Town and the QE Stadium

[Steph]

Sorry

 

O208 8441 8272

 

Time for some Trotskyist tactics

[football fanatic]

I must say that article looked GREAT!

I wonder Steph if they would mind about someone trying to join the commitee with maybe not its best interests at heart?

[lovely stuff]

Well they let Jose O'Ware join,didn't they?Anyway who says that all of the other members on the board automatically hold the interests of the playing field, over their own personal agendas?Are the Rugby club represented on the committee for example?

 

Glad you've got The Indpendent on your side.We're quite happy with The gazette and The Advertiser.

 

Ps..Would the council decide to incorporate and accommodate a 1 year old club that has never previously played in Enfield.I wouldn't put it past them.

 

Saying that,i've feeling that both clubs will ultimately be rejected.Towns lease at Brimo will go against them,and EFC being liquidated has probably badly hindered their chances as well.

[football fanatic]

Kinda defeats the point of the commitee altogether, doesen't it?

[Sponsor of Beer]

Not at all. They'll want to be involved in commenting on Fairview's designs!

[lovely stuff]

Lets not forget that there is one other organization that meets the 300+ members criteria.David Lloyds.They have been suspicious by their absence so far.You watch them show interest,if all current applications (cough..cough) fail to be accepted by the council.

 

Ps..One united Enfield football club would have had a much better chance of securing the site.I hope all those who rejected any discussion towards that aim in the past,take a long hard look at themsleves,if the Fairview or Lloyds ultimately demolish the stadium.

 

 

[OldTowner]

Originally Posted By: lovely stuff

Its got stitch-up written all over it.O'ware and her cronies will not rest unless the QE stadium continues as a derelict minor sporting venue Or is sold to big business.

Putting in proposals that included other parties was not mentioned in the criteria the coucnil laid out.None of the other parties had previously wanted to speak or engage with ETFC in the past.So why the fained shock when we didn't include them in our proposals? No surprise that the dramatic and misleading headline came from The Independent.My sources tell me that at least one of the rival bidders has the 'ear' of someone connected to that paper.

ETFC's proposal is the only option put forward so far that will transform the site into a modern sporting facility.The other proposals all include various different rival organisation sharing the already crumbling infrastructure.Not exactly long term regeneration is it?

O'Ware will say nothing if big business take over the site.Did she say anything when fairview bulldozed the lovely cry of sporting voices at Southbury road? Did she say anything about Tesco's and others clogging up the road near her shop with extra traffic lights and side roads.Did she say anything about Lloyds building a massive complex behind her shop.But any chance of a local football club trying to progress anywhere near her,and you can guarantee that her poison pen will be mobilised.

Whilst Fairview, the Enfield based developer can be held responsible for many a poor deal within the Borough and beyond, they were not involved in the Southbury deal with Laz. That was actually Laing Homes.

Whilst anything can happen in planning these days and let's face it Fairview have ( reportedly ) done a few "deals" with the Council, the stadium has an element of Listed Building on it and "should" be protected. It is far more likely that Lloyds would "extend" their Donkey Lane sports facility.

This one has got a long way to "run" ( at least 880m ) !!

[andyetfc]

or even 800 metres!

 

Showing your age with the 880 metres or should that have been 880 yards.

 

 

[OldTowner]

That, young man, is why I am Old Towner !!

 

 

When I ran round there all those years ago, it w a s s.....

 

[Steph]

Football Fanatic

 

What are the interests of the committee. That is the very essence. I have telephoned Alan Mitallas but have not had a reply. It seems that it represents no one but is a self elected, self serving group of people. They should have no credence with the local authority at all!

 

I was a member of a local campaigning group protesting against the development on playing fields in Hemel Hempstead many years ago.

[Steph]

To continue!

 

I do not usually edit my posts but pressed the wrong key just now.

 

When I was a member of a protest group we leafleted and sent out press releases almost on a weekly basis. We welcomed all interested parties. It seems to me that a protest/campaigning group which hides itself is not effective at all except to push its own agenda.

 

On a side issue when Southbury Road was being developed I was in the Market Place and outside Town station leafletting. What did you do?

[townerboy]

Ps..One united Enfield football club would have had a much better chance of securing the site.I hope all those who rejected any discussion towards that aim in the past,take a long hard look at themsleves,if the Fairview or Lloyds ultimately demolish the stadium

 

got to agree with that. if it doesn't become houses, or a new sports gym then I will be amazed. don;t worry though, haven't given up and have written to the council, just hope that it isn't pointless

[SirGarfieldSober]

i didnt think listed building status got in the way of developments in enfield - wasnt the pub in turkey street listed, then miraculously fell down overnight to be replaced by a set of lego flats.

 

and after all, the allotments at ladysmith rd. are much easier to build access roads thru for new homes. and theres n such thing as congestion...........

[Duke of York]

Originally Posted By: enfield_paul

got to agree with that.

Well said

[lovely stuff]

May have to wait a good few years until a certain right-back stops playing football .Can't see daddy being willing to negotiate or compromise until then.I think it may well mirror what has happened at Leyton fc.But that is years in the future and the time will have long passed for them by then.

[Sponsor of Beer]

Originally Posted By: enfield_paul

Ps..One united Enfield football club would have had a much better chance of securing the site.I hope all those who rejected any discussion towards that aim in the past,take a long hard look at themsleves,if the Fairview or Lloyds ultimately demolish the stadium

It's hard to see how there is any common ground between the 1893 & ETFC proposals for the QE Stadium. 1893's is based around building a new bar; there wasn't much clarity of thought about how the stadium would operate other than it would be a joint venture with Town, Ignatians & athletics, save for a rather vague reference to a 'committee'. Personally, I can't see the Council or the Police finding the new bar acceptable, and I guess more competition for the Halfway House will probably draw them into the debate.

I suppose 1893 could approach Town for a ground share agreement at the re-vamped QE, but that wouldn't seem to be consistent with their own business plan. On that basis, it seems a bit rich that they complain elsewhere that Town didn't include them in its proposals!

[Mr Happy]

[quote=Sponsor of Beer

 

there wasn't much clarity of thought about how the stadium would operate other than it would be a joint venture with Town, Ignatians & athletics, save for a rather vague reference to a 'committee'.

 

Would that not go against the Ryman League's rules about only two clubs operating under one groundshare irrespective of the sport?

[theabbeyabbott]

Oh yes........

[Sponsor of Beer]

I believe that point may have been lost on some of the audience... it will be interesting to see how the various parties proposals are adjusted ahead of the public consultation. I assume that 1893 will drop Town from it's proposal at the next stage; I don't believe that there was any consultation prior to the presentations, nor any since.

[andyetfc]

Originally Posted By: Sponsor of Beer

Originally Posted By: enfield_paul

Ps..One united Enfield football club would have had a much better chance of securing the site.I hope all those who rejected any discussion towards that aim in the past,take a long hard look at themsleves,if the Fairview or Lloyds ultimately demolish the stadium

It's hard to see how there is any common ground between the 1893 & ETFC proposals for the QE Stadium. 1893's is based around building a new bar; there wasn't much clarity of thought about how the stadium would operate other than it would be a joint venture with Town, Ignatians & athletics, save for a rather vague reference to a 'committee'. Personally, I can't see the Council or the Police finding the new bar acceptable, and I guess more competition for the Halfway House will probably draw them into the debate.

I suppose 1893 could approach Town for a ground share agreement at the re-vamped QE, but that wouldn't seem to be consistent with their own business plan. On that basis, it seems a bit rich that they complain elsewhere that Town didn't include them in its proposals!

So ETFC wouldn't have a bar then?