18 Jul 2003 07:09:31
Stuart Jones
Holme Pierrepont / Caversham

Adam,

I know you put the argument in about North/South, and as a Northerner
at heart I sympathise. BUT, when you look at the competition review's
appendices, you get the following ARA membership figures:

Total for Upper+Lower Thames: 7247
Total for the rest of England: 9788

i.e. 43% of the ARA's membership row on the Thames. Which is a lot.
And is, unfortunately like so much else in this country, a big
southern bias.

Dorney is hell at the minute, because as soon as the Thames becomes
unrowable, all and sundry turn up, and you have college novices
alongside GB squad, and it's just silly. Caversham will let the
National Squad train in relative peace (there'll never be more than 2
VIIIs out from Univ, and probably similar for OUBC), and will free up
more space at Dorney. Sport England haven't said they're going to
close HP, rivers "up North" tend to be more rowable than the Thames
anyway (that's a big generalisation, I know), and HP is still miles
away from the much more widely spread North/Midlands rowing scene.
I've travelled 50 miles to Dorney to train with Univ, but I doubt if
the river at Northwich was unrowable we'd travel 90 miles or however
far it is for a morning outing at HP...

I know it sucks, but that's life. I also know I'm bound to be biased
in the same was as Andrew, as I'll be one of the first to get to use
Caversham. But again, that's life....

Cheers,

Stu
University College BC Captain of Boats 03-04


18 Jul 2003 12:50:12
Christopher Anton
Re: Holme Pierrepont / Caversham

stuart.jones@univ.ox.ac.uk (Stuart Jones) wrote in message news:<eb0c47fd.0307180609.1a64fa7d@posting.google.com >...
rivers "up North" tend to be more rowable than the Thames
> anyway (that's a big generalisation, I know), and HP is still miles
> away from the much more widely spread North/Midlands rowing scene.

Some winters every single head on the Severn and Avon have been cancelled.


22 Jul 2003 00:37:31
Roger
Re: Holme Pierrepont / Caversham

> There isn't some "big brother" shifting the rowing population
> southwards. It's an accident of geography!
>
> CT

Nope just the money and the facilities


22 Jul 2003 08:17:59
John Yeatman
Re: Holme Pierrepont / Caversham

I believe Dorney cost 17m.
6m is a lot, but over how many years?
Also bear in mind HP is a much bigger facility, not just a rowing lake with
one boathouse at the end and very little proper car-parking!
JY

"Stuart Jones" <stuart.jones@univ.ox.ac.uk > wrote in message
news:eb0c47fd.0307212338.e616a20@posting.google.com...
> adam_j_carter@hotmail.com (Adam Carter) wrote in message
news:<6824a8c9.0307211149.51b8fab9@posting.google.com >...
> > I know of your northerness at heart Stu, and, as with Andrew I don't
> > blame you for wanting Caversham to be built so your club can use it.
> > It's a facility any club dreams of having! However the fact remains
> > that the removal of funding from HP would mean the effective closure
> > of the facility. Lots of the money poured into the facility by sport
> > england helps the maintenance of a site that is, after all, almost
> > thirty years old. I agree that it would be better for a new site to be
> > built. However I dispute the idea that this need be in the South.
> > There are already two rowing lakes in the South apparently of
> > international standard (the inclusion of the docklands in the Olympic
> > bid, even if only temporarily would indicate that the powers that be
> > think that it is) eand whilst they may well both be reasonably crowded
> > this still does not excuse the removal of another well used facility
> > serving a far larger, if less rower populated, area. The fact that
> > clubs in the south are able to travel to use a rowing lake facility
> > whilst clubs such as Northwich do not could be seen as a reason for
> > shifting funding south. On the other hand the fact that they do not do
> > so could indicate that the coverage of rowing lakes is not sufficient
> > in the north. If there was a facility within reach I am sure that such
> > clubs would travel to use it ( think it's further than 90 miles from
> > Northwich to Nottingham, but I could well be wrong!). If Sport England
> > are to remove funding I'd prefer it to be reassigned for the creation
> > of a new facility to serve the north. At the moment the majority of
> > the rowing talent is coming from the South, however is this as a
> > result of regional differences or differing treatment. I'd personally
> > say that it is the latter. I find it quite ammusing that rowing is
> > seeking to be an inclusive sport, something that I think should be
> > pushed very hard indeed, however this farce seems to indicate that
> > it's not quite as advanced as it should be!
>
>
> Well:
>
> a) What the hell do Holme Pierrepont do with the 6M that Sport
> England have cut from their funding ANYWAY!? I don't think Dorney's
> cost much more than that to build from scratch, so what's their
> excuse??
>
> b) Yes, I agree, there's no facility for the North, and that should
> maybe be addressed - thing is, if you put something "in the middle" of
> the North, it'll end up in the middle of the Pennines, which is a bit
> no-go really in terms of transport links etc...
>
> Any suggestions?




