at the top of the page, this week alone there have three or four articles sporting the TRFC logo, methinks the upset is that the Globe has dared to publish this article, as to TRFC being the Boroughs premier sports club well that is debatable, Breakpoint states that TRFC is run with minimal debts, yet when they were relegated I seem to remember some one on the radio saying what a blow it was and how the club would struggle with a drop in revenue, and how it would affect earnings and people abilities to pay their mortgages etc, and of course the then outstanding loan to be repaid to the hamper man, which if to be believed has been written off. oh what tangled webs we weave.
Quote uncatom: ".... as to TRFC being the Boroughs premier sports club well that is debatable.... "


Sorry, a bit off topic I guess, but is that debatable though uncatom, as to be honest, I would have though it was a matter of fact, in terms of national recogition, support, profile or whatever?

Maybe I am missing something, but who are the other candidates for this accolade, over the last 125+ years, and what criteria are you employing to measure that? Perhaps we can then have a debate about it, if you would like?
[quote][p][bold]uncatom[/bold] wrote: How ridiculous to accuse the Globe of bias toward TRFC, you actually have your own header at the top of the page, this week alone there have three or four articles sporting the TRFC logo, methinks the upset is that the Globe has dared to publish this article, as to TRFC being the Boroughs premier sports club well that is debatable, Breakpoint states that TRFC is run with minimal debts, yet when they were relegated I seem to remember some one on the radio saying what a blow it was and how the club would struggle with a drop in revenue, and how it would affect earnings and people abilities to pay their mortgages etc, and of course the then outstanding loan to be repaid to the hamper man, which if to be believed has been written off. oh what tangled webs we weave.[/p][/quote]Quote uncatom: ".... as to TRFC being the Boroughs premier sports club well that is debatable.... " Sorry, a bit off topic I guess, but is that debatable though uncatom, as to be honest, I would have though it was a matter of fact, in terms of national recogition, support, profile or whatever? Maybe I am missing something, but who are the other candidates for this accolade, over the last 125+ years, and what criteria are you employing to measure that? Perhaps we can then have a debate about it, if you would like? Lurkinhead
  • Score: 1

9:52pm Sun 27 Jul 14

yogz66 says...

uncatom wrote:
Sorry Lurkin, can't name names, and even if I could I doubt that the allegations would get very far, as I am sure you are aware this council has managed to side swerve many local allegations of disgraceful wrong doing recently, but you must admit there appears to be a very very close relationship betwixt WBC and TRFC, property deals, land deals, over a million quids worth of sponsorship money, not exactly strangers are they?
Can't (or won't) name names....conjecture then.

You don't know them do you, because if you did, you'd surely have the support of the local newspaper and their wonderful journalists.
[quote][p][bold]uncatom[/bold] wrote: Sorry Lurkin, can't name names, and even if I could I doubt that the allegations would get very far, as I am sure you are aware this council has managed to side swerve many local allegations of disgraceful wrong doing recently, but you must admit there appears to be a very very close relationship betwixt WBC and TRFC, property deals, land deals, over a million quids worth of sponsorship money, not exactly strangers are they?[/p][/quote]Can't (or won't) name names....conjecture then. You don't know them do you, because if you did, you'd surely have the support of the local newspaper and their wonderful journalists. yogz66
  • Score: 1

9:59pm Sun 27 Jul 14

yogz66 says...

Jack Boot wrote:
Breakpoint, I did not have a go at you, I merely poo pooed your renaming idea, you come into this forum asking for a balanced discussion but when you receive a response not to your liking you accuse me of being a troll! very balanced, I suggest you get over yourself and put away your hidden agenda.

Again I say leave the war memorial alone, and let the Rovers pay off their debts another way, ie by not getting relegated and employing players and staff who can keep away from the bookies.
That's funny that is.Wrong in most cases as well.

But, by the way, Inglebrough isnt a war memorial. It never was, it never has been, and it never will be. It's just a little fact that is often overlooked, esecially by the vitrolic....
[quote][p][bold]Jack Boot[/bold] wrote: Breakpoint, I did not have a go at you, I merely poo pooed your renaming idea, you come into this forum asking for a balanced discussion but when you receive a response not to your liking you accuse me of being a troll! very balanced, I suggest you get over yourself and put away your hidden agenda. Again I say leave the war memorial alone, and let the Rovers pay off their debts another way, ie by not getting relegated and employing players and staff who can keep away from the bookies.[/p][/quote]That's funny that is.Wrong in most cases as well. But, by the way, Inglebrough isnt a war memorial. It never was, it never has been, and it never will be. It's just a little fact that is often overlooked, esecially by the vitrolic.... yogz66
  • Score: 2

10:01am Mon 28 Jul 14

Breakpoint says...

Jack Boot wrote:
The Rovers are not doing too well on...

1. Business - in debt
2. Footbal Pitch - Relegated
3. Ethical - Want to bulild over a war memorial for profit ( see No1), like to bet against themselves.

All above board really for today's footballing community.
Jack Boot

I suggest you edit your comment as you have stated Tranmere "like to bet against themselves".
There is no evidence of Tranmere Rovers betting against themselves, when did this actually happen, your comments could be construed as libelous.
I would like to know your thoughts from the underhand tactics of dean Johnson when he photo shopped war graves onto a picture of Ingleborought Fields.
Can we then get back to proper discussions rather than the sniping.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Boot[/bold] wrote: The Rovers are not doing too well on... 1. Business - in debt 2. Footbal Pitch - Relegated 3. Ethical - Want to bulild over a war memorial for profit ( see No1), like to bet against themselves. All above board really for today's footballing community.[/p][/quote]Jack Boot I suggest you edit your comment as you have stated Tranmere "like to bet against themselves". There is no evidence of Tranmere Rovers betting against themselves, when did this actually happen, your comments could be construed as libelous. I would like to know your thoughts from the underhand tactics of dean Johnson when he photo shopped war graves onto a picture of Ingleborought Fields. Can we then get back to proper discussions rather than the sniping. Breakpoint
  • Score: 2

12:01pm Mon 28 Jul 14

freebase says...

note for editor

how come when posts are libelous e.g. tranmere Rovers bet against themseleves you allow the debate to carry on.

again showing your bias.

on other posts when things havent gone the way of your friend Dean you have stopped the debate and resorted to picking out individuals for criticism because you dont like their point of view.

Leigh Marles why not just come out and admit you have a dislike for tranmere rovers football club and its supporters.
note for editor how come when posts are libelous e.g. tranmere Rovers bet against themseleves you allow the debate to carry on. again showing your bias. on other posts when things havent gone the way of your friend Dean you have stopped the debate and resorted to picking out individuals for criticism because you dont like their point of view. Leigh Marles why not just come out and admit you have a dislike for tranmere rovers football club and its supporters. freebase
  • Score: 1

12:05pm Mon 28 Jul 14

freebase says...

also i know several people who have emailed you re your blatent 1 sided rhetoric and not even an acknowledgement.

its a poor show mr editor
also i know several people who have emailed you re your blatent 1 sided rhetoric and not even an acknowledgement. its a poor show mr editor freebase
  • Score: 1

1:38pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Muir the Merrier says...

Off original topic, but seeing as though some deem it acceptable to belittle 'our football club' I would just like to congratulate TRFC on yesterdays open day, 100's of kids playing on the PP pitch, and the majority of players and staff giving up their day off to meet fans.

The Wirral should be proud of it's football club which offers so much more than the coroprate organisations of The Premier League.

Hopefully the Globe will give this event some publicity.
Off original topic, but seeing as though some deem it acceptable to belittle 'our football club' I would just like to congratulate TRFC on yesterdays open day, 100's of kids playing on the PP pitch, and the majority of players and staff giving up their day off to meet fans. The Wirral should be proud of it's football club which offers so much more than the coroprate organisations of The Premier League. Hopefully the Globe will give this event some publicity. Muir the Merrier
  • Score: 1

1:56pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Pollexfen says...

I am sorry that I have not returned to the debate sooner.
This issue is something which people feel emotive about on both sides for perfectly understandable reasons. In such a heated environment it is easy to personalise matters when we need to keep focused on the facts. There are many Birkenhead Institute Old Boys and others, who feel strongly about different aspects of the proposals, but one thing on which we are all agreed is that the memorial offered is cheap, disrespectful and unacceptable. The irony of this proposed desecration almost to day of the 100th Anniversary of the start of WW1 cannot be lost on anybody?
Birkenhead Institute Old Boys are many in number and Dean Johnson has a right to his personal opinion but I still cannot see why any respectable, sensible and businesslike company would not want to sit down and talk to us collectively? Logic would suggest that in any event you would want to open a dialogue with those who may be perceived to be the moderate part of any opposition? Our polite requests for meetings go unanswered and if TRFC will not speak to the press then that is their problem.
Maybe if Lurkinhead were in a position to influence TRFC, there would be some point in sharing our plans with him but without that, I will naturally decline the request. I understand why you pose the question and can imagine your response to this but be fair. Its not you that we have to convince, I only wish it was, because you are at least prepared to discuss things. Remember also that we have been attempting to seek talks for nearly two years now. Suffice it to say that we believe that it is possible for TRFC to continue to have their training facilities and make the £2m profit they expect to take (see the Council Cabinet meeting minutes) from the sale of Ingleborough Road.
With regard to Woodchurch, the Council’s Cabinet minutes reveal that TRFC were to be offered a 99 year lease at a peppercorn rent and to be given £1.67m from the Council to help with the total cost of the work (£2.5m) leaving them with a pure profit of approximately £2m. However in a letter dated 10th March to Wirral Planners from Mike Paddock, architect for TRFC, he stated that, “Tranmere Rovers FC had an issue that the length of lease being offered ... was not long enough”. Of course the Solar Campus proposal (not wanted at all by local residents and not subject to any public consultation) will undoubtedly be cheaper leaving even more profit for TRFC. This profit according to Wirral Planners is intended to, “reduce Club debt” something which might be of reassurance to TRFC fans, providing they can be sure it does not go to the same place as all the recent transfer fee income.
Of course any possible speculation about Birkenhead Institute Old Boys buying the site may be academic in view of information supplied by Wirral Planners to Sport England (a statutory consultee to the Planning process). According to Sport England’s letter dated 14th July it said that they had been told that they, “understand the club has entered into a legally binding agreement with a developer for the sale of the Ingleborough Rd site. “.

Then again they were also told at the same time that, “the Ingleborough Road site ... is not in currently in use (and has not been used for two years) “. That of course is completely untrue so who knows where the truth lies?

Finally of course, Planning Committee have the right to call for a site visit and certainly the absence of any public consultation at Leasowe clearly merits such a visit for that fact alone. I am sure that it had nothing to do with the fact that in their letter of 18th July to Wirral Planners, Sport England objected, that their formal position had not been properly reported to Planning Committee by the Planning Officer and that it, “Misrepresents Sport England’s position”. The Planners were required to bring this letter to the attention of the Planning Committee.

I am surprised that TRFC Supporters have not asked for their collective dignity to be respected by the Club’s owners and I suspect that this is because they don’t want to upset Peter Johnson in the hope that he will in the end, do the decent thing for Club and its supporters, but I am afraid that from where I am sat there seems to little chance.

Birkenhead Institute Old Boys
PS the comment from Yogz66 is plain wrong. Sorry but its true that it constitutes a war memorial and there is plenty of evidence to support it for those who are interested.
I am sorry that I have not returned to the debate sooner. This issue is something which people feel emotive about on both sides for perfectly understandable reasons. In such a heated environment it is easy to personalise matters when we need to keep focused on the facts. There are many Birkenhead Institute Old Boys and others, who feel strongly about different aspects of the proposals, but one thing on which we are all agreed is that the memorial offered is cheap, disrespectful and unacceptable. The irony of this proposed desecration almost to day of the 100th Anniversary of the start of WW1 cannot be lost on anybody? Birkenhead Institute Old Boys are many in number and Dean Johnson has a right to his personal opinion but I still cannot see why any respectable, sensible and businesslike company would not want to sit down and talk to us collectively? Logic would suggest that in any event you would want to open a dialogue with those who may be perceived to be the moderate part of any opposition? Our polite requests for meetings go unanswered and if TRFC will not speak to the press then that is their problem. Maybe if Lurkinhead were in a position to influence TRFC, there would be some point in sharing our plans with him but without that, I will naturally decline the request. I understand why you pose the question and can imagine your response to this but be fair. Its not you that we have to convince, I only wish it was, because you are at least prepared to discuss things. Remember also that we have been attempting to seek talks for nearly two years now. Suffice it to say that we believe that it is possible for TRFC to continue to have their training facilities and make the £2m profit they expect to take (see the Council Cabinet meeting minutes) from the sale of Ingleborough Road. With regard to Woodchurch, the Council’s Cabinet minutes reveal that TRFC were to be offered a 99 year lease at a peppercorn rent and to be given £1.67m from the Council to help with the total cost of the work (£2.5m) leaving them with a pure profit of approximately £2m. However in a letter dated 10th March to Wirral Planners from Mike Paddock, architect for TRFC, he stated that, “Tranmere Rovers FC had an issue that the length of lease being offered ... was not long enough”. Of course the Solar Campus proposal (not wanted at all by local residents and not subject to any public consultation) will undoubtedly be cheaper leaving even more profit for TRFC. This profit according to Wirral Planners is intended to, “reduce Club debt” something which might be of reassurance to TRFC fans, providing they can be sure it does not go to the same place as all the recent transfer fee income. Of course any possible speculation about Birkenhead Institute Old Boys buying the site may be academic in view of information supplied by Wirral Planners to Sport England (a statutory consultee to the Planning process). According to Sport England’s letter dated 14th July it said that they had been told that they, “understand the club has entered into a legally binding agreement with a developer for the sale of the Ingleborough Rd site. “. Then again they were also told at the same time that, “the Ingleborough Road site ... is not in currently in use (and has not been used for two years) “. That of course is completely untrue so who knows where the truth lies? Finally of course, Planning Committee have the right to call for a site visit and certainly the absence of any public consultation at Leasowe clearly merits such a visit for that fact alone. I am sure that it had nothing to do with the fact that in their letter of 18th July to Wirral Planners, Sport England objected, that their formal position had not been properly reported to Planning Committee by the Planning Officer and that it, “Misrepresents Sport England’s position”. The Planners were required to bring this letter to the attention of the Planning Committee. I am surprised that TRFC Supporters have not asked for their collective dignity to be respected by the Club’s owners and I suspect that this is because they don’t want to upset Peter Johnson in the hope that he will in the end, do the decent thing for Club and its supporters, but I am afraid that from where I am sat there seems to little chance. Birkenhead Institute Old Boys PS the comment from Yogz66 is plain wrong. Sorry but its true that it constitutes a war memorial and there is plenty of evidence to support it for those who are interested. Pollexfen
  • Score: 1

1:57pm Mon 28 Jul 14

yogz66 says...

