Not sure what's happened here. I know he was having various disputes with the council but don't know what his resignation means

Sure I read something around Christmas that he said he would be stepping down at the end of the season.

Had that big fallout with the council etc or something wasn’t it.

Accrington council are screwing over Accy Stanley. Stanley have a great bar/function room. But the council revoked their licence to sell alcohol, except on match days. So they can’t hire the room out. Also I believe it was their ladies POTY this week. They had to hire a function room elsewhere to hold it due to this.

Burnley Veterans v Stanley Veterans being played Sunday 4th May at Stanley's ground.

First game I went on as a youngster was 1962 Accrington Stanley v Burnley at Peel Park. A "save our club" fund raiser for Stanley (it didn't work out). Anyone got details of teams in 1962?

UTC

RammyClaret61 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 30, 2025 2:31 am

Accrington council are screwing over Accy Stanley. Stanley have a great bar/function room. But the council revoked their licence to sell alcohol, except on match days. So they can’t hire the room out. Also I believe it was their ladies POTY this week. They had to hire a function room elsewhere to hold it due to this.

Should have complied with Planning Permission.

If I was Andy Holt I would sell the club to a Rangers or Celtic.
Only 3 promotions away for them, from the Premier league millions.

Football would move out of Accy and probably a few business go bump that rely on Football trade.

But it would certainly stick two fingers up to the council and the only way he will get any money back from Stanley.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:03 am

Burnley Veterans v Stanley Veterans being played Sunday 4th May at Stanley's ground.

First game I went on as a youngster was 1962 Accrington Stanley v Burnley at Peel Park. A "save our club" fund raiser for Stanley (it didn't work out). Anyone got details of teams in 1962?

UTC

I'd imagine this was the game between ex Stanley & ex Clarets players at Peel Park a few months after Stanley had resigned from the league in March 1962. We were due to play them in the Lancashire Senior Cup on 7 March but by then they had already sent a letter of resignation which the Football League refused to rescind. The cup game was cancelled & we were given a bye. There is no record of us playing them at any other time during that season.

My dad took me to a game at Peel Park not long before they withdrew from the league. I've no idea who they were playing to be honest, the only thing I can remember is that Arthur Ellis was the referee.

He tried pulling a fast one with the planning permission and didn't get away with it. He then confected a fake council v club scenario even though the blame lies entirely at his door.
He needs some help with his decision making, because if that club go under, it will be directly linked to his sacking of Coleman and his non-compliance with the planning permissions granted.

Whoever is the blame - Hyndburn Borough Council have done nothing at all to help and the demise of Accrington as a town in general is sad to see ....

Accy Stanley should be the life blood of their town as Burnley is ours and it seems at least our council understand that

So Coley's Bar is in the same building but 50 yards further up. How much of the refusal of planning permission is because those 50 yards make all the difference, and how much is because the council are in a huff about not being asked first?

The Shire Claret wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 30, 2025 10:28 am

Whoever is the blame - Hyndburn Borough Council have done nothing at all to help and the demise of Accrington as a town in general is sad to see ....

Accy Stanley should be the life blood of their town as Burnley is ours and it seems at least our council understand that

But can they ever thrive if half the town supports Rovers & the other half support us?

The Shire Claret wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 30, 2025 10:28 am

Whoever is the blame - Hyndburn Borough Council have done nothing at all to help and the demise of Accrington as a town in general is sad to see ....

Accy Stanley should be the life blood of their town as Burnley is ours and it seems at least our council understand that

Thankfully we haven't got an owner who picks fights with his council and subsequently and quite rightly loses.

Hyndburn council gave Stanley the lease of the Highams pitches so they could develop the Hub, and charge only £1k a year rent for it (and that's after a five year period where no rent was due).

They've supported the club with every venture, and Holt has taken the p*ss out of them every time he could

Whilst there is little doubt that both parties have made mistakes the way Holt has conducted himself across a number of online platforms has done himself or Accrington Stanley no favours whatsoever.
It’s good news that Stanley have managed to stay up this season with all this turmoil happening in the background as relegation would be a disaster for them.

