Letter to the Stroud News & Journal
Dear Sir,
A lot has been written in recent weeks about the possible relocation of Stroud Rugby Club to Eastington. I must first declare an interest in such a move since I am the secretary at Stroud Rugby Club, but would like to put the record straight on a number of pieces of misinformation that have been circulating.
The rugby club may provide a green space but it is a private facility and not a place where the general public have the right to roam freely or walk their dogs. The club has a serious issue with dog walkers who do not take away the faeces produced by their dogs. Consequently this becomes a hazard to our players and children who use the pitch for recreational purposes particularly those susceptible to eye diseases that can be caught from such faeces.
The decision to move from Fromehall Park was made by the Club Committee. This was a difficult decision for the Club to make due to the 130 year history that the Club has had at this ground. However, we all recognised that there is a lack of room at Fromehall Park to accommodate all our teams. Even though we play in the Western Counties League, we only have one pitch to run a number of senior teams as well as accommodating over 200 children in the mini and junior sections. We know that this is sadly deficient to perfect and mature the game of rugby in Stroud.
The second reason, and I make no apologies for this, is the financial stability and security a move would make in allowing us to develop more attractive and financially viable recreation facilities in an alternative location for our club and for the community. We, like many other clubs, have struggled in recent years to balance the clubs books, and although some may say that is down to poor financial management, we are all volunteers and have done the best we can at a time of rising costs. In any case, we are where we are, and if we were to be unable to continue as a club the future of the site could also be very precarious.
Some have said in your pages that we should be more like Gloucester Rugby Club, after all they only have one pitch. What is not apparent in this scenario is that Gloucester Rugby Club have been looking for alternative locations where they can capitalise on their “product” and make their stadium more viable. Nevertheless we are not, and cannot be, like Gloucester. We are a community rugby club looking at different objectives, with greater emphasis on encouraging adults to play rugby at a grass roots level and ensuring children participate in the sport. Gloucester are only interested in a 1st XV squad which is “bought in” or fed through from local junior clubs, Gloucester also has access to substantial funding - we do not!
Turning to the Eastington site, it has been implied by some that the consultants helping us some how have an interest in the site and would therefore be looking to build some large hotel complex or similar, in other words it would “fall into the hands of big business”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The rugby club would own the facility and would be running it to encourage greater participation in Rugby throughout the District. It is true that we would hope to be able to produce a revenue stream from some non rugby activities, but not to the detriment of the sport itself. We have been encouraged by both the RFU and Sport England to develop more attractive and viable facilities to ensure that the Club can sustain itself in the future. Our new facilities have therefore been designed accordingly.
Another concern that has been raised by Cllr Marjoram and others has been the perception that the Eastington site would generate additional travel movements. I do not know how such a statement could be made without knowledge of the geographical spread of our current members. It implies that they all live in close proximity to the current ground and that they all walk there. Neither is true, and indeed our Juniors who currently play at Wycliffe College would be in the same locality. We firmly believe that this is a good and accessible location which conveniently is adjoined by one of the Country’s best used cycle paths. The closeness of the Eastington site to the motorway would also mean that opposition coaches and their supporters would not be travelling in to Stroud. The carbon footprint as a consequence would be less than it is now.
Another issue raised is the potential for light pollution caused by the club’s floodlights. Apparently a similar concern was raised when the Little Chef and garage complex at the main Eastington roundabout was first built, but this now seems to be an accepted part of Eastington. As far as our floodlights go they would only be used in the winter months and would be predominantly for training sessions which take place twice a week, with maybe the occasional floodlit match. To be honest I am not sure what people believe the effect of this very limited light pollution would have on the bigger picture.
I understand that many in Eastington want to see a “green buffer” maintained between themselves and Stonehouse. What better way to secure this than a 27 acre well maintained recreation ground with just one building, the foot print of which would be a small percentage of the overall site.
Finally can I finish by saying that at a time of increasing obesity in children and the ever present acts of violence, youth culture and vandalism, should we not be encouraging our young people to take up sport both for its physical and team building qualities?
The rugby club has not been motivated by greed in wishing to realise its assets, but rather by a heart felt desire to secure its future and encourage the younger members of our society to take up what we believe is a fantastic sport.
Yours Faithfully
Roger Hughes
Hon. Sec.
Stroud RFC