Town and the QE Stadium

[lovely stuff]

Having the function rooms already at Brimsdown means we would only need a small matchday bar at the stadium (if that).Unlike new clubs who would need a large function room/Bar in order to generate revenue.

[andyetfc]

Well I have never heard them called function rooms! Having a 'small matchday bar' would reduce the income stream our club desperately needs.

[andyetfc]

Just read an interesting letter in the Gazette today.

[lovely stuff]

Why would it reduce income? As long as we can accommadate matchday drinkers,we would double our profits for matchdays as we would take 100% of the profits rather than 50% as we do at the moment.Plus we would continue with moneymaking events at Brimsdown (with maybe updating facilities so that they DO become genuine function rooms.

 

Yes,just like 1893 we would like to build a purpose built Bar/Function rooms at the QE (if we are successful in our application) but we could still generate revenue without it.

[Sponsor of Beer]

Originally Posted By: 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?

I think he's just making mischief. Andy was at the presentations and heard what was said about reusing the existing buildings, including the listed element. 1893's business plan is about having its own bar to generate income to support a football team, Town's doesn't go down that route.

[OldTowner]

Originally Posted By: andyetfc

Just read an interesting letter in the Gazette today.

And ?..................it said.......what, about what exactly ?

[andyetfc]

No idea where the link to a newspaper letter would be but it certainly wasn't one from our admirers.

[andyetfc]

Originally Posted By: Sponsor of Beer

Originally Posted By: 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?

I think he's just making mischief. Andy was at the presentations and heard what was said about reusing the existing buildings, including the listed element. 1893's business plan is about having its own bar to generate income to support a football team, Town's doesn't go down that route.

And I was very aware, as were you, of the negative reception 'our' club's proposal got from the majority of those at the meeting.

As I've said before, it will all come down to what the current administration wants from the site and how best the future landlords can assist with the Council meeting its objectives.

[Sponsor of Beer]

I agree entirely, but I think the Council needs to consider it's handling strategy very carefully too.

 

If, for example, the running track fails it's safety certificate (as the LBE reprepresentatives thought was likely) than I guess it would have to be torn up to ensure that there aren't a load of claims arising once somebody injures themselves running on it. The Council clearly see no future for the track and isn't minded to replace it at taxpayers' expense. I assume all of that was considered publicly as part of the process that delivered the Pickett's Lock development.

 

It seems to me that the current situation would be helped if that was out in the open, if only to allow the athletics people to make their own arrangements and the Friends of the Playing Fields not to have to bark up the wrong tree. If the people who have taken to writing slightly misleading commentary to the local media find themselves backing a horse with a less than full compliment of legs then their reactions may become more extreme and unpredictable.

 

The Council would help everybody if its objectives could be more explicitly stated. That includes local residents, if those objectives genuinely include access improvements.

[Steph]

Just had a telephone call from Alan Mitellas. Apparently the next meeting of the "Friends" is on 19th May at 7:00 pm. He is sending me details.

 

 

[Steph]

It is at Ignatians RFC, Donkey Lane.

 

All should do their best to go.

[Sponsor of Beer]

It's in my diary!

[lovely stuff]

Again i say.Is it ethical or proper practice to have every meeting involving the future of the stadium and the future of the playing fields,at the headquaters of a club directly seeking to compete with other parties in gaining use of any future re development???

[Steph]

The meeting has to be somewhere. Igntians is handy for the development. If others attend what is the problem?

 

I have asked some town board members about the rugby club and they believe their requirements can be met in the town's proposals. I do remember that when Saracens played at the Stadium I was pleasantly surprised in that it did not seem to do as much damage to the pitch as I expected.

 

Rugger B****rs play and wear the wings whereas football wear is concentrated around the centre circle to more or less the goal areas in a diamond shape.

[The Invisible Man]

I don't agree Steph. I thought Saracens ruined the pitch at Southbury Road (and consequently the football payed on it). I was at The Shay last night, which is shared with Halifax RL team, and the pitch was pretty dreadful. The pitch at Huddersfield also suffers badly from the rugby - strangely Hudders and Halifax look fine from a distance though.

 

The thing about the QE as an athletics venue, as I understand it it has not complied with athletics governing body standards for some time, and thus cannot and has not been used for competitive events. This is why it is just used for school events etc. and I beleive why Enfield Harriers moved out and amalgamated. It is just not viable as an athletics stadium.

[Sponsor of Beer]

And the athletics people recognise that I think, and brought forward nothing of substance about how they would address the stadium's shortcomings. Their focus is solely on keeping the training facilities.

 

As far as Ignatians are concerned, it's focus appeared to be on:

i) getting access to a fourth pitch on the playing fields

ii) extending their changing rooms, to cope with the increased demand created as a result

iii) being able to continue to use the grassed area inside the running track for floodlit training, although the real ambition is for access to an all weather surface to train on

 

Again there was little said about the stadium, which Ignatians don't actually want or need. There were fleeting references to perhaps playing the odd 'big' game there, and maybe needing an enclosed stadium in the future (some years away and maybe never, by the presenter's own admission).

 

I'm sure Town can work with Ignatians, and that 1893 will say the same. Ignatians probably don't need to pursue an interest in the stadium if they can reach agreement with other parties. It would be helpful if the Council made its position clearer on the athletics (ie will it pay for a new track?).

