Clearly is the big new idea.
Which is great.
MK have been doing a good job.
Does anyone know what their training facilities are?
I'm sure we all thought buying Roko might give us extra space for just that.
Trying hard not to get sucked into the whirpool of doom.
Do we realistically have the space/ facilities to match their achievements which from what I saw when we played them home and away would lead to a very decent young team and a lot of onward sales at the very least?
Roko is nowhere near big enough to match any of our academy ambitions. It's a relatively small space.
The owners said that in a recent interview.
The club owning roko is purely for the first teams benefit.
The academy at Roko is a no go. There simply isn't sufficient space there for the academy. It's for the first team only really.
For a successful academy in the future, we will need to purchase land elsewhere.
(01-07-2022, 07:13 PM)BlueArmy Wrote: [ -> ]Roko is nowhere near big enough to match any of our academy ambitions. It's a relatively small space.
The owners said that in a recent interview.
The club owning roko is purely for the first teams benefit.
The academy at Roko is a no go. There simply isn't sufficient space there for the academy. It's for the first team only really.
For a successful academy in the future, we will need to purchase land elsewhere.
Exactly right, which is why the Club should be looking to purchase St Johns playing fields. But we all know the Eisners are skinflints so ain’t gonna happen sadly.
Successful businesses buy land in economic downturns, I won't be at all surprised to hear us buy up some more, St John's seems a good bet. Unless it is suddenly ok to build houses on it as the geese have mysteriously gone elsewhere when it does not involve a football club. The college was allowed to turn the grass where they fed there into plastic football pitches.
Or looking at the sat pictures, Roko linked into Rugby camps with Covers moving seems an even better bet. With us providing a home for the rugby club within.
I think getting the rugby club is the idea although it would need council approval and the rugby club sited elsewhere
(01-07-2022, 09:56 PM)bluetagagain Wrote: [ -> ]I think getting the rugby club is the idea although it would need council approval and the rugby club sited elsewhere
I can’t see Portsmouth Rugby Club moving…why should they? PRFC is older than Pompey. It is us who have to relocate. Why can’t Roko be set up for the academy (publicly funded one of the pitches) and the first team move to a purpose built facility at St Johns, which must be of equal size to the whole of Roko including the Rugby pitches. That’s what should happen, but won’t due to the costs and Eisners frugal approach.
(01-07-2022, 10:06 PM)BigSmokeBlue Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2022, 09:56 PM)bluetagagain Wrote: [ -> ]I think getting the rugby club is the idea although it would need council approval and the rugby club sited elsewhere
I can’t see Portsmouth Rugby Club moving…why should they? PRFC is older than Pompey. It is us who have to relocate. Why can’t Roko be set up for the academy (publicly funded one of the pitches) and the first team move to a purpose built facility at St Johns, which must be of equal size to the whole of Roko including the Rugby pitches. That’s what should happen, but won’t due to the costs and Eisners frugal approach.
They've not exactly been frugal as regards infrastructure, actually the first owners we've had in decades who have spent anything at all on it.
I could see us coming to an agreement with the Rugby club that gives us some extra land AND they get use of it enough for their purpose too.
(02-07-2022, 07:04 AM)Hammie Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2022, 10:06 PM)BigSmokeBlue Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2022, 09:56 PM)bluetagagain Wrote: [ -> ]I think getting the rugby club is the idea although it would need council approval and the rugby club sited elsewhere
I can’t see Portsmouth Rugby Club moving…why should they? PRFC is older than Pompey. It is us who have to relocate. Why can’t Roko be set up for the academy (publicly funded one of the pitches) and the first team move to a purpose built facility at St Johns, which must be of equal size to the whole of Roko including the Rugby pitches. That’s what should happen, but won’t due to the costs and Eisners frugal approach.
They've not exactly been frugal as regards infrastructure, actually the first owners we've had in decades who have spent anything at all on it.
I could see us coming to an agreement with the Rugby club that gives us some extra land AND they get use of it enough for their purpose too.
The Eisners hand has been forced into spending money on the infrastructure, otherwise the Council were going to shut parts of the ground for reasons of Health & Safety. They knew what the issues were with regards to Fratton Park when they bought the club.
I work in construction and feasibility / due diligence on what is required to upgrade the ground typically takes 6 months if not less. Why has it taken them 4 years to start doing anything?
There is no way Pompey and the rugby club can share the same pitches. The grass would never have the chance to recover. I firmly believe the best option is to relocate Pompey’s first team to a purpose built facility on St Johns playing fields. Refurbishing Roko does not really provide the necessary facilities for a club with Championship ambitions, let alone the Prem.
Eat what we kill isn't working.
Eat what we grow would be better.
But the Eisners have scorched the earth.