ETFC League Home Attendances

[missunderstood]

From a total outsiders perspective the situation in Enfield is absolutely ridiculous, and in part the solution is obvious. IMO both Enfield clubs could enter into meaningful negotiations with regards to merging. If this could be done with genuine goodwill on both sides then you would probably add an extra 50% to your gate with no effort whatsoever.

 

- we should be in the Conference by now which would be the end of the other lot.

 

I also think we need to get the running track ripped up as soon as possible. It was a good decision made at the time but we all know it wont work so let get our legal team on it (taking advice from West Ham if necessary as they will need to do the same thing).

 

 

 

Clubs either reach the dizzy heights of the conference if they are not good enough for league two or too good for conference north/south. No club has a divine right to that status based on their glorious past.

 

With regards to ripping up the running track, I'm almost certain that much of the grant money secured from various funding bodies would have been conditional on the QE2 stadium remaining multi sport, and any attempt to overrule those conditions would not bode well with those bodies in the event of future funding bids.

 

Us old boys that have supported Romford for more years than we care to remember would be in seventh heaven if we had such a generous council and was only a few weeks from moving into our own home in our own borough.

[Enfield United]

Agree totally, but oh boy your going over old ground here, unfortunately the Town guy's have tried with this option however the 1893 guy's are on a different wavelength, barmy and very undermining in bringing quality football to our borough in a shorter space of time.

 

Nonetheless I'm fortunate enough to see and hear the ongoings within our club (ETFC) to know the only way is up with the Town.

If thats the case then the next obvious solution would be to enter into a ground-share agreement with the other Enfield, as the extra revenue received from 1893 would have the same effect financially as more bums on seats at your matches.

 

 

We don't need a ground share either, we have enough of our teams playing on the pitch at weekends, this includes both adult, U18's and Ladies teams. The ESL club have as many clubs as possible using their pitch including private hire, it just creates a horrid pitch unfit for park football let alone semi-pro football.

 

Papa Lazarou-Your in dream land. Can you please explain why a club our size and strength and before QE occupation we should be a conference side?? I'll give you a foundation for your reply our only income is gate receipts and whatever sponsorship we can muster up. Additionally, we need to raise a fortune to develope the ground. We have not had any bar takings or had any facilities to hire out. There you go what budget would you deem neccessary for 2/3 promotions then??

[Enfield United]

From a total outsiders perspective the situation in Enfield is absolutely ridiculous, and in part the solution is obvious. IMO both Enfield clubs could enter into meaningful negotiations with regards to merging. If this could be done with genuine goodwill on both sides then you would probably add an extra 50% to your gate with no effort whatsoever.

 

- we should be in the Conference by now which would be the end of the other lot.

 

I also think we need to get the running track ripped up as soon as possible. It was a good decision made at the time but we all know it wont work so let get our legal team on it (taking advice from West Ham if necessary as they will need to do the same thing).

 

 

 

Clubs either reach the dizzy heights of the conference if they are not good enough for league two or too good for conference north/south. No club has a divine right to that status based on their glorious past.

 

With regards to ripping up the running track, I'm almost certain that much of the grant money secured from various funding bodies would have been conditional on the QE2 stadium remaining multi sport, and any attempt to overrule those conditions would not bode well with those bodies in the event of future funding bids.

 

Us old boys that have supported Romford for more years than we care to remember would be in seventh heaven if we had such a generous council and was only a few weeks from moving into our own home in our own borough.

 

 

Don't forget it was the council which forced the exile of Semi-Pro football in our borough for many years and played it's part in killing off EFC.

 

Saying that the new ground is very picteresque and yes every ETFC fan can't wait the first match on the pitch at what ever level it maybe.

 

But please do not deem our council as generous, they caused the problems and damage in the first place, they are only partly repairing the damage which only the future will show whether it will be fully repaired.

[andyetfc]

Sorry to say EU, but this current labour administration did not cause the problems in the first place and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since a previous labour administration didn't help the cause of non league football in the borough.

 

I would have thought that if you asked lots of people whether the current council has helped ETFC, then the answer would be yes.

 

I have a feeling PL was attempting to wind people up. Ripping up the track after we start using the facilities? Does anyone really see that happening? I think not.

[Steph]

Misunderstood

 

There was a ground share with 1893 last year and in the period leading up to it. We were expelled from the director's room. 1893 flashed their signs over the turnstiles. They complained when we took back our stands, though we had told them in good time this would happen. Now would you ground share with a nest of vipers?

[Steph]

Another thing to be borne in mind is that ETFC are 50% interest in Goldsdown holdings which owns the lease on the ground. Since 1893 do not have a registered interest in the land they have to pay rent to Goldsdown holdings, half the profits from the bar are also ETFC therefore we are unlikely to make or save any money with a ground share arrangement unless another club were to move into Goldsdown.

[OldTowner]

Sorry to say EU, but this current labour administration did not cause the problems in the first place and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since a previous labour administration didn't help the cause of non league football in the borough.

 

I would have thought that if you asked lots of people whether the current council has helped ETFC, then the answer would be yes.