Jack Boot says" I've been upto to Ingleborough on a sunny Sunday and it has a thriving, energetic atmosphere"

There's nothing like a good walk up on the moors and fells is there.

It has to have been there you went, as the field you're actually refering to isn't open to the public, what with it being private property and all that.

You weren't lying were you?
Jack Boot says" I've been upto to Ingleborough on a sunny Sunday and it has a thriving, energetic atmosphere" There's nothing like a good walk up on the moors and fells is there. It has to have been there you went, as the field you're actually refering to isn't open to the public, what with it being private property and all that. You weren't lying were you? yogz66
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Mon 28 Jul 14

uncatom says...

Pollexfen, excellent response, thank you, again it would appear WBC turn a somewhat deaf ear and the proverbial blind eye were the interests of TRFC are concerned and whilst they (WBC) bleat about falling revenues seem quite happy to support a private enterprise with ratepayers money and allow the same to pick and choose any location that they may require to further their business interests, as you say Lurkinhead does seem a reasonable chap although we do disagree on a number of things and is open to a reasonable discussion, as to yogz66 and his childish rantings he is an asset to those of us that wish to retain Ingleborough as it was intended a Memorial Field.
Pollexfen, excellent response, thank you, again it would appear WBC turn a somewhat deaf ear and the proverbial blind eye were the interests of TRFC are concerned and whilst they (WBC) bleat about falling revenues seem quite happy to support a private enterprise with ratepayers money and allow the same to pick and choose any location that they may require to further their business interests, as you say Lurkinhead does seem a reasonable chap although we do disagree on a number of things and is open to a reasonable discussion, as to yogz66 and his childish rantings he is an asset to those of us that wish to retain Ingleborough as it was intended a Memorial Field. uncatom
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Lurkinhead says...

Hi Pollexfen

Thank you for your further contribution to this debate on behalf of the BI Old Boys.

There are a few issues I would like to come back on, so here goes:

a) As regards the proposed memorial at the Ingleborough development site, assuming for the sake of argument that is to go ahead, what would be your baseline as regards what would be acceptable, given that in your view the current proposal for this memorial is " cheap, disrespectful and unacceptable"? For the avoidance of doubt, I am not necessarily in disagreement with you here, I just wonder where the compromise position would be, for the sake of argument.

b) Re TRFC's refusal to enter into a dialogue with you, again, on the face of it a very reasonable concern, but whilst I agree with you that there is a need to discuss on the facts rather than personalize matters, with respect, it cannot be lost on you that the conduct, over several years, of one of your number, has clearly had the (possibly unintended) consequence of closing that door for good. Now I've said my piece on Dean Johnson several times, so don't propose to re-state all his poor behaviour, or the motives for it, here, but in all honesty, can you not see that the man has hugely damaged your otherwise honourable cause? For me, this is a real shame, as whilst there are really important issues to debate, from both sides, one man has polarized the issues to the extent that reasonable debate is often stifled.

c) I am disappointed that you decline my invitation to share your proposals for Ingleborough. You are of course correct, it is not me, as a mere supporter of the club, that you have to convince, but I assumed this debate in a local newspaper presented an opportunity for you to put your position forward, in the interests of clarity, and leave it for the general reader to judge if this is reasonable in all the circumstances. No?

d) Re Woodchurch, I'll put my cards on the table - I am personally very disappointed that these proposals were withdrawn in favour of a revised plan at Solar Campus, and there has been much debate amongst us TRFC fans as to why this occurred. Some claim that the council insisted that Woodchurch be built before Ingleborough could start, or that the council unilaterally altered the terms (i.e. length) of the proposed lease, but I have not seen any evidence to back up this conjecture. But you state:
"However in a letter dated 10th March to Wirral Planners from Mike Paddock, architect for TRFC, he stated that, “Tranmere Rovers FC had an issue that the length of lease being offered ... was not long enough”".

Pollexfen, can you provide a link to that document, as I for one, and I suspect other Rovers fans too, am struggling to understand why Woodchurch broke down at the 11th hour, and I genuinely don't know where the blame lies? If it transpires that it was the club, unilaterally, who wanted to change the terms of the proposed lease at Woodchurch, and pulled the plug when that wasn't agreed, then on the face of it, I find that course of action difficult to defend.

Finally, as Regards Peter Johnson, I'm not too sure what you mean by your penultimate paragraph? I'll make no secret, I have issues with many of his decisions over the years, but what do you mean re "collective dignity" or "do the decent thing"?
Hi Pollexfen Thank you for your further contribution to this debate on behalf of the BI Old Boys. There are a few issues I would like to come back on, so here goes: a) As regards the proposed memorial at the Ingleborough development site, assuming for the sake of argument that is to go ahead, what would be your baseline as regards what would be acceptable, given that in your view the current proposal for this memorial is " cheap, disrespectful and unacceptable"? For the avoidance of doubt, I am not necessarily in disagreement with you here, I just wonder where the compromise position would be, for the sake of argument. b) Re TRFC's refusal to enter into a dialogue with you, again, on the face of it a very reasonable concern, but whilst I agree with you that there is a need to discuss on the facts rather than personalize matters, with respect, it cannot be lost on you that the conduct, over several years, of one of your number, has clearly had the (possibly unintended) consequence of closing that door for good. Now I've said my piece on Dean Johnson several times, so don't propose to re-state all his poor behaviour, or the motives for it, here, but in all honesty, can you not see that the man has hugely damaged your otherwise honourable cause? For me, this is a real shame, as whilst there are really important issues to debate, from both sides, one man has polarized the issues to the extent that reasonable debate is often stifled. c) I am disappointed that you decline my invitation to share your proposals for Ingleborough. You are of course correct, it is not me, as a mere supporter of the club, that you have to convince, but I assumed this debate in a local newspaper presented an opportunity for you to put your position forward, in the interests of clarity, and leave it for the general reader to judge if this is reasonable in all the circumstances. No? d) Re Woodchurch, I'll put my cards on the table - I am personally very disappointed that these proposals were withdrawn in favour of a revised plan at Solar Campus, and there has been much debate amongst us TRFC fans as to why this occurred. Some claim that the council insisted that Woodchurch be built before Ingleborough could start, or that the council unilaterally altered the terms (i.e. length) of the proposed lease, but I have not seen any evidence to back up this conjecture. But you state: "However in a letter dated 10th March to Wirral Planners from Mike Paddock, architect for TRFC, he stated that, “Tranmere Rovers FC had an issue that the length of lease being offered ... was not long enough”". Pollexfen, can you provide a link to that document, as I for one, and I suspect other Rovers fans too, am struggling to understand why Woodchurch broke down at the 11th hour, and I genuinely don't know where the blame lies? If it transpires that it was the club, unilaterally, who wanted to change the terms of the proposed lease at Woodchurch, and pulled the plug when that wasn't agreed, then on the face of it, I find that course of action difficult to defend. Finally, as Regards Peter Johnson, I'm not too sure what you mean by your penultimate paragraph? I'll make no secret, I have issues with many of his decisions over the years, but what do you mean re "collective dignity" or "do the decent thing"? Lurkinhead
  • Score: 3

5:30pm Mon 28 Jul 14

yogz66 says...

OK, if it is a war memorial....

> Why isn't it recognosed by the British Legion?
> Why, every Nov 11th (or the nearest Sunday to) do they not parade there and lay wreaths?
> Why does it list no names?
> Why are the 83 known fallen listed on other war memorials?
> Why didn't Prince Harry get involved?
> The other unnamed (by Birkenhead Institute) five fallen....who are they?
> Why, in 1926, was it only 86 fallen?
> Where did the Poplars go?
> Why aren't there 88 trees there, and given their age, they'd be fairly mature examples of Poplars?
> In the Christmas 1932 edition of The Visor, regarding the trees, why is this field just refered to as the 'School field' (on both pages 19 & 20), as this is six years after you believe it became a war memorial?

I don't really expect you to answer most of those, but one question I would like you to answer......the fabled 88 fallen, can you give me ALL 88 names please?
OK, if it is a war memorial.... > Why isn't it recognosed by the British Legion? > Why, every Nov 11th (or the nearest Sunday to) do they not parade there and lay wreaths? > Why does it list no names? > Why are the 83 known fallen listed on other war memorials? > Why didn't Prince Harry get involved? > The other unnamed (by Birkenhead Institute) five fallen....who are they? > Why, in 1926, was it only 86 fallen? > Where did the Poplars go? > Why aren't there 88 trees there, and given their age, they'd be fairly mature examples of Poplars? > In the Christmas 1932 edition of The Visor, regarding the trees, why is this field just refered to as the 'School field' (on both pages 19 & 20), as this is six years after you believe it became a war memorial? I don't really expect you to answer most of those, but one question I would like you to answer......the fabled 88 fallen, can you give me ALL 88 names please? yogz66
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Mon 28 Jul 14

uncatom says...

Nice well defined post Lurkin, put together with some thought, I know I am guilty of getting over emotional in some of my posts, but the posts from both you and pollexfen are rational and well balanced, it a pity those TRFC fans that show disrespect ruin it.
Nice well defined post Lurkin, put together with some thought, I know I am guilty of getting over emotional in some of my posts, but the posts from both you and pollexfen are rational and well balanced, it a pity those TRFC fans that show disrespect ruin it. uncatom
  • Score: 1

7:53pm Mon 28 Jul 14

uncatom says...

yogz66 wrote:
OK, if it is a war memorial....

> Why isn't it recognosed by the British Legion?
> Why, every Nov 11th (or the nearest Sunday to) do they not parade there and lay wreaths?
> Why does it list no names?
> Why are the 83 known fallen listed on other war memorials?
> Why didn't Prince Harry get involved?
> The other unnamed (by Birkenhead Institute) five fallen....who are they?
> Why, in 1926, was it only 86 fallen?
> Where did the Poplars go?
> Why aren't there 88 trees there, and given their age, they'd be fairly mature examples of Poplars?
> In the Christmas 1932 edition of The Visor, regarding the trees, why is this field just refered to as the 'School field' (on both pages 19 & 20), as this is six years after you believe it became a war memorial?

I don't really expect you to answer most of those, but one question I would like you to answer......the fabled 88 fallen, can you give me ALL 88 names please?
A simple answer to your parrot like requests, definition of a War Memorial, any physical object created, erected or installed to commemorate those involved in or affected by a conflict or war should be considered a War Memorial, is that difficult to understand ? for more confirmation look on the War Memorials trust site, your continual denying of Ingleborough as Memorial is becoming tiresome, so a few simple checks on the internet will save you the trouble of repeating your childish twenty questions.
[quote][p][bold]yogz66[/bold] wrote: OK, if it is a war memorial.... > Why isn't it recognosed by the British Legion? > Why, every Nov 11th (or the nearest Sunday to) do they not parade there and lay wreaths? > Why does it list no names? > Why are the 83 known fallen listed on other war memorials? > Why didn't Prince Harry get involved? > The other unnamed (by Birkenhead Institute) five fallen....who are they? > Why, in 1926, was it only 86 fallen? > Where did the Poplars go? > Why aren't there 88 trees there, and given their age, they'd be fairly mature examples of Poplars? > In the Christmas 1932 edition of The Visor, regarding the trees, why is this field just refered to as the 'School field' (on both pages 19 & 20), as this is six years after you believe it became a war memorial? I don't really expect you to answer most of those, but one question I would like you to answer......the fabled 88 fallen, can you give me ALL 88 names please?[/p][/quote]A simple answer to your parrot like requests, definition of a War Memorial, any physical object created, erected or installed to commemorate those involved in or affected by a conflict or war should be considered a War Memorial, is that difficult to understand ? for more confirmation look on the War Memorials trust site, your continual denying of Ingleborough as Memorial is becoming tiresome, so a few simple checks on the internet will save you the trouble of repeating your childish twenty questions. uncatom
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Mon 28 Jul 14

trfc2012 says...

