I wonder who the mystery investor is?

Rik e B your post (and the Cod Almighty) sums up my thoughts exactly. I to went along with the whole Peaks Parkway scheme out of desperation for a new stadium, but all along my gut feeling was (and still is) that it is just not the RIGHT place for the ground. I sincerely believe the new ground should be at the heart of the community, as it has been for over 100 years. There is a wealth of information available online, moving away from the idea that "out of town" is the best place to relocate new stadia and inner city redevelopment is the way forward. The more I think about it and discuss with others the less I can see there being any advantage to having a new stadium at Peaks Parkway, apart of course the enabling development. But this should not be the overriding decisive factor. If a new stadium cannot be developed for all the right reasons, then it should not be built at all. The Town and football club has to get this right. The Peaks Parkway site, I believe, will lead ultimately to traffic congestion and will prove just too far out of the way for many to be bothered. I cannot see why a new ground if located at PP would increase attendances. The way Fenty is behaving, stubornly pushing the PP option, when the council are trying to make the RIGHT decision BEST for the town, leaves a bitter taste.

I still think freemo ticks more boxes than any other for what it's worth. Could lead to a massive redevelopment of not just that area but, even further to freshney place, pyewipe etc
The traffic infrastructure is there already (straight off the a180, gy docks train), the area is crying out for redevelopment and it would remain at the heart of the town/community.

Yes it would take a hell of a lot of time to get through red tape etc, but it certainly would make a huge impact on the area.

I think peakes parkway will be chosen in all honesty. It's not a bad option, I just feel that moving out of town is wrong.

I have always thought that pp is to out of town.
For me freeman St/ riby sq is the best option, however coming round to Garth lane.
I would much rather go to a ground that is surrounded by pubs shops cafes etc than a faceless out of town development
Prefer sincil dump to blandford dump

Quoted from heppy88

Rik e B your post (and the Cod Almighty) sums up my thoughts exactly. I to went along with the whole Peaks Parkway scheme out of desperation for a new stadium, but all along my gut feeling was (and still is) that it is just not the RIGHT place for the ground. I sincerely believe the new ground should be at the heart of the community, as it has been for over 100 years. There is a wealth of information available online, moving away from the idea that "out of town" is the best place to relocate new stadia and inner city redevelopment is the way forward. The more I think about it and discuss with others the less I can see there being any advantage to having a new stadium at Peaks Parkway, apart of course the enabling development. But this should not be the overriding decisive factor. If a new stadium cannot be developed for all the right reasons, then it should not be built at all. The Town and football club has to get this right. The Peaks Parkway site, I believe, will lead ultimately to traffic congestion and will prove just too far out of the way for many to be bothered. I cannot see why a new ground if located at PP would increase attendances. The way Fenty is behaving, stubornly pushing the PP option, when the council are trying to make the RIGHT decision BEST for the town, leaves a bitter taste.

A good post IMO but some aspects need challenging in the interest of furthering the debate.
Firstly you have to decide what "The community" actually is. It is unarguable that a site in Freeman St. or the "Top Town" area would be built in an area more densely populated but for a stadium to be built for the benefit of the WHOLE of the area covered by N.E. Lincs neither site comes close to being central to the area. Geographically Peakes Parkway is pretty close to being in the centre of N.E. Lincs. From the football clubs point of view they will have a pretty good idea of where their fan base is based informed by ticket sales and that information will have helped to inform the decision.
Secondly lets deal with the point about traffic congestion. It is quite frankly ludicrous to suggest that only the Peakes Parkway site will see traffic chaos. The majority of the people who use their cars to get to Blundell Park would continue to do so as people exercise their right to avoid public transport. Freeman St as a whole is served by no more bus services than Blundell Park. The difference with the two town centre sites is that the car traffic would be adding to already huge numbers of cars using the roads around the Town centre on the busiest shopping day of the week. The other aspect to consider is that with a Community Stadium providing other as yet unnamed facilities will see a general increase in traffic volumes. It is fair to say that with the size of crowds currently attending Blundell Park the congestion is not as serious as it might be. However I'm sure that all Town fans and the club want to see us far higher up the pyramid. What happens then? I shudder to think of the difficulties with large crowds on a fairly regular basis should we reach the Championship. These crowds would contain a large contingent of away fans adding to the road problems. In my mind it would be a lot easier to manage the traffic on ONE of the roads into town than attempt to alter the whole of the network in a very built up area.
The third point is regarding choosing the right spot or not moving at all. If you accept the view coming out of the club backed by continued figures showing substantial losses year on year that Blundell Park is unsustainable then not to move isn't an option if we are to continue to have a football club bailed out by one mans money. If outside investment could be attracted that position may well change.
In light of this it is also worth pointing out that any project to build on Freeman St. would take 10 years by the councjl's own estimate.
It should also be remembered that initially the Peakes Parkway site was offered to GTFC by the NELC Labour Party cabinet. All other action regarding feasibility has stemmed from that. Having said that it is true that the goalposts have been moved by the decision taken to knock down the Freeman St. flats.