The club as we know are in a really difficult position geographically to attract supporters, investment etc. The whole situation with Holt and the council has gone beyond repair or reconciliation. He’s threatened to do a lot of things with the club, his businesses, taking people to court etc. For the sake of his own mental well-being and also the good of the club the sooner he leaves and either gets on with whatever he is threatening to do or just leaves it all behind him the better it will be for everyone involved.

It’s hard to see anything but more difficult times ahead for the football club though.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 30, 2025 10:37 am

But can they ever thrive if half the town supports Rovers & the other half support us?

I think it's entirely possible ... not to the levels of us and them down the other side of Accy but of course

Walton wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 30, 2025 10:41 am

Thankfully we haven't got an owner who picks fights with his council and subsequently and quite rightly loses.

Hyndburn council gave Stanley the lease of the Highams pitches so they could develop the Hub, and charge only £1k a year rent for it (and that's after a five year period where no rent was due).

They've supported the club with every venture, and Holt has taken the p*ss out of them every time he could

I can't say I agree they have supported them with every venture but my point is the council as a whole for the shell of a town Accrington used to be and can be

After last week Holt offering to put 250k a year in to cover any losses up to that amount.

The club have last night still made the decision to close their academy. Leaving hundreds of kids and parents devastated.

I can't see the club lasting the season myself.

Regardless of how and what Hyndburn Borough Council may or may not have done, the football club playing this charade out all over social media reeks of unprofessionalism.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 30, 2025 10:37 am

But can they ever thrive if half the town supports Rovers & the other half support us?

Nowhere near 50/50. More Clarets than anyone else in Accy now.

Walton wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 30, 2025 10:41 am

Thankfully we haven't got an owner who picks fights with his council and subsequently and quite rightly loses.

Hyndburn council gave Stanley the lease of the Highams pitches so they could develop the Hub, and charge only £1k a year rent for it (and that's after a five year period where no rent was due).

They've supported the club with every venture, and Holt has taken the p*ss out of them every time he could

The Hub is nothing to do with Accrington Stanley Football Club in terms of ownership and running.

Their ground would be a good facility for our youth and women's team....

Feels inevitable that Stanley are heading back to where they came from, bit sad really but amazing they ever got to League One.

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Wed May 07, 2025 3:55 pm

Feels inevitable that Stanley are heading back to where they came from, bit sad really but amazing they ever got to League One.

If they went down I don’t think they would ever come back up, it’s a notoriously hard league to get out of with lots of upwardly mobile clubs. Wouldn’t imagine their budget would be up with the biggest either.

Is the sports hub and community trust closing?

Hopfully they will get someone to come in and invest - Having been to a good few Stanley games when Burnley aren’t playing it’s a great club and so important to the town

Nobody is gonna invest in accy unless there's another rich local businessman

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Wed May 07, 2025 8:20 pm

Nobody is gonna invest in accy unless there's another rich local businessman

You never know - they don’t carry a lot of debt and they won’t be making massive losses like some clubs

Be a great project for someone with a lot of money and spare time

fanzone wrote: ↑

Wed May 07, 2025 8:02 pm

Is the sports hub and community trust closing?

No, The hub is Stanley trust meaning as a charity they raise their own funds.

I still don’t think we utilise Accy as well as we could/should. We could easily send 3 or 4 loan players their way each year; we certainly have some that can cope at the level. Cost effective/free for them helping with budget, and close geographically for us so they can come back and train at points and easily have their development scouted, playing at a full professional level. We’re doing similar with Dundee, but they are further away.

Other than league 2 football, accy have nothing to offer us or our players. The fact that their chairman has left might help things

burnleytom wrote: ↑

Wed May 07, 2025 10:38 pm

I still don’t think we utilise Accy as well as we could/should. We could easily send 3 or 4 loan players their way each year; we certainly have some that can cope at the level. Cost effective/free for them helping with budget, and close geographically for us so they can come back and train at points and easily have their development scouted, playing at a full professional level. We’re doing similar with Dundee, but they are further away.

Agree. Plus their ground would be much better for our youth team and women’s games than Leyland, although I’d like to sort out our own solution long term.

Feel the same about other local clubs like Padiham. Could be utilised much better.

Walton wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 30, 2025 10:04 am

He tried pulling a fast one with the planning permission and didn't get away with it. He then confected a fake council v club scenario even though the blame lies entirely at his door.