Plenty of decent debate on here and some of the points against the sale I actually agree with. I do think the club could have been more proactive and asked more what a suitable memorial would have been

However, on the flip to this, it is a locked field with no access and has been for years. It would be interesting to know how many requests Tranmere have had over the years they have owned it from people wanting to lay wreaths at the site/ hold a service there? I would hazard a guess that the answer would be minimal if at all

Which begs the question that although it may be wrong in peoples eyes to sell a memorial site it must also be equally as bad for it to have not had any requests to honour the dead in the site.

Another point worth mentioning here as it is being lost. Tranmere do plenty of work in both honouring soldiers and in the community and have won many awards as a result and they will continue to do so. I would argue in respect of money available to them in comparison they do far more than the likes of Liverpool or Everton
Plenty of decent debate on here and some of the points against the sale I actually agree with. I do think the club could have been more proactive and asked more what a suitable memorial would have been However, on the flip to this, it is a locked field with no access and has been for years. It would be interesting to know how many requests Tranmere have had over the years they have owned it from people wanting to lay wreaths at the site/ hold a service there? I would hazard a guess that the answer would be minimal if at all Which begs the question that although it may be wrong in peoples eyes to sell a memorial site it must also be equally as bad for it to have not had any requests to honour the dead in the site. Another point worth mentioning here as it is being lost. Tranmere do plenty of work in both honouring soldiers and in the community and have won many awards as a result and they will continue to do so. I would argue in respect of money available to them in comparison they do far more than the likes of Liverpool or Everton trfc2012
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Jack Boot says...

trfc2012, what you going on about ? This field is regularly used see this link from last year when a memorial was held, it was full of TRFC kids training, and if you take the time to travel past this site its well manicured' hardly 'not been used for years'.

http://www.wilfredow
enstory.com/inglebor
oughroad.html

Granted this looks like a Dean Johnson site but I was there

a lie can travel twice around the world before truth gets its boots on
trfc2012, what you going on about ? This field is regularly used see this link from last year when a memorial was held, it was full of TRFC kids training, and if you take the time to travel past this site its well manicured' hardly 'not been used for years'. http://www.wilfredow enstory.com/inglebor oughroad.html Granted this looks like a Dean Johnson site but I was there a lie can travel twice around the world before truth gets its boots on Jack Boot
  • Score: -1

9:57pm Mon 28 Jul 14

trfc2012 says...

Yes its used for Tranmere to train at but is closed to the public ( which is what I meant ) the rest of the time

The memorial was held there yes because the club accepted the request which begs the question that if the club are okay with memorials being held there why have they not been held each year ( more than once a year ) going back the last 10 years or so which again is the point I was making
Yes its used for Tranmere to train at but is closed to the public ( which is what I meant ) the rest of the time The memorial was held there yes because the club accepted the request which begs the question that if the club are okay with memorials being held there why have they not been held each year ( more than once a year ) going back the last 10 years or so which again is the point I was making trfc2012
  • Score: 1

10:39pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Breakpoint says...

From starting this debate to try to gauge the feeling of people to get a balanced argument I am shocked by some of the comments mainly by Jack Boot, however I must applaud the comments from Pollexfen and lurkinhead as both your comments show willing to discuss the issues for an amicable solution. Pollexfen maybe you should take over the campaign with lurkinhead representing Tranmere Rovers.
I am looking through details regarding Ingleborough Fields and I cannot find any details of a memorial service being held there or requests to hold a service there until this campaign to save the fileds started.
As I started following the story with interest when it first came out, I am now researching (when time / health allows) full details against some of the points from both sides, however whatever I can come back with will be meaningless as it is our wonderfull !!! councillors who will eventually decide the outcome.
From starting this debate to try to gauge the feeling of people to get a balanced argument I am shocked by some of the comments mainly by Jack Boot, however I must applaud the comments from Pollexfen and lurkinhead as both your comments show willing to discuss the issues for an amicable solution. Pollexfen maybe you should take over the campaign with lurkinhead representing Tranmere Rovers. I am looking through details regarding Ingleborough Fields and I cannot find any details of a memorial service being held there or requests to hold a service there until this campaign to save the fileds started. As I started following the story with interest when it first came out, I am now researching (when time / health allows) full details against some of the points from both sides, however whatever I can come back with will be meaningless as it is our wonderfull !!! councillors who will eventually decide the outcome. Breakpoint
  • Score: 1

12:48am Tue 29 Jul 14

yogz66 says...

uncatom wrote:
yogz66 wrote:
OK, if it is a war memorial....

> Why isn't it recognosed by the British Legion?
> Why, every Nov 11th (or the nearest Sunday to) do they not parade there and lay wreaths?
> Why does it list no names?
> Why are the 83 known fallen listed on other war memorials?
> Why didn't Prince Harry get involved?
> The other unnamed (by Birkenhead Institute) five fallen....who are they?
> Why, in 1926, was it only 86 fallen?
> Where did the Poplars go?
> Why aren't there 88 trees there, and given their age, they'd be fairly mature examples of Poplars?
> In the Christmas 1932 edition of The Visor, regarding the trees, why is this field just refered to as the 'School field' (on both pages 19 & 20), as this is six years after you believe it became a war memorial?

I don't really expect you to answer most of those, but one question I would like you to answer......the fabled 88 fallen, can you give me ALL 88 names please?
A simple answer to your parrot like requests, definition of a War Memorial, any physical object created, erected or installed to commemorate those involved in or affected by a conflict or war should be considered a War Memorial, is that difficult to understand ? for more confirmation look on the War Memorials trust site, your continual denying of Ingleborough as Memorial is becoming tiresome, so a few simple checks on the internet will save you the trouble of repeating your childish twenty questions.
I note you've not named the 88, which was the question I'd like answered.

i note you choose to ignore the inaccuracies by the Birkenhead Institute.

I note you choose to ignore facts over this 'School field' (to use The Visor's definition).

I note that you choose to ignore the fact that the British Legion don't parade there, but at the War Memorial in the centre of town, which of you asked Joe Public where the War memorial was, they'd pin point.

I note that you seem to want to put opinion 'down'. How interesting that many soldiers have given their lives to allow people to remain free and have their own opinions, yet here you are, objecting to that. Ironic? No, you just don't like someone questioning you, Johnson, The Globe, and this famous (sic) school, and a 'School Field' that no one really cared about, and some tress that would appear to have been removed by the very school that you suddenly seem to hold in high esteem.

If you don't like the questions, you could say so, you could just ignore them, if if it's that important to you, you could answer them. Like the accustaion aimed at the council officials, you hid behind annonimity saying you couldn't name. Really, it was just bluff and nonsense on your part.
[quote][p][bold]uncatom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yogz66[/bold] wrote: OK, if it is a war memorial.... > Why isn't it recognosed by the British Legion? > Why, every Nov 11th (or the nearest Sunday to) do they not parade there and lay wreaths? > Why does it list no names? > Why are the 83 known fallen listed on other war memorials? > Why didn't Prince Harry get involved? > The other unnamed (by Birkenhead Institute) five fallen....who are they? > Why, in 1926, was it only 86 fallen? > Where did the Poplars go? > Why aren't there 88 trees there, and given their age, they'd be fairly mature examples of Poplars? > In the Christmas 1932 edition of The Visor, regarding the trees, why is this field just refered to as the 'School field' (on both pages 19 & 20), as this is six years after you believe it became a war memorial? I don't really expect you to answer most of those, but one question I would like you to answer......the fabled 88 fallen, can you give me ALL 88 names please?[/p][/quote]A simple answer to your parrot like requests, definition of a War Memorial, any physical object created, erected or installed to commemorate those involved in or affected by a conflict or war should be considered a War Memorial, is that difficult to understand ? for more confirmation look on the War Memorials trust site, your continual denying of Ingleborough as Memorial is becoming tiresome, so a few simple checks on the internet will save you the trouble of repeating your childish twenty questions.[/p][/quote]I note you've not named the 88, which was the question I'd like answered. i note you choose to ignore the inaccuracies by the Birkenhead Institute. I note you choose to ignore facts over this 'School field' (to use The Visor's definition). I note that you choose to ignore the fact that the British Legion don't parade there, but at the War Memorial in the centre of town, which of you asked Joe Public where the War memorial was, they'd pin point. I note that you seem to want to put opinion 'down'. How interesting that many soldiers have given their lives to allow people to remain free and have their own opinions, yet here you are, objecting to that. Ironic? No, you just don't like someone questioning you, Johnson, The Globe, and this famous (sic) school, and a 'School Field' that no one really cared about, and some tress that would appear to have been removed by the very school that you suddenly seem to hold in high esteem. If you don't like the questions, you could say so, you could just ignore them, if if it's that important to you, you could answer them. Like the accustaion aimed at the council officials, you hid behind annonimity saying you couldn't name. Really, it was just bluff and nonsense on your part. yogz66
  • Score: 1

1:14am Tue 29 Jul 14

RoSs1303 says...

To be honest I find the coverage of this issue really disappointing for a number of reasons.

The continual plugging of one man's views and ventures really does muddy what should be a thought provoking issue for many. In all honesty if the above report said "Mr X formally of Birkenhead institute argues that the proposed development ........ etc" it would hold a lot more weight. Instead it is only ever one man's views, a man who, however you look at it has a financial investment in keeping the name Wilfred Owen in the public eye. It totally devalues an argument when the comments in regard to a war memorial go hand in hand with a mention of profit related performances of Wilfred Owens work.
I believe the campaigners against the development would gather more favour by insisting this one individual not be recognised as the main representative.

The continued refusal of any recognition of any benefits the proposed sporting facilities may bring to the people of wirral. Whilst there is an argument to be had in regard to if those benefits need to go hand in hand with the loss of the war memorial theres never a mention along the lines of "controversial plans to develop Ingleborough with sporting facilities on the wirral to be boosted". There are pluses and minuses to the development and to the remaining of the current status quo which simply do not get touched up in favour of column inches provided to promotional activity for west end shows etc etc.

However I would like to ponder the question - If the issue of Ingleborough is so controversial due to its development, why has its sealing from the public and sole use at TRFC's discretion for the 30 years or so been left relatively unnoticed? Is it simply that no one has given two hoots about the field until profiting/money has been raised?
If the field is to be left as it currently is what are the benefits of this over the building of homes for future families of the wirral? Why is there not more pressure on WBC to solve this by admitting greed in the original deal for the land and being forced to buy back the land for public use as it essentially should have remained?

I fear that constructive or at least thought provoking debate is lost in the muddy waters between not appreciating TRFC has a value to the Wirral public and being blinkered by the possible benefits to the club.

In my mind a sympathetic development with thoughtful revitalising of the memorial, coupled with increased facilities for future generations seems a better honour for our fallen than Ingleborough as it stands today.
It is also a huge shame that its taken potential development of the land for people to get up and state that the removal of the memorial is a disgrace. It could be argued the fact that the field has been ignored as a war memorial for many years without as much as a whimper is as equally concerning.
To be honest I find the coverage of this issue really disappointing for a number of reasons. The continual plugging of one man's views and ventures really does muddy what should be a thought provoking issue for many. In all honesty if the above report said "Mr X formally of Birkenhead institute argues that the proposed development ........ etc" it would hold a lot more weight. Instead it is only ever one man's views, a man who, however you look at it has a financial investment in keeping the name Wilfred Owen in the public eye. It totally devalues an argument when the comments in regard to a war memorial go hand in hand with a mention of profit related performances of Wilfred Owens work. I believe the campaigners against the development would gather more favour by insisting this one individual not be recognised as the main representative. The continued refusal of any recognition of any benefits the proposed sporting facilities may bring to the people of wirral. Whilst there is an argument to be had in regard to if those benefits need to go hand in hand with the loss of the war memorial theres never a mention along the lines of "controversial plans to develop Ingleborough with sporting facilities on the wirral to be boosted". There are pluses and minuses to the development and to the remaining of the current status quo which simply do not get touched up in favour of column inches provided to promotional activity for west end shows etc etc. However I would like to ponder the question - If the issue of Ingleborough is so controversial due to its development, why has its sealing from the public and sole use at TRFC's discretion for the 30 years or so been left relatively unnoticed? Is it simply that no one has given two hoots about the field until profiting/money has been raised? If the field is to be left as it currently is what are the benefits of this over the building of homes for future families of the wirral? Why is there not more pressure on WBC to solve this by admitting greed in the original deal for the land and being forced to buy back the land for public use as it essentially should have remained? I fear that constructive or at least thought provoking debate is lost in the muddy waters between not appreciating TRFC has a value to the Wirral public and being blinkered by the possible benefits to the club. In my mind a sympathetic development with thoughtful revitalising of the memorial, coupled with increased facilities for future generations seems a better honour for our fallen than Ingleborough as it stands today. It is also a huge shame that its taken potential development of the land for people to get up and state that the removal of the memorial is a disgrace. It could be argued the fact that the field has been ignored as a war memorial for many years without as much as a whimper is as equally concerning. RoSs1303
  • Score: 2

5:27am Tue 29 Jul 14

freebase says...

Even when the school owned it . It was a locked field

It has never been a public space.
Even when the school owned it . It was a locked field It has never been a public space. freebase
  • Score: 1

5:29am Tue 29 Jul 14

freebase says...

P's Mr Marles people still waiting for acknowledgement emails

You have been snared for your bias and choose to hide

Typical shoddy hack
P's Mr Marles people still waiting for acknowledgement emails You have been snared for your bias and choose to hide Typical shoddy hack freebase
  • Score: 1

10:00am Tue 29 Jul 14

uncatom says...

yogz66 wrote:
uncatom wrote:
yogz66 wrote:
OK, if it is a war memorial....