Quoted from barralad

A good post IMO but some aspects need challenging in the interest of furthering the debate.
Firstly you have to decide what "The community" actually is. It is unarguable that a site in Freeman St. or the "Top Town" area would be built in an area more densely populated but for a stadium to be built for the benefit of the WHOLE of the area covered by N.E. Lincs neither site comes close to being central to the area. Geographically Peakes Parkway is pretty close to being in the centre of N.E. Lincs. From the football clubs point of view they will have a pretty good idea of where their fan base is based informed by ticket sales and that information will have helped to inform the decision.
Secondly lets deal with the point about traffic congestion. It is quite frankly ludicrous to suggest that only the Peakes Parkway site will see traffic chaos. The majority of the people who use their cars to get to Blundell Park would continue to do so as people exercise their right to avoid public transport. Freeman St as a whole is served by no more bus services than Blundell Park. The difference with the two town centre sites is that the car traffic would be adding to already huge numbers of cars using the roads around the Town centre on the busiest shopping day of the week. The other aspect to consider is that with a Community Stadium providing other as yet unnamed facilities will see a general increase in traffic volumes. It is fair to say that with the size of crowds currently attending Blundell Park the congestion is not as serious as it might be. However I'm sure that all Town fans and the club want to see us far higher up the pyramid. What happens then? I shudder to think of the difficulties with large crowds on a fairly regular basis should we reach the Championship. These crowds would contain a large contingent of away fans adding to the road problems. In my mind it would be a lot easier to manage the traffic on ONE of the roads into town than attempt to alter the whole of the network in a very built up area.
The third point is regarding choosing the right spot or not moving at all. If you accept the view coming out of the club backed by continued figures showing substantial losses year on year that Blundell Park is unsustainable then not to move isn't an option if we are to continue to have a football club bailed out by one mans money. If outside investment could be attracted that position may well change.
In light of this it is also worth pointing out that any project to build on Freeman St. would take 10 years by the councjl's own estimate.
It should also be remembered that initially the Peakes Parkway site was offered to GTFC by the NELC Labour Party cabinet. All other action regarding feasibility has stemmed from that. Having said that it is true that the goalposts have been moved by the decision taken to knock down the Freeman St. flats.

I rarely disagree with your point of view Barralad, and can't find anything here to dispute either. If we could wave a wand and have a new stadium tomorrow Freeman St would possibly be at the top of my list, great for the town etc but in reality I can't see anything other than Peaks Parkway working.

I hope this too ing and fro ing does not become bitter,  with people who are in the decision making positions becoming bored with the subject at the detriment ofr a new ground, or am I not in the real world

The big word is IF in all this however IF the Council guaranteed Freemo in 10 years for a new ground would that be acceptable? I for one think Freemo/Docks is the best and most sensible place to build a ground due to it being fairly central,straight off the motorway and pubs etc in the vicinity.PP whilst I supported it out of desperation like may others would not be my first choice and do we really need to build on greenbelt land when we have adequate brown belt as the Council are pointing out.I have battered the Council for many things over many years and feel they have never helped this Football Club at all however this time around I think they seem very positive and I have more confidence that this ground will happen.Just where?

Quoted from 1mickylyons

The big word is IF in all this however IF the Council guaranteed Freemo in 10 years for a new ground would that be acceptable? I for one think Freemo/Docks is the best and most sensible place to build a ground due to it being fairly central,straight off the motorway and pubs etc in the vicinity.PP whilst I supported it out of desperation like may others would not be my first choice and do we really need to build on greenbelt land when we have adequate brown belt as the Council are pointing out.I have battered the Council for many things over many years and feel they have never helped this Football Club at all however this time around I think they seem very positive and I have more confidence that this ground will happen.Just where?

The answer to the first highlighted part of your post is definitely no.
The second highlighted part baffles me some what to be honest. Freeman St is not central to the area and as barralad has already said in his post, the club know where and what areas the fans come from and feel that pp is the most central location. The part that keeps coming up is the motorway statement, why?
How many home fans travel down the motorway to get to bp, hardly any at a guess. All that's doing is catering for away fans IMO that visit once a year.
Peaks Parkway all day long for me

For me, next to Morrisons is best. The edge of town I agree, but to put it anywhere in central town I've no idea where everyone will park. Laceby has roads to several parts of the town and beyond.Is also good for away supporters and possible to operate a Park and Ride scheme there if need be.

If the PP option could be built as a stand alone development there would be a good case for it. Traffic would be manageable, the site is reasonably central. The problem with PP is that a stadium cannot be built there as a stand alone development because nobody will pay for that to happen. There would never be a return on the investment and the community use would hardly pay for the upkeep. And of course it is a greenfield site.

That is the stumbling block. Every developer wants a greenfield site because it's easy, straight in, build and straight out with a bag full of cash. There would be no shortage of big developers who would chip in a lot of money for a stadium if they were allowed to build a couple of housing estates along the Parkway as part of the deal. This is where the PP argument falls down because the stadium suddenly ceases to be out on its own and no bother to anyone. The stadium is actually slap bang in the middle of housing and it is the housing that will cause the traffic problems, it is the housing that will cause demand for a new school, medical and retail facilities and before you know it, PP is a major dormitory estate or two joining up to New Waltham with GTFC right in the middle.

This has now dawned on even the dimmest of NELC planners (and there are some dim ones down there), and that is why the PP slid down their preferences. The argument is that the stadium might as well be somewhere that the council needs to get redeveloped i.e. a brownfield site. That is the real community issue that they are on about.