Screenshot_20250429-193403.png

He needs some help with his decision making, because if that club go under, it will be directly linked to his sacking of Coleman and his non-compliance with the planning permissions granted.

Planning is a legal issue, not a whom of the council.
You talk to the council and they describe what would be acceptable. You put in an application, detailing what you would like, taking into account the Pre-App advice.

If during the build, you have a change of mind, you approach the council. If minor, they can accept as such. If major they would require a new application abd consultation.

If you just carry on, then you have broken the planni g agreement - your approval.

All is not lost, the council Enfircement would require you to meet the original approval or put in a retrospective application. You carry on, in between times, unless a breach of something else - like licensing.

Sounds like a total disregard and affecting others.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 9:30 am

Planning is a legal issue, not a whom of the council.
You talk to the council and they describe what would be acceptable. You put in an application, detailing what you would like, taking into account the Pre-App advice.

If during the build, you have a change of mind, you approach the council. If minor, they can accept as such. If major they would require a new application abd consultation.

If you just carry on, then you have broken the planni g agreement - your approval.

All is not lost, the council Enfircement would require you to meet the original approval or put in a retrospective application. You carry on, in between times, unless a breach of something else - like licensing.

Sounds like a total disregard and affecting others.

Planning is in disarray across the country.
You might see it from your council role point of view but if you are on the other end of it like I am all the time it’s unbelievably inconsistent. I’m dealing across 4 different planning departments at the moment and I am seeing things I have never ever seen in the last 10 years of doing this. There is a complete lack of resource and experience and they are making a lot of basic mistakes - the power they wield is completely disproportionate to their knowledge and experience.

Andy Holt may have done some things wrong here I don’t disagree - especially with the way he has dealt with it and spoken out but from what I have read there is no way the council are blameless here.

RammyClaret61 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 30, 2025 2:31 am

Accrington council are screwing over Accy Stanley. Stanley have a great bar/function room. But the council revoked their licence to sell alcohol, except on match days. So they can’t hire the room out. Also I believe it was their ladies POTY this week. They had to hire a function room elsewhere to hold it due to this.

If noise wasn't a issue to local residents they wouldn't have experienced that problem. You can't just throw parties wherever without being respectful to the people that live nearby. They would have been warned about it prior & the noise must have continued on non match day events for them to revoke the licence.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 11:52 am

If noise wasn't a issue to local residents they wouldn't have experienced that problem. You can't just throw parties wherever without being respectful to the people that live nearby. They would have been warned about it prior & the noise must have continued on non match day events for them to revoke the licence.

They have revoked the licence because they built the bar at the wrong end of the stand. The council were happy for them to have a licence with the bar at the Clayton End side of the stand, but not at the open terrace end. Why it makes such a difference, I don't know.

dsr wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 12:11 pm

They have revoked the licence because they built the bar at the wrong end of the stand. The council were happy for them to have a licence with the bar at the Clayton End side of the stand, but not at the open terrace end. Why it makes such a difference, I don't know.

I'm going off this article which stated the reasoning for the decision to revoke.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/arti ... 919mnm54do

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 10:23 am

Planning is in disarray across the country.
You might see it from your council role point of view but if you are on the other end of it like I am all the time it’s unbelievably inconsistent. I’m dealing across 4 different planning departments at the moment and I am seeing things I have never ever seen in the last 10 years of doing this. There is a complete lack of resource and experience and they are making a lot of basic mistakes - the power they wield is completely disproportionate to their knowledge and experience.

Andy Holt may have done some things wrong here I don’t disagree - especially with the way he has dealt with it and spoken out but from what I have read there is no way the council are blameless here.

The council will be underfunded, for sure. however, the law is the law. He broke it.

BBC News - Accrington Stanley academy: Council offers grant to avoid closure - BBC Sport

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... 54lg2pl6vo

Poulton-le-Claret wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 6:56 pm

BBC News - Accrington Stanley academy: Council offers grant to avoid closure - BBC Sport

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... 54lg2pl6vo

Whilst it's a nice offer, probably not much point if they couldn't afford to run it next year.
It needs long term planning and funding.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Sat May 10, 2025 1:57 pm

The council will be underfunded, for sure. however, the law is the law. He broke it.

You are saying this like it’s a black and white scenario.

Building and property development is not as simple or linear as what you are suggesting and thinking that it’s just a case of following the law is cloud cuckoo stuff.