> Why isn't it recognosed by the British Legion?
> Why, every Nov 11th (or the nearest Sunday to) do they not parade there and lay wreaths?
> Why does it list no names?
> Why are the 83 known fallen listed on other war memorials?
> Why didn't Prince Harry get involved?
> The other unnamed (by Birkenhead Institute) five fallen....who are they?
> Why, in 1926, was it only 86 fallen?
> Where did the Poplars go?
> Why aren't there 88 trees there, and given their age, they'd be fairly mature examples of Poplars?
> In the Christmas 1932 edition of The Visor, regarding the trees, why is this field just refered to as the 'School field' (on both pages 19 & 20), as this is six years after you believe it became a war memorial?

I don't really expect you to answer most of those, but one question I would like you to answer......the fabled 88 fallen, can you give me ALL 88 names please?
A simple answer to your parrot like requests, definition of a War Memorial, any physical object created, erected or installed to commemorate those involved in or affected by a conflict or war should be considered a War Memorial, is that difficult to understand ? for more confirmation look on the War Memorials trust site, your continual denying of Ingleborough as Memorial is becoming tiresome, so a few simple checks on the internet will save you the trouble of repeating your childish twenty questions.
I note you've not named the 88, which was the question I'd like answered.

i note you choose to ignore the inaccuracies by the Birkenhead Institute.

I note you choose to ignore facts over this 'School field' (to use The Visor's definition).

I note that you choose to ignore the fact that the British Legion don't parade there, but at the War Memorial in the centre of town, which of you asked Joe Public where the War memorial was, they'd pin point.

I note that you seem to want to put opinion 'down'. How interesting that many soldiers have given their lives to allow people to remain free and have their own opinions, yet here you are, objecting to that. Ironic? No, you just don't like someone questioning you, Johnson, The Globe, and this famous (sic) school, and a 'School Field' that no one really cared about, and some tress that would appear to have been removed by the very school that you suddenly seem to hold in high esteem.

If you don't like the questions, you could say so, you could just ignore them, if if it's that important to you, you could answer them. Like the accustaion aimed at the council officials, you hid behind annonimity saying you couldn't name. Really, it was just bluff and nonsense on your part.
Yogz 66, I will try and keep my answer brief so as not to confuse you, if I could answer all of your questions (not withstanding that I don't know Prince Harry) would it alter the fact that Ingleborough is a designated War Memorial ? as this seems to be your main concern, if I could name the 88, incidentally whilst on the subject of the 88 fallen do you in fact believe they exist ? because you state the fabled 88, or maybe you just don't understand what fabled means, would that alter the fact ?

You accuse me of wanting to put opinion down, yet you have the audacity to mention soldiers that gave their lives to protect your right to deny them a Memorial, you also mention a school field that nobody cared about, well from your point of view that is probably right, but from those Birkenhead people that truly cared and paid toward the field that is a lasting insult.

Lest we forget
[quote][p][bold]yogz66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uncatom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yogz66[/bold] wrote: OK, if it is a war memorial.... > Why isn't it recognosed by the British Legion? > Why, every Nov 11th (or the nearest Sunday to) do they not parade there and lay wreaths? > Why does it list no names? > Why are the 83 known fallen listed on other war memorials? > Why didn't Prince Harry get involved? > The other unnamed (by Birkenhead Institute) five fallen....who are they? > Why, in 1926, was it only 86 fallen? > Where did the Poplars go? > Why aren't there 88 trees there, and given their age, they'd be fairly mature examples of Poplars? > In the Christmas 1932 edition of The Visor, regarding the trees, why is this field just refered to as the 'School field' (on both pages 19 & 20), as this is six years after you believe it became a war memorial? I don't really expect you to answer most of those, but one question I would like you to answer......the fabled 88 fallen, can you give me ALL 88 names please?[/p][/quote]A simple answer to your parrot like requests, definition of a War Memorial, any physical object created, erected or installed to commemorate those involved in or affected by a conflict or war should be considered a War Memorial, is that difficult to understand ? for more confirmation look on the War Memorials trust site, your continual denying of Ingleborough as Memorial is becoming tiresome, so a few simple checks on the internet will save you the trouble of repeating your childish twenty questions.[/p][/quote]I note you've not named the 88, which was the question I'd like answered. i note you choose to ignore the inaccuracies by the Birkenhead Institute. I note you choose to ignore facts over this 'School field' (to use The Visor's definition). I note that you choose to ignore the fact that the British Legion don't parade there, but at the War Memorial in the centre of town, which of you asked Joe Public where the War memorial was, they'd pin point. I note that you seem to want to put opinion 'down'. How interesting that many soldiers have given their lives to allow people to remain free and have their own opinions, yet here you are, objecting to that. Ironic? No, you just don't like someone questioning you, Johnson, The Globe, and this famous (sic) school, and a 'School Field' that no one really cared about, and some tress that would appear to have been removed by the very school that you suddenly seem to hold in high esteem. If you don't like the questions, you could say so, you could just ignore them, if if it's that important to you, you could answer them. Like the accustaion aimed at the council officials, you hid behind annonimity saying you couldn't name. Really, it was just bluff and nonsense on your part.[/p][/quote]Yogz 66, I will try and keep my answer brief so as not to confuse you, if I could answer all of your questions (not withstanding that I don't know Prince Harry) would it alter the fact that Ingleborough is a designated War Memorial ? as this seems to be your main concern, if I could name the 88, incidentally whilst on the subject of the 88 fallen do you in fact believe they exist ? because you state the fabled 88, or maybe you just don't understand what fabled means, would that alter the fact ? You accuse me of wanting to put opinion down, yet you have the audacity to mention soldiers that gave their lives to protect your right to deny them a Memorial, you also mention a school field that nobody cared about, well from your point of view that is probably right, but from those Birkenhead people that truly cared and paid toward the field that is a lasting insult. Lest we forget uncatom
  • Score: 0

5:16pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Pollexfen says...

Dear All and in particular Lurkinhead

I have not entered previous discussions because they often seemed to turn into ‘name calling’ sessions which gets nowhere. I felt that a correction was needed with a few of the facts and a more balanced representation of the issues. In doing so I have responded on behalf of BIOB as a collective and will try to differentiate between this and my personal views. I will try therefore to answer as best I can, using “I” or “We” to differentiate

a) One has to accept that there is every chance that the housing will get built on Ingleborough. In that eventuality we would want to ensure that a memorial of some logic and context remains. I personally have loads of ideas as to how this might be done and too many to go into here. It would have to be discussed with those who had the power and were willing to negotiate. Once we knew what was possible we might then reach a consensus within BIOB. At the 2012 Planning Committee Councillor Kelly suggested a memorial at Hamilton Square for example and he gave sound reasons for why. You’d have to say it was an option, providing other issues were addressed.

I think that this looks at the issue the wrong way round though. It could have been a lot different if TRFC had embraced the memorial idea from the start and ‘sold it’ as a positive from the outset. By reproviding a respectful memorial feature in discussion with their preferred developer and BIOB, all this fuss could have been avoided with brownie points all round, TRFC, Wirral, Supporters, BIOB.

In terms of ideas there are two points to bear in mind. Firstly the site is larger than needed to build 90 houses. That could open the door for the builder to try for more density on the site but it also means that plenty of scope exists to dedicate a larger open space within the development as a memorial field, park, arboretum, call it what you will.

The second point is that the pavilion was built entirely from donations in mind and in cash by friends and family of the Fallen. To take a foundation stone from such a building and set it out of context in a brick plinth shows a clear lack of imagination and interest.

A final point is that BIOB would like to see the reinstatement of the commemorative arch which TRFC stripped away a few years back in defiance of Restrictive Covenants placed upon them.

b) As regards BIOB we are a broad church and there are those who hold Dean’s views as well as some who may not agree with aspects of what has happened. By the way, it is only two years not “several” although I agree it feels like it.

My personal view is this. Without Dean we would not be talking about this issue and it would not be getting the exposure it does. I accept feelings run high and I am trying to keep a lid on mine. As far as BIOB are concerned we have never been approached about any aspect of this. If TRFC went to the trouble of consulting the Tranmere Hall Estate and Woodchurch why not BIOB as well?

I can only speculate that TRFC considered that we didn’t matter nor those remembered (by us few) on the site? The first planning application which was withdrawn did not contain any reference to the site’s history and part of the reason I believe for the re-submission was to address the objections of many (in addition to Dean) who rightly complained as to the loss of historical features. The result was a so called “Heritage Statement” by architects Paddock Johnson which continued to ignore publically available evidence and sneered at the idea of remembrance.

The papers to me seem to love ‘black and white’ and personalities. I think Dean has been brave to put himself up in this way (braver than I am clearly being by using this pseudonym) but others have a different view so let’s leave it at that. I would add that although I have a bad memory, I do not recall Dean being quoted, specifically on behalf of BIOB, our comments have been quoted separately, nor sadly have I seen any acceptance from his opponents that BIOB have an, “honourable cause” (but I appreciate the sentiment Lurkinhead).

I do not think that the reason that TRFC will not talk to BIOB is because of Dean. We are talking about business men here right? .... and not children bickering in the playground. TRFC have never said so?

c) The idea of retaining Ingleborough Road is just one of many options which could be discussed but as said above there needs to be a sharing of ideas and understanding of the issues affecting both sides in any dispute. These things are best sorted out quietly around a table and not in the public gaze. Without talks you must realise I am sure, that BIOB have no choice but to oppose Ingleborough in its entirety if only to have a place at the negotiating table, should the planning application fail.

It is at this point that we need leadership at the highest level to intervene and it is the Leader of the Council who could transform the poisoned atmosphere by insisting on talks and brokering a compromise.

d) I did give you a publically available explanation for Woodchurch failing but I suspect that there will be a little more to it than I have said. I have some personal thoughts on what these could be.

When you look at the first planning application for Woodchurch (subsequently withdrawn) it looks an exciting prospect with facilities for the press, offices etc and a big sign on a refurbished building. It was something to be proud of, spelt ambition and it was costed at around £5m.

That was the scheme, ‘sold’ to Woodchurch residents. However, when the scheme was resubmitted a few months later all the frills were gone and the Council Officers knew that the works cost had been reduced by half but this was not made clear to the Planning Committee by them. This information was revealed after a long Freedom of Information battle with Wirral, which they lost. Incidentally neither scheme included the cost of floodlights, something which TRFC told residents at Ingleborough Road was absolutely essential.

To me what started out seemingly as a way of releasing £5m from the sale of Ingleborough to invest £5m in new forward looking top class facilities which I would have found difficult to object to, looks more and more as a cynical excuse to asset strip money. If that were bad enough, to rubbish men’s lives in the process without any apparent concern is a fight worth having.

You are right to be concerned about Solar Campus. It has got to be cheaper than Woodchurch and may be that is the justification for the change? If you look hard at the plans (because the details are very small) the ‘training village’ is no more than a collection of portacabins. Its all a long way from your/my hopes and aspirations at Woodchurch.

The letter from Mike Paddock to which I referred is in a hard copy version only on the Planning File for Ingleborough Road (available to view at the Planning Office at North Annex, Town Hall, Wallasey) It is not in digital form but if I knew how to get it to you I would gladly give you a copy of the copy I have in my possession. Sport England require replacement facilities to be in place before any development starts at Ingleborough and TRFC have always tried to resist it aided and abeted by the Planners.

Finally as regards PJ, pardon my grumpiness. This is my personal view having supported TRFC since a child and having admitted to be somewhat in awe of its current owner because of what I have enjoyed at Prenton Park at its peak.

• It is no secret that PJ has largely (if not totally) lost interest in the Club and wants his money out. Where he has made investments he clearly sees these as loans (which he wants back).
• I have reason to believe that PJ bought the playing fields with the plan of building on it eventuality in mind (I cannot say more on this)
• It does not suit him to accept any idea of it being a war memorial
• The Supporters Trust have played their cards close to their chest and they have not spoken against BIOB but have always followed PJ’s line that this is about improving the Club. I suppose that I wish they or someone not connected with BIOB would say, “For heavens sake PJ just sit down and work something out. You may sell and move on but this is the sort of publicity and reputation we do not want, but will be left with.” The lack of this together with PJ's not wanting to leave a positive legacy is what I find disappointing.
• We all know what power PJ commands and I guess there is a reluctance to upset him for fear of what he could do. All TRFC fans will hope for the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow.
• Realistically and arguably,TRFC is dying the death of a thousand cuts. The Club over performed the season before last but the lack of ambition from PJ was evident from a lack of investment in the squad at a critical point in the season.
• Continued lack of ambition from PJ saw the team relegated last season and its best players disappear or sold to better clubs.
• Despite Jeremy Butlers fine words (and bear in mind his skills lie in PR) about what was wrong with the Club and his intention to put it right, I see no evidence of this happening. A reduced budget is a reduced budget is a reduced budget.
• We have to face it that the Club’s physical assets are worth more than PJ debts. If they drop out into the Conference would it matter to PJ? Would it not be justification for moving out of Prenton Park to a cabbage patch somewhere more suiting its diminished ambition and developing the supermarket TRFC’s fans are always worried about?
• Could it be that BIOB preventing sale of Ingleborough could save the Club in the long run? Don’t laugh.
• I am anxious to place the blame for all this where it belongs, with TRFC’s owner not its fans. Sadly I wish BIOB carried the goodwill of the fans with it. May be it does and I just don’t know it?
• As for the profit that I think you see will arise from the sale of Ingleborough will the cry go up (as it does everytime a player is sold) from TRFC fans, “Where did the money go?”