 

I have a feeling PL was attempting to wind people up. Ripping up the track after we start using the facilities? Does anyone really see that happening? I think not.

 

Once again Andy 100% correct.

I was closely involved with the old Club and the sad closure of the ground.

I attended more meetings about the proposals and new oportunities that I care to remember.

The Council personnel then were completely different and were extremely unhelpfull - not something which can be said today.

As for a new ground share and amalgamation of the two newClubs - I cannot see it happening for many a year.

Edited October 8, 2011 by OldTowner

[Duke of York]

I have a feeling PL was attempting to wind people up. Ripping up the track after we start using the facilities? Does anyone really see that happening? I think not.

Of course Papa Lazarou was stating this as a wind-up as per his usual postings. Over the course of a full year you'll probably find that more athletes use the QE Stadium than there will be football fans watching the games!

[Steph]

DoY

 

I dont think you are right. I asked a member of the board how much are the athletics club going to pay for their share of the stadium and was told that they are not going to. They do not have a lease on the track. In these circumstances the athletes, who will only have a track, will have to pay each time they use it. They have to pay so that somebody opens up the stadium, maintains the track and changing rooms, provides hot water and electricity and ensure that somebody takes responsibility for the stadium whilst they are present. It seems to me that for that to be economic the athlete will have to pay a substantial fee just to run around the track when there are other tracks in the area which are owned by athletic clubs and have more facilities.

 

Compare that to the number of matches that will be played at the club 21 games for the senior team at least, another 15-20 for the ladies and then we have reserve fixtures, training nights. Even if we only average 200 for a senior game that is over 4000 fans.

 

Unless you are counting the fans as individuals then you may be right but I doubt it.

[MbrunoB]

If only the Ladies played up to 20 home games a season as it really only 11 league games plus cup which for once this season will be one Middlesex cup quarter final and a semi final against Barnet plus any FA cup which even during the long run last season only included 3 home games. By the end of October we would have already played 8 of the 11 home league games.

[Duke of York]

They have to pay so that somebody opens up the stadium, maintains the track and changing rooms, provides hot water and electricity and ensure that somebody takes responsibility for the stadium whilst they are present...

 

Compare that to the number of matches that will be played at the club 21 games for the senior team at least, another 15-20 for the ladies and then we have reserve fixtures, training nights. Even if we only average 200 for a senior game that is over 4000 fans.

 

The running club generally have 50 - 75 runners training on the track on Tuesday nights plus around 40 junior runners. Base this at an average of 100 per week for 50 weeks of the year that’s 5,000. In addition; over the spring/summer months schools are also likely to use the facilities.

 

With regard to access to the track, Trent Park Running Club already open-up and lock-up before and after our training sessions so I don’t see why they would need an ETFC representative to be there to open up. As for the use of the shower facilities this is unlikely to be a major issue as Trent Park Running Club have been using the stadium for many months now without these facilities being available.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Duke of York

[scoopydoo]

The council have spent a lot of money investing in the athletics facilities at the stadium including the running track. The football club have also spent a lot of money and invested a lot of time and ingenuity to provide a workable solution for the club to play football in the stadium in as best an environment as possible. We are confident the supporters will benefit from a fantastic facility and a home ground they will take to their hearts.

 

We also recognise the needs of other users in a multi sport facility and are working with the council to make the stadium work for all. We have already had constructive meetings with Trent Park Running Club, as well as Enfield Ignatian’s rugby club and want to have an amenable working relationship which we can develop further over time. It is the clubs intention to maximise use of the site and provide improved facilities for all so although runners may not currently be able to make use of facilities at the ground apart from the track, once things are fully up and running (no pun intended), it is hoped there will be facilities available to all, from toilets/ showers etc to bar/cafeteria facilities. This includes all users of the playing fields including those who use the outside pitches. Everyone involved realises we have specific needs to be able to play Ryman League football (and hopefully above), and this will be taken into account in the day to day running of the site.

[Eastside Urchin]

I hope your athletics club are easier to get on with than ours.You can have meetings with them and everything goes well,but some old biddy gets involved with ours and everything changes,they are usually way over the top with health & safety and child protection when it suits them.

We have an annual clear up day once a year on a Sunday and although Sunday's are their day or at least till noon they begrudge us going down there to tidy the stadium even though the majority of the mess are their empty water bottles.

Also don't bother putting keep off the pitch signs should it ever be treated as they will totally ignore it

[thecoldend]

Talking of crowds.... did anyone see the official attendance of the Haringey and Waltham Development v Enfield 1893 ESL League Cup Round One Leg Two match played on Wednesday 28th September at Coles Park??? 12!!

[townerboy]

the who vs club 18-30???

[thecoldend]

Haringey and Waltham Development FC - They were called Mauritius Sports Association but changed their name in the summer.

[Steph]

I dont think we should gloat over their attendance figures until the Waltham Forest LC game is out of the way.

[townerboy]

thank you cold end.

[Arkwright]

I dont think we should gloat over their attendance figures until the Waltham Forest LC game is out of the way.

 

Not expecting the attendance record to go then Steph?

[Enfield United]

Why's that? Are the Waltham Forest fans boycotting the fixture?