 

 

 

 

[lovely stuff]

Could either football club realistically incorporate the rugby club that easily?... OK,they want changing room facilities.That can probably be done.(as long as they don't play at 3pm on a saturday).They want floodlit training facilities as well? They currently use the council floodlights and pitch inside the stadium.IF a football club got the site,would the Rugby club want to use the MATCH PITCH to train on every week? How often would they want to play 'Big matches' in the stadium? Which club would have priority and who would make the ultimate decision in a dispute?

 

I also presume the rugby club currently pay the council to use the floodlights in the stadium and for the changing rooms.Would they still be required to pay that rent to a football club for those same facilities? Don't forget it would be the football club who would be paying for the upkeep and maintenance of those facilities.Or will the rugby club be willing to pay halves for the upkeep of the changing rooms and for the maintenance of the pitch and floodlights..etc?

 

Also why is it taken as a 'given' that the rugby club will get what they want in any deal.Why does anyone seeking to acquire the site feel the need to accommodate and pander to their needs,more than the other parties also bidding?

 

BECAUSE they are seemily very matey with both the Council and The friends of the playing fields????Who knows?

 

Interesting to know if the rugby club are charging the going rate for these meetings to be held in their clubhouse,or are they waving the fee and regarding it as a 'favour' to those parties doing the bookings.

 

Sorry to labour the point ,but i'm sure many of us are well aware how beneficial it can be to grease the wheels,both in business and with regard to local councils.

 

 

[BrimsdownRover]

Very Interesting pieces in the local papers over the past couple of weeks how even more interesting that you lot are now changing tact. From the offset it looked a fair proposal from St Ig's and 1893 and why shouldn't the athletics track stay put for the use of schools which it has been doing so for many years . Your proposal looks very much like Me Myself and I to everyone else . The residents that have dwellings around that place seem to like the other three parties proposals but yours just stinks . Make yourselves comfortable at Brimmo as it could be your staying for the long haul .

 

Back to the papers , You claim you were "Forced" to groundshare at Brimmo ,What a load of old cobblers . It was you lot who came here with your smarmy smiles and handshakes as I recollect !

 

When we members held a meeting as reguards the Town being given a shared 30 year lease Not one member voted in favour of it . Not a single one ZILCH ! In fact most members didnt have a good word to say about you lot at all. But as we expected the powers that be leant on us to go along with it . You claimed when you was trying to get the joint lease that there would be bigger bar takings ? With your massive crowds ? In fact you promised us the world ? And Now the plan is to move to the QE stadium ? And take the massive crowds that have become moderate ? with you . Looks to me that people are realising what you are all about , Stuck up each others Ar$es.

[OldTowner]

Originally Posted By: BrimsdownRover

Very Interesting pieces in the local papers over the past couple of weeks how even more interesting that you lot are now changing tact. From the offset it looked a fair proposal from St Ig's and 1893 and why shouldn't the athletics track stay put for the use of schools which it has been doing so for many years . Your proposal looks very much like Me Myself and I to everyone else . The residents that have dwellings around that place seem to like the other three parties proposals but yours just stinks . Make yourselves comfortable at Brimmo as it could be your staying for the long haul .

Back to the papers , You claim you were "Forced" to groundshare at Brimmo ,What a load of old cobblers . It was you lot who came here with your smarmy smiles and handshakes as I recollect !

When we members held a meeting as reguards the Town being given a shared 30 year lease Not one member voted in favour of it . Not a single one ZILCH ! In fact most members didnt have a good word to say about you lot at all. But as we expected the powers that be leant on us to go along with it . You claimed when you was trying to get the joint lease that there would be bigger bar takings ? With your massive crowds ? In fact you promised us the world ? And Now the plan is to move to the QE stadium ? And take the massive crowds that have become moderate ? with you . Looks to me that people are realising what you are all about , Stuck up each others Ar$es.

What an unpleasant person you are BR.

Reading between the lines it looks like you would prefer Town to stay at Brimmo as it is the only way you will ever have a decent pitch to play on and half reasonable suroundings.
The "shared" situation has only just begun in real terms.
Shame that not many people from Brimmo want to contribute anything to it.
Town "do" just about everything around the place.
Are you worried it could become ETFC with Brimmo sharing ?

[theabbeyabbott]

Originally Posted By: BrimsdownRover

Very Interesting pieces in the local papers over the past couple of weeks how even more interesting that you lot are now changing tact. From the offset it looked a fair proposal from St Ig's and 1893 and why shouldn't the athletics track stay put for the use of schools which it has been doing so for many years . Your proposal looks very much like Me Myself and I to everyone else . The residents that have dwellings around that place seem to like the other three parties proposals but yours just stinks . Make yourselves comfortable at Brimmo as it could be your staying for the long haul .

Back to the papers , You claim you were "Forced" to groundshare at Brimmo ,What a load of old cobblers . It was you lot who came here with your smarmy smiles and handshakes as I recollect !

When we members held a meeting as reguards the Town being given a shared 30 year lease Not one member voted in favour of it . Not a single one ZILCH ! In fact most members didnt have a good word to say about you lot at all. But as we expected the powers that be leant on us to go along with it . You claimed when you was trying to get the joint lease that there would be bigger bar takings ? With your massive crowds ? In fact you promised us the world ? And Now the plan is to move to the QE stadium ? And take the massive crowds that have become moderate ? with you . Looks to me that people are realising what you are all about , Stuck up each others Ar$es.