The planning people make half of this stuff as they go along and not only is there a complete lack of consistency between different developments they cannot even be consistent with their own decisions on the same developmemt.

What Andy Holt is saying and this is something that I have seen many times and I’m seeing right now on multiple projects I am involved in is that the planners will give you agreement to proceed in one area and the developers will proceed along those lines. When it then comes to further planning submissions down the line which for example relate to the detailed specification or design of something like the drainage, access, materials or lots of other areas the planners will often make ridiculous decisions which are inconsistent with the previous discussions you have had with them and which make the project often unviable despite the fact that you could have already pumped in a lot of money.

And if this was the black and white “law” you are referring to then there would not be big variations in decisions not only from council to council but also from development to development in the same council. Do you seriously believe that for example a certain sponsor of our training ground has the same planning “laws” applied to their planning submissions to a one man property developer who has just set up and looking to build his first house ?

planning law is planning law. Policies are policies.
Interpretation is anothercthing. However, a planning permission comes with conditions and this person appears to have ignored his own permission in order to pursue an alternative, for which he would not have received permission.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 10:29 pm

planning law is planning law. Policies are policies.
Interpretation is anothercthing. However, a planning permission comes with conditions and this person appears to have ignored his own permission in order to pursue an alternative, for which he would not have received permission.

You have no idea whether this was the case or not.
He is saying that planning people lied about the planning decision and conditions and that he is prepared to take them to court and has a number of witnesses as to this.

I have no idea which of the parties is in the right or wrong here but it would seem to me a very strange allegation to fabricate. It would also seem a very strange thing to do for a person with his extensive property development experience to proceed as he did without being led to believe that this was ok to do so.

Why do you think someone with his property development experience would as you say “ignore” the conditions of planning and waste so much money on a project which was so evidently in the public domain ? It’s not like he was using the wrong colour window frames on a one story extension on his semi detached house is it

Maybe because he didn't think the council would bother to enforce. You will know that lots of developers do things they should not. Next will be an application for retrospective permission. Delay having to make the change. If that is turned down owing to public outcry about the noise, then he would be given more time to rectify. All buys time.

He’ll be back, the guy loves the limelight

FeedTheArf wrote: ↑

Wed May 14, 2025 8:02 am

He’ll be back, the guy loves the limelight

I hope your right - Loving the Limelight weather seen positive or negative is irrelevant when he's single handedly funding his town club.

TBH if the bar location was how it has ended up, but the roof was properly sound proofed to mitigate noise, i doubt there would have been an issue.....

The Shire Claret wrote: ↑

Wed May 14, 2025 11:46 am

I hope your right - Loving the Limelight weather seen positive or negative is irrelevant when he's single handedly funding his town club.

You only have to look at how many times he flounced off twitter and then came back a few months later.

I don’t doubt he’s been good for the club, but seems to have a sizeable ego on him.

FeedTheArf wrote: ↑

Wed May 14, 2025 1:39 pm

You only have to look at how many times he flounced off twitter and then came back a few months later.

I don’t doubt he’s been good for the club, but seems to have a sizeable ego on him.

I agree !

I think in life the chances are if you have a fat bank account you have an ego to go with it

FeedTheArf wrote: ↑

Wed May 14, 2025 1:39 pm

You only have to look at how many times he flounced off twitter and then came back a few months later.

I don’t doubt he’s been good for the club, but seems to have a sizeable ego on him.

I don't know him personally but he goes to local cricket games a lot. He was at Read CC on Saturday and sat with locals, saying alright to everyone as he walked around the boundary.
He doesn't dress to stand out which you think he would if he had an ego.

He probably believes he is always right, which any successful business owner would have to.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Wed May 14, 2025 1:52 pm

I don't know him personally but he goes to local cricket games a lot. He was at Read CC on Saturday and sat with locals, saying alright to everyone as he walked around the boundary.
He doesn't dress to stand out which you think he would if he had an ego.

He probably believes he is always right, which any successful business owner would have to.

That’s your observation at the cricket. But others will see a man strutting around the boundary, surveying the minions amongst him. Acknowledging them with a “alright” whilst internally reminding himself how much better her is than them. Wearing working man’s clothes to appear like the working man. A wolf in sheep’s clothing