Save the QE Stadium?

[Enfield United]

Theres a short letter in the Enf Independent from a Mrs Keaogh, begging the council to save the QE Stadium for sporting events.

 

Sounds a bit fishy to me. Why is she so keen to save the QE Stadium as a sporting event now? Was she also as distraught when they rid of the Barrass Stadium as a decent venue for the community, Broomfield Park running track, EFC Stadium, Saracens, Old Stationers fields (now a Sainsbury) amongst many other venues. Unless shes suggesting it should be the home of ETFC and a Stadia for the community, but she has'nt.

[lovely stuff]

She should have said: 'save the stadium in its decrepidated, rundown, vandalised state'..because thats what the future holds for the QE without proper outside regeneration.The council,for many decades,have proved inadequete (and financially unable)to maintain and unkeep the site.

[Sponsor of Beer]

Not sure that the writer view is inconsistent with the ETFC proposition, just that the sporting events won't be athletics.

 

I think the Council has to get off the fence about its position. At the presentation evening, the Council was very clear that it had 7 criteria by which expressions of interest would be judged. But has anybody seen or heard of them since?

 

LBE and other parties went through a very clear option and investment appraisal process before deciding to spend money on the Centre of Excellence at Picketts Lock. Unless there has been a significant change of circumstances that decision not to invest local taxpayers money in the QE for athletics doesn't change. Indeed if it did, it would probably be at the expense of funds needed to maintain the Picketts Lock set-up.

 

The 1893 proposal doesn't deal very clearly with how the stadium would be maintained (if indeed that's possible- the Council would not appear to think so as there's very little survey information seemingly available). It cites an example of one secondary school, that happens to be close by QE, having to pay to get puplils to the facilities at Lea Valley. As Lea Valley is a PFI funded operation, I imagine that it's has either got schools/the Council tied into long term usage deals to generate third party revenue, or the unitary payment for the serviced site includes availability of athletics [and other sports facilities] whether it's taken up or not. It's extremely unlikely that the PFI contractor would have accepted demand risk, and could not have reasonably envisaged either public or private sector competition from a revamped QE.

 

The same logic applies to the other sports facilities that the 1893 propositon seeks to include within its sports hall. Facilities for a wider range of sports are surely, in the main, being provided [or are capable of being provided] elsewhere. Where that's currently in the public sector, it makes little sense to put those much needed revenues at risk of going to a privately run facility.

 

As an aside, the 1893 question about whether a new road access is needed {and whether the demand could be met by making the improvements needed to buy the 'Friends' support) doesn't suggest a very ambitious football aspect to all of this.

 

It must be questionable whether that all suggests adequacy of investment in the QE that can satisfy the Council's 7 point test

[andyetfc]

Surely LV got the centre of excellence because this government couldn't get their act together in preparation for the 2005 World Athletics Championships.