Solar campus is not about ambition it is about expediency. No floodlights there either (not yet anyway!). The Planners have gone to the very extent of their legal powers to get it approved on behalf of TRFC and I am sorry but for me the ends do not justify the means. The Planners have told Sport England that TRFC do not have the cashflow to provide the replacement facilities first before Ingleborough Road is developed but they are willing to put the money required for the scheme in a bank account up front to ensure it is carried out. Sport England say how can this not be the same thing? This is what led to the lie that Ingleborough Road has not been used for two years as justification for letting the requirement drop. It is also suggested by Sport England that there should be a long stop date for completion at Leasowe of two years (its all in the Planning Files) so where are any of the teams to play in the meantime should all that time be needed?

I hope that helps? Sorry to be so long winded.
Dear All and in particular Lurkinhead I have not entered previous discussions because they often seemed to turn into ‘name calling’ sessions which gets nowhere. I felt that a correction was needed with a few of the facts and a more balanced representation of the issues. In doing so I have responded on behalf of BIOB as a collective and will try to differentiate between this and my personal views. I will try therefore to answer as best I can, using “I” or “We” to differentiate a) One has to accept that there is every chance that the housing will get built on Ingleborough. In that eventuality we would want to ensure that a memorial of some logic and context remains. I personally have loads of ideas as to how this might be done and too many to go into here. It would have to be discussed with those who had the power and were willing to negotiate. Once we knew what was possible we might then reach a consensus within BIOB. At the 2012 Planning Committee Councillor Kelly suggested a memorial at Hamilton Square for example and he gave sound reasons for why. You’d have to say it was an option, providing other issues were addressed. I think that this looks at the issue the wrong way round though. It could have been a lot different if TRFC had embraced the memorial idea from the start and ‘sold it’ as a positive from the outset. By reproviding a respectful memorial feature in discussion with their preferred developer and BIOB, all this fuss could have been avoided with brownie points all round, TRFC, Wirral, Supporters, BIOB. In terms of ideas there are two points to bear in mind. Firstly the site is larger than needed to build 90 houses. That could open the door for the builder to try for more density on the site but it also means that plenty of scope exists to dedicate a larger open space within the development as a memorial field, park, arboretum, call it what you will. The second point is that the pavilion was built entirely from donations in mind and in cash by friends and family of the Fallen. To take a foundation stone from such a building and set it out of context in a brick plinth shows a clear lack of imagination and interest. A final point is that BIOB would like to see the reinstatement of the commemorative arch which TRFC stripped away a few years back in defiance of Restrictive Covenants placed upon them. b) As regards BIOB we are a broad church and there are those who hold Dean’s views as well as some who may not agree with aspects of what has happened. By the way, it is only two years not “several” although I agree it feels like it. My personal view is this. Without Dean we would not be talking about this issue and it would not be getting the exposure it does. I accept feelings run high and I am trying to keep a lid on mine. As far as BIOB are concerned we have never been approached about any aspect of this. If TRFC went to the trouble of consulting the Tranmere Hall Estate and Woodchurch why not BIOB as well? I can only speculate that TRFC considered that we didn’t matter nor those remembered (by us few) on the site? The first planning application which was withdrawn did not contain any reference to the site’s history and part of the reason I believe for the re-submission was to address the objections of many (in addition to Dean) who rightly complained as to the loss of historical features. The result was a so called “Heritage Statement” by architects Paddock Johnson which continued to ignore publically available evidence and sneered at the idea of remembrance. The papers to me seem to love ‘black and white’ and personalities. I think Dean has been brave to put himself up in this way (braver than I am clearly being by using this pseudonym) but others have a different view so let’s leave it at that. I would add that although I have a bad memory, I do not recall Dean being quoted, specifically on behalf of BIOB, our comments have been quoted separately, nor sadly have I seen any acceptance from his opponents that BIOB have an, “honourable cause” (but I appreciate the sentiment Lurkinhead). I do not think that the reason that TRFC will not talk to BIOB is because of Dean. We are talking about business men here right? .... and not children bickering in the playground. TRFC have never said so? c) The idea of retaining Ingleborough Road is just one of many options which could be discussed but as said above there needs to be a sharing of ideas and understanding of the issues affecting both sides in any dispute. These things are best sorted out quietly around a table and not in the public gaze. Without talks you must realise I am sure, that BIOB have no choice but to oppose Ingleborough in its entirety if only to have a place at the negotiating table, should the planning application fail. It is at this point that we need leadership at the highest level to intervene and it is the Leader of the Council who could transform the poisoned atmosphere by insisting on talks and brokering a compromise. d) I did give you a publically available explanation for Woodchurch failing but I suspect that there will be a little more to it than I have said. I have some personal thoughts on what these could be. When you look at the first planning application for Woodchurch (subsequently withdrawn) it looks an exciting prospect with facilities for the press, offices etc and a big sign on a refurbished building. It was something to be proud of, spelt ambition and it was costed at around £5m. That was the scheme, ‘sold’ to Woodchurch residents. However, when the scheme was resubmitted a few months later all the frills were gone and the Council Officers knew that the works cost had been reduced by half but this was not made clear to the Planning Committee by them. This information was revealed after a long Freedom of Information battle with Wirral, which they lost. Incidentally neither scheme included the cost of floodlights, something which TRFC told residents at Ingleborough Road was absolutely essential. To me what started out seemingly as a way of releasing £5m from the sale of Ingleborough to invest £5m in new forward looking top class facilities which I would have found difficult to object to, looks more and more as a cynical excuse to asset strip money. If that were bad enough, to rubbish men’s lives in the process without any apparent concern is a fight worth having. You are right to be concerned about Solar Campus. It has got to be cheaper than Woodchurch and may be that is the justification for the change? If you look hard at the plans (because the details are very small) the ‘training village’ is no more than a collection of portacabins. Its all a long way from your/my hopes and aspirations at Woodchurch. The letter from Mike Paddock to which I referred is in a hard copy version only on the Planning File for Ingleborough Road (available to view at the Planning Office at North Annex, Town Hall, Wallasey) It is not in digital form but if I knew how to get it to you I would gladly give you a copy of the copy I have in my possession. Sport England require replacement facilities to be in place before any development starts at Ingleborough and TRFC have always tried to resist it aided and abeted by the Planners. Finally as regards PJ, pardon my grumpiness. This is my personal view having supported TRFC since a child and having admitted to be somewhat in awe of its current owner because of what I have enjoyed at Prenton Park at its peak. • It is no secret that PJ has largely (if not totally) lost interest in the Club and wants his money out. Where he has made investments he clearly sees these as loans (which he wants back). • I have reason to believe that PJ bought the playing fields with the plan of building on it eventuality in mind (I cannot say more on this) • It does not suit him to accept any idea of it being a war memorial • The Supporters Trust have played their cards close to their chest and they have not spoken against BIOB but have always followed PJ’s line that this is about improving the Club. I suppose that I wish they or someone not connected with BIOB would say, “For heavens sake PJ just sit down and work something out. You may sell and move on but this is the sort of publicity and reputation we do not want, but will be left with.” The lack of this together with PJ's not wanting to leave a positive legacy is what I find disappointing. • We all know what power PJ commands and I guess there is a reluctance to upset him for fear of what he could do. All TRFC fans will hope for the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow. • Realistically and arguably,TRFC is dying the death of a thousand cuts. The Club over performed the season before last but the lack of ambition from PJ was evident from a lack of investment in the squad at a critical point in the season. • Continued lack of ambition from PJ saw the team relegated last season and its best players disappear or sold to better clubs. • Despite Jeremy Butlers fine words (and bear in mind his skills lie in PR) about what was wrong with the Club and his intention to put it right, I see no evidence of this happening. A reduced budget is a reduced budget is a reduced budget. • We have to face it that the Club’s physical assets are worth more than PJ debts. If they drop out into the Conference would it matter to PJ? Would it not be justification for moving out of Prenton Park to a cabbage patch somewhere more suiting its diminished ambition and developing the supermarket TRFC’s fans are always worried about? • Could it be that BIOB preventing sale of Ingleborough could save the Club in the long run? Don’t laugh. • I am anxious to place the blame for all this where it belongs, with TRFC’s owner not its fans. Sadly I wish BIOB carried the goodwill of the fans with it. May be it does and I just don’t know it? • As for the profit that I think you see will arise from the sale of Ingleborough will the cry go up (as it does everytime a player is sold) from TRFC fans, “Where did the money go?” Solar campus is not about ambition it is about expediency. No floodlights there either (not yet anyway!). The Planners have gone to the very extent of their legal powers to get it approved on behalf of TRFC and I am sorry but for me the ends do not justify the means. The Planners have told Sport England that TRFC do not have the cashflow to provide the replacement facilities first before Ingleborough Road is developed but they are willing to put the money required for the scheme in a bank account up front to ensure it is carried out. Sport England say how can this not be the same thing? This is what led to the lie that Ingleborough Road has not been used for two years as justification for letting the requirement drop. It is also suggested by Sport England that there should be a long stop date for completion at Leasowe of two years (its all in the Planning Files) so where are any of the teams to play in the meantime should all that time be needed? I hope that helps? Sorry to be so long winded. Pollexfen
  • Score: 3

5:20pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Pollexfen says...

Response to Yogz66
Here are answers to some of the points you have asked about:
• The fields are and have been private because of the need for health and safety of those using them. No problem with that but this does not mean that they are incapable of being enjoyed by the public visually.
• I didn’t understand you point about the British Legion but I do now having read a later post. Do you think asking the British Legion to turn up at every war memorial on 11 November is a sensible criteria for saying if something is a war memorial or not?
• The memorial lies in the knowledge and meaning it brings to those who cherish the memory of those who are supposed to be remembered there. Memorials take many different forms. BIOB remember them as we were taught to and families remember their loved ones in a time and a place that is important to each.
• Why does the pavilion list no names? Because they are listed elsewhere and the pavilion was built as a positive expression for the future by the grieving families and friends.
• The names on the school roll of honour are sometimes found on other and many war memorials associated with their place of work or of worship or anywhere that they were fondly remembered. Not all are listed on the Birkenhead Cenotaph.
• Not sure what you mean about Prince Harry bit it is well known that Royals do not get drawn into politics.
• You’re clearly very keen to talk numbers as if this undermines the argument about remembrance. I realise that references mention more than one definitive number, 83 on the Roll of Honour, 86 in another source and the 88 we are familiar with at the moment. I know of two names for a start who were not picked up on the Roll of Honour and there may be more. Then again how many died early, years after the war from injuries or traumas sustained?
What is beyond doubt is that some families lost only sons, only offspring, fathers, husbands and in one case, 3 out of 4 brothers. To discuss this issue in terms of whether it is 83, 85, 86 or 88, seems sadly like discussing ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?’
• Similarly the number of trees surviving on the field to date.
• I don’t understand the relevance of a descriptive comment made in 1932 about the field being referred to as “school fields”. It adds nothing to the debate.
• I looked up the word, “fable” in the dictionary. It says, “story, not based on fact; lie; short moral tale”. Which one of these definitions would you care to apply to the following list of 83 + 2 names: the children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews of whom are in some cases still around?
Atkin Keyser
Beaumont E P
Beer A C (not G)
Bell Norman
Bickley H G
Brenninger E G
Broad P D S
Broad T H
Broad W E L
Brown Donald M C
Bunnell Frank
Burns J H
Calvert A L
Campbell W M
Cannon P F
Chandler J C
Clarke E
Coates H E
Davies Harry
Davies T Stanley
Dodd Albert
Dodd R
Easton C H
Edwards F
Evans C Leslie
Falla R H
Fitton William
Foster George H
Fraser C R
Galloway W E
Good J H
Goy Ernest G
Guthrie Malcolm
Hancock Percy
Harper J
Harris W L
Hindle A H
Hughes H V
James H Vernon
Jones Edgar C
Jump Fred
Lewis Charles A
Macdonald Angus
MacLean A C
Marshall Cedric
McGill E M
McNaught T
Mercer F I
Meredith J C
Miller E Donald
Neale C E
Nixon John
Owen Wilfred T
Owens A D
Paul A G
Pearson C T
Pell Richard
Pollexfen G N
Poole W C
Raby Harry
Radcliffe S V
Ratcliff-Gaylard E R
Ridgeway Harold
Roberts Gomer S
Robinson J H
Robinson James
Robinson R A
Scott Brayton
Seward Ralph
Schenkel F J
Simmons Albert
Smith John H H
Storey L C
Terry Douglas
Tuckett John S
Watson Alexander
Watson G W
Watson Mark S
Wilcox Ray
Williams T Glyn G
Williams T Langley
Williams W H
Wilson G H