22 Jul 2003 19:19:02
Andrew Weaver
Re: Holme Pierrepont / Caversham

> a) What the hell do Holme Pierrepont do with the 6M that Sport
> England have cut from their funding ANYWAY!? I don't think Dorney's
> cost much more than that to build from scratch, so what's their
> excuse??

Dont worry it is the same Sport England that spent who knows how much
on not building an Athletics and football stadium at Wembley and an
athletics stadium at Pickets Lock.
I have the impression that Caversham Lakes has to be finished for them
to save some face after those two spectacular wastes of money and
other smaller ones.

BTW the lake I row on at the moment in Toda, Japan makes money. No one
pays to train on it. It makes so much money for Toda City that for
example they are able to employ 13 foreigners like me to teach in
their schools. The reason that the lake makes money is because the
first 500m of it are used to hold motorised surfboard races which is
one of the few sports that one is allowed to bet on in Japan, and
thousands come from all over Tokyo to part with their money.

Guess we had best all just go out and buy some more lottery tickets.

Andrew


24 Jul 2003 01:02:44
Stuart Jones
Re: Holme Pierrepont / Caversham

Christopher Anton <c.anton@blueyonder.co.uk > wrote in message news:<3F1F0813.3080104@blueyonder.co.uk>...
> Andrew Weaver wrote:
>
> >>a) What the hell do Holme Pierrepont do with the 6M that Sport
> >>England have cut from their funding ANYWAY!? I don't think Dorney's
> >>cost much more than that to build from scratch, so what's their
> >>excuse??
> >>
> >
>
> The current figures for Caversham (as reported to the last ARA Council)
> show that the annual running costs will be 127,500 with an income of
> 135,000 including the hire income to 10 clubs and 5 schools of 7,500.

Well that further bolsters the argument that Caversham will provide
some relief for Dorney - Eton might not like it, but it'll give people
more space to maneuver, and will result in people being able to get
safer more worthwhile training in.


> It also states that the scaled-down plans for the boathouse ( 2 x 28x12m
> bays) will not be sufficient to house the OUBC boats.

Do OUBC house their boats inside at Dorney when conditions force them
to train there? I don't think that'll be a massive problem, an
outdoor boat rack isn't the most expensive thing in the world.


24 Jul 2003 10:28:24
John Yeatman
Re: Holme Pierrepont / Caversham


"Christopher Anton" <c.anton@blueyonder.co.uk > wrote in message
news:3F1F0813.3080104@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> The current figures for Caversham (as reported to the last ARA Council)
> show that the annual running costs will be 127,500 with an income of
> 135,000 including the hire income to 10 clubs and 5 schools of 7,500.

That smacks of a bit of back-of envelope creative accounting to me, on the
income side at least.
>
> It also states that the scaled-down plans for the boathouse ( 2 x 28x12m
> bays) will not be sufficient to house the OUBC boats.

If OUBC or UCBC want yet another boathouse they can fund it themselves
surely?
>
> The road is also only going to be 2m wide so I wouldn't fancy driving a
> car on it.

Surely some mistake?
>




24 Jul 2003 10:41:52
Neil Wallace
Re: Holme Pierrepont / Caversham


"John Yeatman" <john.yeatman@cvd.co.uk > wrote in message
news:bfocc7$ob1$2@hercules.btinternet.com...
snip
> > The road is also only going to be 2m wide so I wouldn't fancy driving a
> > car on it.
>
> Surely some mistake?
> >
>

indeed 8 lanes required. minimum.




24 Jul 2003 13:44:20
Stuart Jones
Re: Holme Pierrepont / Caversham

"John Yeatman" <john.yeatman@cvd.co.uk > wrote in message news:<bfocc7$ob1$2@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > It also states that the scaled-down plans for the boathouse ( 2 x 28x12m
> > bays) will not be sufficient to house the OUBC boats.
>
> If OUBC or UCBC want yet another boathouse they can fund it themselves
> surely?

Hmmm, can't really see that happening, given that it's taken 4 years
to get a new UCBC boathouse to the planning permission stages, since
our old one burnt down in '99, a year before my time. We're not made
of money, so it seems...


> > The road is also only going to be 2m wide so I wouldn't fancy driving a
> > car on it.
>
> Surely some mistake?

I recall that when we trained at Caversham in 2001 (before they
started digging it out), the access to the marina was a bit ropey -
but I'd have thought they'd have improved that?


26 Jul 2003 09:17:16
Anu Dudhia
Re: Holme Pierrepont / Caversham

Andrew Weaver wrote:

> But that would mean that the "temporary" farm shed would no longer be
> needed on the Isis, so perhaps it could be moved to Caversham?

Forgetting - as ever - the other college boat clubs who use it.