Town and the QE Stadium

[Albury_Walker]

You people just see things from your own biased point of view and not others that are more accomondating . Dont forget the stunt that Lazarou tried to pull at cheshunt a few years ago .

I seem to recall he paraded many people around cheshunt stadium back then on two occasions . I'm gonna do this I'm gonna do that were his words but people power(RESIDENTS) stopped that little shenanighan . Strange that probably most of the same people that were paraded around back then now end up with Etfc at brimsdown like a swarm of locusts and now you want to take away an athletics track that schools and various clubs people have been using for years elsewhere . PRICELESS !

[andyetfc]

Originally Posted By: Mr Happy

If you look at all proposals, the only one that really speaks about regenrating a site that has fallen into disrepair if ETFc's. All the other proposals are just bit part ideas. Igantains can be accomodated by ETFC. For athletics to contiue the track needs ripping up. Who will pay for that?? 1893 are not part of the Borough of Enfield and NEVER have be so why should they be given the opportunity to muscle in. What do they give back to Enfield. Jack s4it. Etfc offer people of all ages and sex the opportunity to take part in the biggest sport in the UK.

Mr H. Just what did you mean by this?

[OldTowner]

Originally Posted By: Albury_Walker

..... and now you want to take away an athletics track that schools and various clubs people have been using for years elsewhere . PRICELESS !

Perhaps you can do us all a little schedule of :-

1. the schools which use the track.
2. the last time it was used for more then an afternoon.
3. the cost to re-lay it.
4. confirm who will pay for it.
5. the number of times the new track will be used and by whom.
and finally,
6. confirm the other uses during the months when athletics will not be taking place.

[Part Time Par]

Originally Posted By: OldTowner

..... and now you want to take away an athletics track that schools and various clubs people have been using for years elsewhere . PRICELESS !

Perhaps you can do us all a little schedule of :-

1. the schools which use the track.
None at the moment, as I believe the education dept has deemed it too risky
2. the last time it was used for more then an afternoon.
see above, schools haven't been able to use it since last year
3. the cost to re-lay it.
4. confirm who will pay for it.
there are ways and means that are being discussed
5. the number of times the new track will be used and by whom.
and finally,
probably every day with secondary schools and primary schools
6. confirm the other uses during the months when athletics will not be taking place.
there's nothing stopping a rugby or football club using the middle of the pitch. It seems to work ok for Chelmsford City and Hornchurch

[lovely stuff]

Can you confirm who will pay for the decontamination of the site to meet long jump pit requirement.It would cost the athletics club 1/2 million quid to all fund that.Or do they expect the other multi-sharers to chip in with half of the costs?

[Part Time Par]

Sandpits do not HAVE to be outside the track. It just means that throwing events on the centre cannot be held at the same time.

 

Modern stadia are therefore built with the sandpits on the outside so all events can take place at the same time.

 

Lets be honest it is highly unlike that QE would ever hold big events again. It would be used as part of a community stadium, and those minor events that would be held there would be aware that throwing events (when the cages are upgraded) would not be able to take place at the same time as the jumping events. The same as has happened for the previous 5 years that those regulations have been in force

[Stone Cold]

so what is stopping these schools and 'other' clubs from using the new river athletics facilities for sports days etc?

 

then the run down QE stadium can be used for something more worthwhile with greater use to be gained out of it

[Part Time Par]

1) Don't you think Haringey Schools and clubs use their track

 

2) Travel time to/from Haringey would be impossible in an hour and a half lesson for a school.

 

3) Costs would increase, Clubs/Schools would need to hire coaches to get there. Only so many companies available, so even higher costs. Tax payers money!!

 

4) Sounds like New River might be going the same way as QE.

[lovely stuff]

If the council wanted to finance a running track in the borough.It would be more sensible and cheaper for them to lay a new track at somewhere like Picketts Lock.

 

The fact that the council have offered the site out to bidders,suggests that they want privately funded local community regeneration of the site.Rather than to keep part-funding and part-managing the site.

[Mr Happy]

Most (not all) schools in the west and north of the Borough have their own playing fields and those that do not do have playing field for their use nearby. The east of the Borough and th Edmonton area is more built up so it would make sense for any facility that is intended for schools' use to be in that area, namely Pickets Lock.

[Man From Mars]

Blimey O'Riley . Iv'e only got to be away for a couple of weeks and world war 3 breaks out . Great performance from you as ever Mr Trappy . Youre arogance is as superb as ever .

 

Oh by the by ,there could be some green issues at stake here . 70 trees being lopped down is Not exactly being enviromentally friendly is it . I might have to have a word with some mates of mine just in case .

[BladeRunner]

I could kiss you sometimes kev.

[Man From Mars]

I know what you can kiss mate

[BladeRunner]

[Mr Happy]

If you look at a letter from our Chair in this week's Gazette he has stated that no trees will be taken down.

[Gazza]

Originally Posted By: Mr Happy

If you look at a letter from our Chair in this week's Gazette he has stated that no trees will be taken down.

Shame!

[Sponsor of Beer]

Originally Posted By: Gazza

Originally Posted By: Mr Happy

If you look at a letter from our Chair in this week's Gazette he has stated that no trees will be taken down.

Shame!

Indeed. I bet we could raise a few quid from the people that would be queueing up to chop down the tree that MfM was chained to!

On a more serious note, I see that the chap who made the trees, and other false allegations in the Gazette has toned down a letter to the Advertiser. Still full if inaccuracies, though!

[Albury_Walker]

Interesting how you claim your venture would be viable when cheshunt are planning a similar venture ? How can that be then ? The two stadiums would only be a couple of miles apart competing for the same punters and we'd probably just undercut you for those punters anyway . Unlike your flawed plan ours doesn't irritate and push away other people or annoy neighbors either . Infact we may have to put up rocket type conifers to protect peoples privacy at the northeast / Albury Ride side .

 

your now saying you wont be chopping down trees , Thats a hell of a change of heart isn't it . Or maybee just a ploy to get in there .

[lovely stuff]

What ARE you talking about,Audrey???

 

As Cheshunts plan doesn't push people away.I presume you be willing to build a running track to house local schools sports days then? How about inviting the nearest Rugby club to use your facilities as well for good measure?

 

Also, apparently you chopped down half a forest when you first built Ceshunts ground all those years a ago.The only tress we intend touch are the ones artifically planted over the last few decades, that circle part of the stadium wall.And probably more like 20 or so threadbear fur trees.Not the 70 number that other poeple have grabbed out of thin air.

 

Grow up son.Like so many others that are bitter towards our club,your thinking is far from joined up,and contradicts itself at every turn.

 

 

[Sponsor of Beer]

Originally Posted By: Albury_Walker

your now saying you wont be chopping down trees , Thats a hell of a change of heart isn't it . Or maybee just a ploy to get in there .

Or maybe there never been an intention to cut down any trees, and the scaremongering in the Gazette was just that. The writer certainly toned it down in his subsequent letter.