Not forgetting also Jack Nicholson and James Patterson


Birkenhead Institute Old Boys
Response to Yogz66 Here are answers to some of the points you have asked about: • The fields are and have been private because of the need for health and safety of those using them. No problem with that but this does not mean that they are incapable of being enjoyed by the public visually. • I didn’t understand you point about the British Legion but I do now having read a later post. Do you think asking the British Legion to turn up at every war memorial on 11 November is a sensible criteria for saying if something is a war memorial or not? • The memorial lies in the knowledge and meaning it brings to those who cherish the memory of those who are supposed to be remembered there. Memorials take many different forms. BIOB remember them as we were taught to and families remember their loved ones in a time and a place that is important to each. • Why does the pavilion list no names? Because they are listed elsewhere and the pavilion was built as a positive expression for the future by the grieving families and friends. • The names on the school roll of honour are sometimes found on other and many war memorials associated with their place of work or of worship or anywhere that they were fondly remembered. Not all are listed on the Birkenhead Cenotaph. • Not sure what you mean about Prince Harry bit it is well known that Royals do not get drawn into politics. • You’re clearly very keen to talk numbers as if this undermines the argument about remembrance. I realise that references mention more than one definitive number, 83 on the Roll of Honour, 86 in another source and the 88 we are familiar with at the moment. I know of two names for a start who were not picked up on the Roll of Honour and there may be more. Then again how many died early, years after the war from injuries or traumas sustained? What is beyond doubt is that some families lost only sons, only offspring, fathers, husbands and in one case, 3 out of 4 brothers. To discuss this issue in terms of whether it is 83, 85, 86 or 88, seems sadly like discussing ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?’ • Similarly the number of trees surviving on the field to date. • I don’t understand the relevance of a descriptive comment made in 1932 about the field being referred to as “school fields”. It adds nothing to the debate. • I looked up the word, “fable” in the dictionary. It says, “story, not based on fact; lie; short moral tale”. Which one of these definitions would you care to apply to the following list of 83 + 2 names: the children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews of whom are in some cases still around? Atkin Keyser Beaumont E P Beer A C (not G) Bell Norman Bickley H G Brenninger E G Broad P D S Broad T H Broad W E L Brown Donald M C Bunnell Frank Burns J H Calvert A L Campbell W M Cannon P F Chandler J C Clarke E Coates H E Davies Harry Davies T Stanley Dodd Albert Dodd R Easton C H Edwards F Evans C Leslie Falla R H Fitton William Foster George H Fraser C R Galloway W E Good J H Goy Ernest G Guthrie Malcolm Hancock Percy Harper J Harris W L Hindle A H Hughes H V James H Vernon Jones Edgar C Jump Fred Lewis Charles A Macdonald Angus MacLean A C Marshall Cedric McGill E M McNaught T Mercer F I Meredith J C Miller E Donald Neale C E Nixon John Owen Wilfred T Owens A D Paul A G Pearson C T Pell Richard Pollexfen G N Poole W C Raby Harry Radcliffe S V Ratcliff-Gaylard E R Ridgeway Harold Roberts Gomer S Robinson J H Robinson James Robinson R A Scott Brayton Seward Ralph Schenkel F J Simmons Albert Smith John H H Storey L C Terry Douglas Tuckett John S Watson Alexander Watson G W Watson Mark S Wilcox Ray Williams T Glyn G Williams T Langley Williams W H Wilson G H Not forgetting also Jack Nicholson and James Patterson Birkenhead Institute Old Boys Pollexfen
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Tue 29 Jul 14

uncatom says...

Well put Pollexfen, I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain every little detail to yogz66 I hope your full explanation will be enough to stop his wittering, I have no time for his ilk, he has had his comments removed and blocked previously for making outrageous and disrespectful comments and he only serves to put the more reasonable TRFC supporters in a bad light, alas I fell into the tit for tat argument which as you quite rightly state doesn't help matters.
Well put Pollexfen, I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain every little detail to yogz66 I hope your full explanation will be enough to stop his wittering, I have no time for his ilk, he has had his comments removed and blocked previously for making outrageous and disrespectful comments and he only serves to put the more reasonable TRFC supporters in a bad light, alas I fell into the tit for tat argument which as you quite rightly state doesn't help matters. uncatom
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Jack Boot says...

You said it with much more sophistication than me Pollexfen, nicely done, from a Davies old boy.
You said it with much more sophistication than me Pollexfen, nicely done, from a Davies old boy. Jack Boot
  • Score: 0

10:16pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Lurkinhead says...

Dear Pollexfen,

Thanks again for the reply - some really enlightening stuff there!

As regards the memorial at Ingleborough (assuming the development does go ahead), not that I can speak for TRFC, but my understanding is that they did "embrace the memorial idea from the start and ‘sold it’ as a positive from the outset." I assumed the issue was not that there was going to be a memorial, but rather it was about what that memorial should be. Certainly, to some correspondents on previous Globe debates, there was no compromise, and the only acceptable outcome to them was that the field was left entirely intact. Now, again working on the assumption that this aspiration is not likely, to me the question is what form, and how prominent, the memorial should be. Looking in from the outside, I can't believe that this is an insurmountable issue, and surely there has to be a compromise solution that all interested parties can agree on?

On to Dean Johnson then, I do take your point in one sense about the man being prepared to put his head above the parapet, but what gnaws away at many opponents of his is the conflict of interests he clearly has, i.e. that he has business interests to promote which are directly related to his "cause", and this, coupled with him having the ear of his friends at the Globe, makes him an unreliable and untrustworthy front-man. Furthermore, as previously stated, his antics do the otherwise honourable cause (and by the way, although I can't speak for other Rovers fans, I think you will find that there is a broad acceptance that there are worthy and valid points of view on both sides of this argument) a great disservice, and whilst I acknowledge your point that it is "not children bickering in the playground", I do honestly believe that the conduct of this one man, even though he doesn't formally represent BIOB, has forced a culture of mistrust and perceived duplicity in this whole debate, which has been hugely counter-productive in encouraging trust amongst the opposing sides in this issue. Rightly or wrongly, I believe TRFC view BIOB with suspicion because of your links to Dean Johnson. However, I accept that is conjecture on my part, and I could be wrong on that.

Re the commemorative arch, I have little information re this, although I have seen photos of it. Various correspondents over the months / years have claimed that either (a) the arch was removed prior to TRFC taking over the field, or that (b) TRFC removed and disposed of it. Personally I simply don't know what the truth of the matter is. However, re the trees, I completely understand the symbolism of the 88 poplars planted, and whilst wishing to distance myself from some of the other comments on this thread, it does seem that there are numerous other mature trees round the field now, such as ash, chestnut, sycamore, which judging by the size of them, must have been in situ prior to TRFC's tenure of the site? Please do not misunderstand why I mentioned that - I accept the symbolism remains, but nevertheless, whoever was responsible for the field for the last 50 years does seem, on the face of it, to have been neglectful, so with all due respect to The Fallen, I don't believe the current condition of the trees can be placed entirely as the responsibility of the football club.

Regarding the remainder of your post, I suspect we may well be broadly in agreement. As a Woodchurch resident, I very much want to know why, having presumably reached agreement re the terms / length of the proposed lease at Woodchurch prior to the original planning application being submitted (and if not, why not?), the planning application was subsequently withdrawn, in favour of a re-submitted, but much watered-down application for Solar Campus. Specifically, I remain unclear as to whether it was the council who subsequently altered the proposed terms, or the club. If the latter, as I said earlier, I find that action by TRFC hard to defend.

Again, re your analysis of the current state of the club (i.e. the bullet points towards the end of your post), again, on many of the points you raise, I am personally in broad agreement with you Pollexfen - there are indeed many questions I, like yourselves in the BIOB, would like answers to.
Dear Pollexfen, Thanks again for the reply - some really enlightening stuff there! As regards the memorial at Ingleborough (assuming the development does go ahead), not that I can speak for TRFC, but my understanding is that they did "embrace the memorial idea from the start and ‘sold it’ as a positive from the outset." I assumed the issue was not that there was going to be a memorial, but rather it was about what that memorial should be. Certainly, to some correspondents on previous Globe debates, there was no compromise, and the only acceptable outcome to them was that the field was left entirely intact. Now, again working on the assumption that this aspiration is not likely, to me the question is what form, and how prominent, the memorial should be. Looking in from the outside, I can't believe that this is an insurmountable issue, and surely there has to be a compromise solution that all interested parties can agree on? On to Dean Johnson then, I do take your point in one sense about the man being prepared to put his head above the parapet, but what gnaws away at many opponents of his is the conflict of interests he clearly has, i.e. that he has business interests to promote which are directly related to his "cause", and this, coupled with him having the ear of his friends at the Globe, makes him an unreliable and untrustworthy front-man. Furthermore, as previously stated, his antics do the otherwise honourable cause (and by the way, although I can't speak for other Rovers fans, I think you will find that there is a broad acceptance that there are worthy and valid points of view on both sides of this argument) a great disservice, and whilst I acknowledge your point that it is "not children bickering in the playground", I do honestly believe that the conduct of this one man, even though he doesn't formally represent BIOB, has forced a culture of mistrust and perceived duplicity in this whole debate, which has been hugely counter-productive in encouraging trust amongst the opposing sides in this issue. Rightly or wrongly, I believe TRFC view BIOB with suspicion because of your links to Dean Johnson. However, I accept that is conjecture on my part, and I could be wrong on that. Re the commemorative arch, I have little information re this, although I have seen photos of it. Various correspondents over the months / years have claimed that either (a) the arch was removed prior to TRFC taking over the field, or that (b) TRFC removed and disposed of it. Personally I simply don't know what the truth of the matter is. However, re the trees, I completely understand the symbolism of the 88 poplars planted, and whilst wishing to distance myself from some of the other comments on this thread, it does seem that there are numerous other mature trees round the field now, such as ash, chestnut, sycamore, which judging by the size of them, must have been in situ prior to TRFC's tenure of the site? Please do not misunderstand why I mentioned that - I accept the symbolism remains, but nevertheless, whoever was responsible for the field for the last 50 years does seem, on the face of it, to have been neglectful, so with all due respect to The Fallen, I don't believe the current condition of the trees can be placed entirely as the responsibility of the football club. Regarding the remainder of your post, I suspect we may well be broadly in agreement. As a Woodchurch resident, I very much want to know why, having presumably reached agreement re the terms / length of the proposed lease at Woodchurch prior to the original planning application being submitted (and if not, why not?), the planning application was subsequently withdrawn, in favour of a re-submitted, but much watered-down application for Solar Campus. Specifically, I remain unclear as to whether it was the council who subsequently altered the proposed terms, or the club. If the latter, as I said earlier, I find that action by TRFC hard to defend. Again, re your analysis of the current state of the club (i.e. the bullet points towards the end of your post), again, on many of the points you raise, I am personally in broad agreement with you Pollexfen - there are indeed many questions I, like yourselves in the BIOB, would like answers to. Lurkinhead
  • Score: 1

1:54pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Breakpoint says...

Dear Pollexfen & Lurkinhead,

You have both raised some excellent points keeping a good and balanced argument on the issue of the sale if Ingleborough Fields.
It would now be ggod to see a Wirral Globe article (without any mention of Dean Johnson) based on the points you have both raised that says to the general public that both sides are willing to sit down and discuss the issues, maybe then the powers that be will take notice as unless an amicable solution can be brokered the fields should remain as a memorial.
Dear Pollexfen & Lurkinhead, You have both raised some excellent points keeping a good and balanced argument on the issue of the sale if Ingleborough Fields. It would now be ggod to see a Wirral Globe article (without any mention of Dean Johnson) based on the points you have both raised that says to the general public that both sides are willing to sit down and discuss the issues, maybe then the powers that be will take notice as unless an amicable solution can be brokered the fields should remain as a memorial. Breakpoint
  • Score: 1

3:05pm Wed 30 Jul 14

yogz66 says...

Pollexfen.

Thank you for listing the names, I had that list of 83 as well, there appear on the fantastic plaque on the stair case in Birkenhead Library. (Yes untacom, I do my homework - which may surprise you, as you'd rather just label me disrespectful). I'm also aware that not all the fallen are listed in Hamilton Square. Am I to take it that the two additional names are two fo the missing five identies.

You may wonder why I repeatidly bring up '88' all the time, and, pay attention untacom you may learn something here, I do so, to know who they are, what their names are/were....rather than just refer to them as one of the fallen, or a figure to be repeated in every news story.

If you look back at the ongoing Hillsborough inquest, one of the first things they did, was allow the famillies of those who dies that day, to speak about the person who died, to put a 'person' behind the number, so as to NOT refer to them as the 96, but give each person the name they deserve in dignity. Likewise, whenever this story appears in this rather tawdry newspaper, those that gave their lives in The Great War are, with one exception - and that's because Johnson is (in my opinon) raping his memory for his own financial good - NEVER named. They are just refered to collectively as a number.

Whenever this matter has raised it's head, The Globe have NEVER named them, Johnson has NEVER named them - but then he's only ireally nterested in one of them, and no one opposing TRFC's plans has ever named them either, until pressed upon. Respect for those fallen....no one's really shown it, but you'll probably disagree, just to disagree.

Now, I'd have expected the paper, for all they're worth, to have checked this up. To have dug into the matter, to see if 'spokesperson' Johnson is actually telling the truth. I've put quotations round spokesperson, as while he may not be your spokesperson, this publication give him the platform repeatidly, and they've almost made him the figurehead of a campaign group that probably doesn't exist outside his circle of friends. (Actually, some of their smokescreen stories were laughable....Woodchu
rch is a floodplan, if it wasn't houses built there it'd be a Tescos, that house prices had fallen considerably on the Wirral....but then the person stating these lived in Ilford, and had never been to ths penisula.)

For the Globe, and the opposition, to repeat the figure of 88, for continued reference to Poplar trees....then these on the surface appear to be mistruths. I'm not going to say 'lie', but a mistruth, as this repeatidly quoted figure of 88 can't be quantified. 85 can, we can put names, and stories, to knowing who they were. Marles missed the point last time. He missed it bigtime, and then went on to profess anger, when really it should've highlighted the shoddy job his team of journalists were doing, or not doing. They appear to have the ear of the 'spokesperson', despite them denying it, but the amount of free publicity, and positive spin, this 'spokesperson' gets for his ventures far outweighs anything anyone else is getting.

I question stories, I like to know what I'm being told is the truth, and sorry if you disagree with this, but until we can put 88 names to this figure of '88', then it remains '85', and to be honest, I think just, at the moment, it appears to be making up three 'fallen' to pad the story out....I find that disrespectful.

In this story, the memory of these men are being used as pawns in a tactical battle (one which our forefathers should've used rather than sending men over the top), and there's no disrepect shown by me in wishing to know who they were.

Feel free to miss the point, you did last time, it'd be no surprise again. Marles missed it, untacom missed it....it's just easier to repeat something that, on the surface appears to be correct, but when you scrap away the surface, can't actually be quantified. In the scheme of legacies for future generations, that's not to great a one....
Pollexfen. Thank you for listing the names, I had that list of 83 as well, there appear on the fantastic plaque on the stair case in Birkenhead Library. (Yes untacom, I do my homework - which may surprise you, as you'd rather just label me disrespectful). I'm also aware that not all the fallen are listed in Hamilton Square. Am I to take it that the two additional names are two fo the missing five identies. You may wonder why I repeatidly bring up '88' all the time, and, pay attention untacom you may learn something here, I do so, to know who they are, what their names are/were....rather than just refer to them as one of the fallen, or a figure to be repeated in every news story. If you look back at the ongoing Hillsborough inquest, one of the first things they did, was allow the famillies of those who dies that day, to speak about the person who died, to put a 'person' behind the number, so as to NOT refer to them as the 96, but give each person the name they deserve in dignity. Likewise, whenever this story appears in this rather tawdry newspaper, those that gave their lives in The Great War are, with one exception - and that's because Johnson is (in my opinon) raping his memory for his own financial good - NEVER named. They are just refered to collectively as a number. Whenever this matter has raised it's head, The Globe have NEVER named them, Johnson has NEVER named them - but then he's only ireally nterested in one of them, and no one opposing TRFC's plans has ever named them either, until pressed upon. Respect for those fallen....no one's really shown it, but you'll probably disagree, just to disagree. Now, I'd have expected the paper, for all they're worth, to have checked this up. To have dug into the matter, to see if 'spokesperson' Johnson is actually telling the truth. I've put quotations round spokesperson, as while he may not be your spokesperson, this publication give him the platform repeatidly, and they've almost made him the figurehead of a campaign group that probably doesn't exist outside his circle of friends. (Actually, some of their smokescreen stories were laughable....Woodchu rch is a floodplan, if it wasn't houses built there it'd be a Tescos, that house prices had fallen considerably on the Wirral....but then the person stating these lived in Ilford, and had never been to ths penisula.) For the Globe, and the opposition, to repeat the figure of 88, for continued reference to Poplar trees....then these on the surface appear to be mistruths. I'm not going to say 'lie', but a mistruth, as this repeatidly quoted figure of 88 can't be quantified. 85 can, we can put names, and stories, to knowing who they were. Marles missed the point last time. He missed it bigtime, and then went on to profess anger, when really it should've highlighted the shoddy job his team of journalists were doing, or not doing. They appear to have the ear of the 'spokesperson', despite them denying it, but the amount of free publicity, and positive spin, this 'spokesperson' gets for his ventures far outweighs anything anyone else is getting. I question stories, I like to know what I'm being told is the truth, and sorry if you disagree with this, but until we can put 88 names to this figure of '88', then it remains '85', and to be honest, I think just, at the moment, it appears to be making up three 'fallen' to pad the story out....I find that disrespectful. In this story, the memory of these men are being used as pawns in a tactical battle (one which our forefathers should've used rather than sending men over the top), and there's no disrepect shown by me in wishing to know who they were. Feel free to miss the point, you did last time, it'd be no surprise again. Marles missed it, untacom missed it....it's just easier to repeat something that, on the surface appears to be correct, but when you scrap away the surface, can't actually be quantified. In the scheme of legacies for future generations, that's not to great a one.... yogz66
  • Score: 1

4:00pm Wed 30 Jul 14

uncatom says...

Response to Yogz66 :Yes I see you have done your homework, but I am still confused, I still don't grasp what the total has to do with the sale of field , 88, 85, or 10 does the total figure make it any less of a Memorial ? if it were 10 would it lessen the value of the field, Does the loss of one life or 10 demand any less respect? and make it alright to sell the land ? It is outrageous to suggest that three names are being used to "pad the story out" perhaps somebody planted the trees to pad the story out, and to suggest that the memory of those men who gave their lives are being used as pawns, by you, the very person that wanted to publish their names and deny their existence and then wring your hands about how they died so that you had the freedom to express your views, well I find that indefensible and abhorrent the same as your "aren't I a clever little boy" response.
Response to Yogz66 :Yes I see you have done your homework, but I am still confused, I still don't grasp what the total has to do with the sale of field , 88, 85, or 10 does the total figure make it any less of a Memorial ? if it were 10 would it lessen the value of the field, Does the loss of one life or 10 demand any less respect? and make it alright to sell the land ? It is outrageous to suggest that three names are being used to "pad the story out" perhaps somebody planted the trees to pad the story out, and to suggest that the memory of those men who gave their lives are being used as pawns, by you, the very person that wanted to publish their names and deny their existence and then wring your hands about how they died so that you had the freedom to express your views, well I find that indefensible and abhorrent the same as your "aren't I a clever little boy" response. uncatom
  • Score: 1

4:44pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Positive thinker says...

Site visit, what are they going on about they've had plenty of them is it just a case they've got no balls to approve it there and then as we all
know it will get full approval and rightly so
Site visit, what are they going on about they've had plenty of them is it just a case they've got no balls to approve it there and then as we all know it will get full approval and rightly so Positive thinker
  • Score: -1

12:14pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Breakpoint says...

Why have the Wirral Globe removed this story from the most read & most commented?.
Why have the Wirral Globe removed this story from the most read & most commented?. Breakpoint
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Lurkinhead says...

Breakpoint wrote:
Why have the Wirral Globe removed this story from the most read & most commented?.
A cynic may observe that this often seems to happen when, for whatever reason, the decision maker at the Globe takes the view that some of the comments are not favourable to their friend Dean Johnson.
[quote][p][bold]Breakpoint[/bold] wrote: Why have the Wirral Globe removed this story from the most read & most commented?.[/p][/quote]A cynic may observe that this often seems to happen when, for whatever reason, the decision maker at the Globe takes the view that some of the comments are not favourable to their friend Dean Johnson. Lurkinhead
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Breakpoint says...

Lurkinhead wrote:
Breakpoint wrote:
Why have the Wirral Globe removed this story from the most read & most commented?.
A cynic may observe that this often seems to happen when, for whatever reason, the decision maker at the Globe takes the view that some of the comments are not favourable to their friend Dean Johnson.
Lurkinhead,

The comments provided by your good self and Pollexfen prove that progress can be made amicably on Ingleborough Fields. From completly sitting on the fence to start with I have been swayed by both yours & Pollexfen's comments, in this democracy both sides should come to a solution, however without Tranmere Rovers negotiating this can be dificult.
I fully appreciate why Tranmere Rovers will not negotiate due to the underhand tactics seemingly used by Dean Johnson.
Here's hoping Tranmere Rovers can negotiate with Pollexfen & BIOB as I am sure a solution would then quickly be forthcoming.
[quote][p][bold]Lurkinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Breakpoint[/bold] wrote: Why have the Wirral Globe removed this story from the most read & most commented?.[/p][/quote]A cynic may observe that this often seems to happen when, for whatever reason, the decision maker at the Globe takes the view that some of the comments are not favourable to their friend Dean Johnson.[/p][/quote]Lurkinhead, The comments provided by your good self and Pollexfen prove that progress can be made amicably on Ingleborough Fields. From completly sitting on the fence to start with I have been swayed by both yours & Pollexfen's comments, in this democracy both sides should come to a solution, however without Tranmere Rovers negotiating this can be dificult. I fully appreciate why Tranmere Rovers will not negotiate due to the underhand tactics seemingly used by Dean Johnson. Here's hoping Tranmere Rovers can negotiate with Pollexfen & BIOB as I am sure a solution would then quickly be forthcoming. Breakpoint
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Pollexfen says...

I would like to think that there is a lot of common ground between us few and I am grateful to Lurkinhead for going some way towards restoring my faith in human nature. I have said what I can in terms of facts but would like to add some final personal comments:
I gave my view on what I perceive to be a lack of interest from TRFC in embracing the memorial idea. It remains the case that there is no proof to justify any other position and to miss BIOB out of any discussion at any time rather speaks for itself
If BIOB received any communications offering meaningful talks but which as a precondition excluded Dean Johnson I don’t believe that this would be a barrier.
People may have a view on Dean’s motives and that is up to them but ironically ‘homing’ in on this in the comments does rather give him the (perceived) publicity he seeks. Can anyone remember a Father Ted episode along these lines? It is a pity if it deflects from debate of the issues.
I believe that BIOB have a letter from Lorraine Rogers stating that the arch was taken down for health and safety reasons (would you like me to confirm this?) but of course no attempt was made by TRFC to reinstate it as required by the Restrictive Covenants on the site.
I have never considered that the type and number of trees remaining was a matter for TRFC alone and maybe what is there is what they inherited when they acquired the site? It’s not really the point, Its more another fact (ignored by Architect’s Paddock Johnson in their disgraceful so called “Heritage Statement”) that this represents a site which was respected as being dedicated to the fallen of the school and their sacrifice. With the benefit of hindsight BIOB has been too relaxed and complacent that the historical, commemorative aspects would somehow roll on forever and not paid it the attention they are now doing? How often do we prize things we took for granted only when we are on the brink of losing them? Mind you if we had been more on the case and raised the question of the quality and number of trees remaining, do you think that anyone at the Council or the Club would have cared anymore about it that they do now?
I guess we will never know why Woodchurch failed. Maybe if Leasowe fails (fat chance methinks) it could be back on the table again? One thing is for sure is that it is all about money one way or another.
As regards Yogz66
Fair fight but I am not sure we are poles apart on the number issue. The scale of the disaster which is WW1 is so immense, one might question why 80 ‘odd’ names matter against the millions lost. The answer lies as you appreciate in the individual loss within each family just as Hillsborough illustrates. Maybe if we could resolve this situation with the win win situation BIOB desire then the newspapers could rejoice instead of what has been reported to date and we could shine a light on some of those brave men and their stories which necessitates a decent memorial?
I have come to realise that there never is just one ‘truth’ in this life and if you want to use 85 I am not going to disagree (although information I received today suggests that this may now be 86?)
Personally I don’t see the Fallen as pawns either now or in 1914. They did the right thing for the right reasons. Sadly the problem lay in greedy, envious people of great power and influence who lacked the concern for others and the foresight to see that sorting out problems by talking was better than going to War. Plus ca change.
I would like to think that there is a lot of common ground between us few and I am grateful to Lurkinhead for going some way towards restoring my faith in human nature. I have said what I can in terms of facts but would like to add some final personal comments: I gave my view on what I perceive to be a lack of interest from TRFC in embracing the memorial idea. It remains the case that there is no proof to justify any other position and to miss BIOB out of any discussion at any time rather speaks for itself If BIOB received any communications offering meaningful talks but which as a precondition excluded Dean Johnson I don’t believe that this would be a barrier. People may have a view on Dean’s motives and that is up to them but ironically ‘homing’ in on this in the comments does rather give him the (perceived) publicity he seeks. Can anyone remember a Father Ted episode along these lines? It is a pity if it deflects from debate of the issues. I believe that BIOB have a letter from Lorraine Rogers stating that the arch was taken down for health and safety reasons (would you like me to confirm this?) but of course no attempt was made by TRFC to reinstate it as required by the Restrictive Covenants on the site. I have never considered that the type and number of trees remaining was a matter for TRFC alone and maybe what is there is what they inherited when they acquired the site? It’s not really the point, Its more another fact (ignored by Architect’s Paddock Johnson in their disgraceful so called “Heritage Statement”) that this represents a site which was respected as being dedicated to the fallen of the school and their sacrifice. With the benefit of hindsight BIOB has been too relaxed and complacent that the historical, commemorative aspects would somehow roll on forever and not paid it the attention they are now doing? How often do we prize things we took for granted only when we are on the brink of losing them? Mind you if we had been more on the case and raised the question of the quality and number of trees remaining, do you think that anyone at the Council or the Club would have cared anymore about it that they do now? I guess we will never know why Woodchurch failed. Maybe if Leasowe fails (fat chance methinks) it could be back on the table again? One thing is for sure is that it is all about money one way or another. As regards Yogz66 Fair fight but I am not sure we are poles apart on the number issue. The scale of the disaster which is WW1 is so immense, one might question why 80 ‘odd’ names matter against the millions lost. The answer lies as you appreciate in the individual loss within each family just as Hillsborough illustrates. Maybe if we could resolve this situation with the win win situation BIOB desire then the newspapers could rejoice instead of what has been reported to date and we could shine a light on some of those brave men and their stories which necessitates a decent memorial? I have come to realise that there never is just one ‘truth’ in this life and if you want to use 85 I am not going to disagree (although information I received today suggests that this may now be 86?) Personally I don’t see the Fallen as pawns either now or in 1914. They did the right thing for the right reasons. Sadly the problem lay in greedy, envious people of great power and influence who lacked the concern for others and the foresight to see that sorting out problems by talking was better than going to War. Plus ca change. Pollexfen
  • Score: 1

10:09pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Lurkinhead says...

I'm not sure TRFC have a "lack of interest" in the memorial idea Pollexfen, but rather it is a matter of debate (or should be) as to the scale and the nature of that memorial.

Back to our old friend Deano, I will accept that the feelings against him do perhaps provide him with some of the publicity he so desperately craves. However, countering that, any online press story that the man thinks is to his commercial advantage appears, within hours, gloatingly on his website, so personally, I believe it is important to balance his one-sided self-promotion with the opposing point of view. Incidentally, his website states"WE ARE A NON-PROFIT-MAKING ORGANISATION AND EXIST THANKS TO THE GENEROSITY OF THE WIRRAL METHODIST HOUSING ASSOCIATION....." Now, whilst it may be noble of a charitable organisation (who themselves receive tax breaks from the government) to fund his "non-profit-making" facade, it is perhaps less noble of the man himself to use that charity to ceaselessly promote his commercial ventures, not just in relation to the First World War, but also to his vicarious association with the Beatles etc.

I think as far as the trees go, and dare I say, Yogz's point about the names of The Fallen, I think the point is perhaps that there are certain statements trotted out as fact at every opportunity by the Globe on their friend's behalf, that, to be honest, don't bear up to rigorous scrutiny. Now, from my perspective anyway, of course that doesn't detract from the tragedy of war, or respect for The Fallen, but nevertheless, it does indicate an agenda by this local newspaper to bolster their support for the commercial ventures of one man. Again, from an entirely personal perspective, I am slightly uncomfortable with The Fallen from one particular school being singled out for particular status as heroes. For example, I went to the Yozzers, another defunct school, and I don't recall any lasting memorial to The Fallen from there, other than on the official cenotaphs.

Please do not interpret any of the above as lack of respect - it is certainly not intended that way, from myself at least, but I hope you take my point that each and every one of The Fallen is an equal tragedy, regardless of which school they attended.

I am happy to take your word as regards the memorial arch - as I said, I have no information re the disposal of this, so if you have evidence supporting your claim that the club disposed of it, I am not in a position to argue.

My main beef, as a Woody resident, is the whole issue of why the Woodchurch element of the original planning proposal was discarded in favour of a much watered-down version in Leasowe. I still don't know the answer to this, but intend to keep digging and find out.

Just as an aside, and talking of digging, I saw a documentary on TV today about the tunneling and mine laying under the Messines Ridge - absolutely fascinating, but also highlighting both the heroism and futility of war.

Finally, as regards communication between the BIOB and TRFC, I wish this would happen, but again, given the previous antics of one of your number, I can understand if the club believes a rubicon has been crossed, and that is unfortunate. Just a suggestion, but why don't BIOB re-approach TRFC on the understanding, as you say, that if "BIOB received any communications offering meaningful talks but which as a precondition excluded Dean Johnson I don’t believe that this would be a barrier."?
I'm not sure TRFC have a "lack of interest" in the memorial idea Pollexfen, but rather it is a matter of debate (or should be) as to the scale and the nature of that memorial. Back to our old friend Deano, I will accept that the feelings against him do perhaps provide him with some of the publicity he so desperately craves. However, countering that, any online press story that the man thinks is to his commercial advantage appears, within hours, gloatingly on his website, so personally, I believe it is important to balance his one-sided self-promotion with the opposing point of view. Incidentally, his website states"WE ARE A NON-PROFIT-MAKING ORGANISATION AND EXIST THANKS TO THE GENEROSITY OF THE WIRRAL METHODIST HOUSING ASSOCIATION....." Now, whilst it may be noble of a charitable organisation (who themselves receive tax breaks from the government) to fund his "non-profit-making" facade, it is perhaps less noble of the man himself to use that charity to ceaselessly promote his commercial ventures, not just in relation to the First World War, but also to his vicarious association with the Beatles etc. I think as far as the trees go, and dare I say, Yogz's point about the names of The Fallen, I think the point is perhaps that there are certain statements trotted out as fact at every opportunity by the Globe on their friend's behalf, that, to be honest, don't bear up to rigorous scrutiny. Now, from my perspective anyway, of course that doesn't detract from the tragedy of war, or respect for The Fallen, but nevertheless, it does indicate an agenda by this local newspaper to bolster their support for the commercial ventures of one man. Again, from an entirely personal perspective, I am slightly uncomfortable with The Fallen from one particular school being singled out for particular status as heroes. For example, I went to the Yozzers, another defunct school, and I don't recall any lasting memorial to The Fallen from there, other than on the official cenotaphs. Please do not interpret any of the above as lack of respect - it is certainly not intended that way, from myself at least, but I hope you take my point that each and every one of The Fallen is an equal tragedy, regardless of which school they attended. I am happy to take your word as regards the memorial arch - as I said, I have no information re the disposal of this, so if you have evidence supporting your claim that the club disposed of it, I am not in a position to argue. My main beef, as a Woody resident, is the whole issue of why the Woodchurch element of the original planning proposal was discarded in favour of a much watered-down version in Leasowe. I still don't know the answer to this, but intend to keep digging and find out. Just as an aside, and talking of digging, I saw a documentary on TV today about the tunneling and mine laying under the Messines Ridge - absolutely fascinating, but also highlighting both the heroism and futility of war. Finally, as regards communication between the BIOB and TRFC, I wish this would happen, but again, given the previous antics of one of your number, I can understand if the club believes a rubicon has been crossed, and that is unfortunate. Just a suggestion, but why don't BIOB re-approach TRFC on the understanding, as you say, that if "BIOB received any communications offering meaningful talks but which as a precondition excluded Dean Johnson I don’t believe that this would be a barrier."? Lurkinhead
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Jack Boot says...

Why cant you leave Dean Johnson out of this discussion? He's had no input on any of these threads, so what he's a local historian, so what he photoshopped war graves onto Ingleborough.... that was virtual, TRFC want to concrete for real... for profit ... over a war memorial.
It doesnt matter which school these young men emanated from, it could have been the Yozzers, St Anselms, Corpus Christi etc, just because its not your school doesn't make it right to CONCRETE OVER A WAR MEMORIAL FOR PROFIT.

The move from Woodchurch to Leasowe, inconvenienced so many people and dashed their hopes to cynicism, check the numbers, its an assett strip.
Why cant you leave Dean Johnson out of this discussion? He's had no input on any of these threads, so what he's a local historian, so what he photoshopped war graves onto Ingleborough.... that was virtual, TRFC want to concrete for real... for profit ... over a war memorial. It doesnt matter which school these young men emanated from, it could have been the Yozzers, St Anselms, Corpus Christi etc, just because its not your school doesn't make it right to CONCRETE OVER A WAR MEMORIAL FOR PROFIT. The move from Woodchurch to Leasowe, inconvenienced so many people and dashed their hopes to cynicism, check the numbers, its an assett strip. Jack Boot
  • Score: -1

12:46am Fri 1 Aug 14

yogz66 says...

Thanks for the respones Pollexfen, the figure of 86 was allured to back in 1926. One of my theories to the mising 'names', is that back in the day, they deserted and were shot as traitors - which is what occured back then - whereas now, a change in perception recognises the stresses of war and what mental effect that it has on the human involvement. Do you think that that might be why there's a difference between known names, and the oft quoted figure 88?

In reference to your point regarding the arch, which has been brought up in the past, if it's been removed because it's unsafe, then wouldn't reinstaing something unsafe be nothing more than a folly. If I recall, the issue last tim wasn't why it hadn't been reinstated, but where was it.
Thanks for the respones Pollexfen, the figure of 86 was allured to back in 1926. One of my theories to the mising 'names', is that back in the day, they deserted and were shot as traitors - which is what occured back then - whereas now, a change in perception recognises the stresses of war and what mental effect that it has on the human involvement. Do you think that that might be why there's a difference between known names, and the oft quoted figure 88? In reference to your point regarding the arch, which has been brought up in the past, if it's been removed because it's unsafe, then wouldn't reinstaing something unsafe be nothing more than a folly. If I recall, the issue last tim wasn't why it hadn't been reinstated, but where was it. yogz66
  • Score: 0

12:47am Fri 1 Aug 14

yogz66 says...

Breakpoint wrote:
Why have the Wirral Globe removed this story from the most read & most commented?.
It's because this is now over a week old, and their stats are based on the last week.
[quote][p][bold]Breakpoint[/bold] wrote: Why have the Wirral Globe removed this story from the most read & most commented?.[/p][/quote]It's because this is now over a week old, and their stats are based on the last week. yogz66
  • Score: 0

12:52am Fri 1 Aug 14

yogz66 says...

Thanks untacom formanaging to miss the point again. Once I felt it may be a mistake, twice, clearly deliberatly. Could this just be that you dislike anyone disagreeing with you, ie: your viewpoint is the only one, ergo, any that deviates is automatically wrong.

For the record, your response was what I anticipated....
Thanks untacom formanaging to miss the point again. Once I felt it may be a mistake, twice, clearly deliberatly. Could this just be that you dislike anyone disagreeing with you, ie: your viewpoint is the only one, ergo, any that deviates is automatically wrong. For the record, your response was what I anticipated.... yogz66
  • Score: 0

10:19am Fri 1 Aug 14

Pollexfen says...

I think this discussion is close to a conclusion? We will never know whether there was/is a lack of interest or not on the part of TRFC but maybe there is a differentiation between TRFC and its owner.
As far as I know St Hughs was built after WW1 but the point is taken and were the pavillion to be retained say, I don't see why it should not be a monument to other families scarifice. In that case it would have to be something different which is already catered for at the Cenotaph. I would be against the loss of any memorial, it is just that I feel particularly strongly about this one.
BIOB could try (yet) another approach for talks as suggested and I will take advice. It would have more weight if the TRFC Supporters endorsed it. I will maybe contact the Supporters Trust (with whom we have met) to see if they would go along with the idea of an open letter?
As regards numbers I still don't understand the fuss, although accuracy is always best. Even just one death is worth commemorating and the difference between the figures when you are talking in excess of 80 men (we are all agreed on that at least?) is not material to the argument.
I do not know where the 88 came from all I can say personally is that the Roll shows 83. But the people who put this list togther were human and capable of making a mistake or were only able to work on such information as was to hand. It is a lot easier thanks to the internet. I know from personal testomany of the nephew of Jack Nicholson that his Uncle was missed off and I believe we have 2 more similarly.
The point about those executed is interesting and I do not know enough about the subject but I will bear it in mind as I research. It appears from a Google search that there were around 300 men shot, so statistically alone the chances of 5 of these being BI Old Boys is clearly remote (although possible). From a quick look at the list I do not recognise any names from the Roll. I am not sure whether a family would have been made aware that their relative was dealt with in this way and if so how common knowledge it would have been. I think it is right that the record has been set right now with a postumous pardon. This is of academic interest but not directly relevant to the issue of appropriate remembrance.
As regards the arch which was quite happily in place for approximately 60 years before TRFC took it down without notice or permission (and then failed to reinstate it), it falls into the usual vacuum which is the deafening silence of the Club and its Owner.
I think this discussion is close to a conclusion? We will never know whether there was/is a lack of interest or not on the part of TRFC but maybe there is a differentiation between TRFC and its owner. As far as I know St Hughs was built after WW1 but the point is taken and were the pavillion to be retained say, I don't see why it should not be a monument to other families scarifice. In that case it would have to be something different which is already catered for at the Cenotaph. I would be against the loss of any memorial, it is just that I feel particularly strongly about this one. BIOB could try (yet) another approach for talks as suggested and I will take advice. It would have more weight if the TRFC Supporters endorsed it. I will maybe contact the Supporters Trust (with whom we have met) to see if they would go along with the idea of an open letter? As regards numbers I still don't understand the fuss, although accuracy is always best. Even just one death is worth commemorating and the difference between the figures when you are talking in excess of 80 men (we are all agreed on that at least?) is not material to the argument. I do not know where the 88 came from all I can say personally is that the Roll shows 83. But the people who put this list togther were human and capable of making a mistake or were only able to work on such information as was to hand. It is a lot easier thanks to the internet. I know from personal testomany of the nephew of Jack Nicholson that his Uncle was missed off and I believe we have 2 more similarly. The point about those executed is interesting and I do not know enough about the subject but I will bear it in mind as I research. It appears from a Google search that there were around 300 men shot, so statistically alone the chances of 5 of these being BI Old Boys is clearly remote (although possible). From a quick look at the list I do not recognise any names from the Roll. I am not sure whether a family would have been made aware that their relative was dealt with in this way and if so how common knowledge it would have been. I think it is right that the record has been set right now with a postumous pardon. This is of academic interest but not directly relevant to the issue of appropriate remembrance. As regards the arch which was quite happily in place for approximately 60 years before TRFC took it down without notice or permission (and then failed to reinstate it), it falls into the usual vacuum which is the deafening silence of the Club and its Owner. Pollexfen
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree