Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 8:39:08 GMT
I'm sure the residents are a hurdle that can be overcome.
Boomer - CP was viable (ish) for the million years we were in the Ryman, wasn't it? Or do you think we are getting left behind when everyone else has 3G pitches, function rooms etc?
|
|
|
Post by EFMTFTV on Jun 10, 2014 9:10:18 GMT
I'm not sure it was, going back the past 20/25 years things have changed so much and the money paid for players at this level have shot up like they have in the rest of football, without the money trickling down from the top flight, people need the additional revenue stream more than ever these days:
Our owners in that time Bernard Tomiley - Went skint and we nearly went bust and sold the club for a £1 Lee Harding - put lots of pretty pictures in the programme of the new ground, didn't go that skint as he's still at Braintee but the club did, was 24hr from closure, we were suspended from the league and sold the club for a £1 John Gibson - made no secret that he wanted to build a new ground on Oaklands, his building company got the contract, financal crisis in 2008, William Verry went bust with the football club owing them £500K which was written off by the administrator, sold for £1 again John and Lawrence - TBF seem to making more inroads towards a new ground than anyone else seemed to have, but like the ones before they are speculating to accumulate and could come unstuck as well Incidentally if we had our own ground that wasn't council owned we would have more than likely lost it, our greatest asset, at the end of the reigns of all 3 of our previous chairmen
Pre-20/25 years ago we didn't see the type of money that is paid these days so it probably wasn't a issue and stuff could be done on gate receipts and local players and a few people putting bits and bobs in, lotteries etc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 9:23:13 GMT
Similarities with the guy who owns the Rex I suppose. You people want a cinema in St. Albans? OK, I'll head the thing, be the face etc, but you'll pay for it... The answer's in rotating the CP pitch 90 degrees
|
|
|
Post by EFMTFTV on Jun 10, 2014 11:05:51 GMT
There is so much room behind the main stand, add in the railway embankment which Network Rail would probably be happy to sell because then they don't have to deal with the vegetation, room behind the York Rd Stand as well
I've always thought a walkway / alleyway from the back of the clubhouse using the railway embankment to Hatfield Road would be a good idea, it could be independent from the park, it could eliminate the need for York Road to be used all together out of park hours thus retaining the tranquillity the commuters crave and Clarence Park could be used out of hours. It would be a much better access point for the station for something like a gym
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 11:17:00 GMT
Tree protection orders behind the main stand would be an issue potentially... then again, we haven't had a problem cutting down unwanted trees before!
Remove the path behind the main stand, move changing rooms along and have the clubhouse on ground level, EFMTFTV's new walkway, commuters can use Lemsford Road and perhaps a new crossing beyond the ground towards the station.
So many possibilities!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 11:28:22 GMT
Boardroom suite on top of ground floor changing rooms... need to dust off the old MS Paint!
|
|
|
Post by cheshuntsaint on Jun 10, 2014 12:42:40 GMT
Elecetronic score board please.
Can we not just more to Nene Park? Ready made perfect facility...plus its only 40 minutes away
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Jun 10, 2014 14:27:16 GMT
I'm not sure it was, going back the past 20/25 years things have changed so much and the money paid for players at this level have shot up like they have in the rest of football, without the money trickling down from the top flight, people need the additional revenue stream more than ever these days. It wasn't and hasn't been for many years. I am afraid we are not in the 1960s and 70s anymore, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Jun 10, 2014 14:32:58 GMT
Similarities with the guy who owns the Rex I suppose. You people want a cinema in St. Albans? OK, I'll head the thing, be the face etc, but you'll pay for it... You don't think he has put anything in, then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 14:41:19 GMT
I'm sure he has, but at the same time he's relying an awful lot on donations / loans / shares and the rest, isn't he?
What I'm wondering is whether the Conference year, 98/99 Trophy run, and the years around then were a result of dodgy dealings and silly money thrown about by chairmen, or whatever. Basically we were at a level for quite some time, we went up, we came down and down again, and now to get back to the original we need to do something different - so were our foundations built on sand during those years, as it were?
Bit all over the place this one, apologies!
|
|
|
Post by cheshuntsaint on Jun 11, 2014 11:27:54 GMT
If we can't move to Nene Park - surely we can use some of its equipment:
Seats etc...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2014 11:33:34 GMT
The problem is all the seats and much of the equipment would be red and blue!
|
|
|
Post by cheshuntsaint on Jun 11, 2014 11:39:04 GMT
Current seats in the main stand are Blue!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2014 11:44:15 GMT
Bill Chip haulage went under, didn't it? We could take a couple of lorries up there, grab what we can and get out, Italian Job style.
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jun 11, 2014 11:45:26 GMT
Bill Chip haulage went under, didn't it? We could take a couple of lorries up there, grab what we can and get out, Italian Job style. Yep, quite a while a go now sadly.
|
|
|
Post by cheshuntsaint on Jun 11, 2014 11:48:05 GMT
Wasn't the Italian job set in Italy? and with Mini's not lorries?
|
|
|
Post by Hatboy on Jul 3, 2014 18:13:56 GMT
I wonder if todays meeting will have any impact on the proposal of building a new ground ? St Albans Planning Policy Committee considers potential sites for housing and economic development Printer-friendly page News release: 02 July 2014 housing St Albans Planning Policy Committee considers potential sites for housing and economic development Councillors meet this week to consider endorsement of an ‘options evaluation’1 as a detailed basis on which to move forward with the development of the Strategic Local Plan2. St Albans City and District Council’s Planning Policy Committee (PPC) meets on 3 July. Over the last eighteen months, two independently conducted studies – the first a review of the Green Belt, and the second a housing needs assessment – have been undertaken. These studies were requested by full Council at its meeting in November 2012. Based on the independent studies, the District’s housing need is forecast to be 8,720 new dwellings for the 20 year period to 2031. This would provide an average of 436 dwellings per year. Land is available in existing urban areas and previously developed land in the Green Belt for 5,000 of these dwellings. However further land will be necessary to provide the remaining 3,720 (up to 4,000 to allow for a realistic margin of contingency). District Councillors now need to grapple with the tricky question of where other land for housing development will come from. The ‘options evaluation’ provides a detailed technical evaluation of various Green Belt sites under consideration following the independent appraisals process. To meet the 4,000 dwellings target, four sites are proposed from those identified by the independent consultants as doing the least harm overall to the Green Belt. These are: ◾2,500 dwellings at the westernmost part of the District, next to Hemel Hempstead and to the west of the M1 (two sites, including significant economic development land); ◾1,000 dwellings to the east of St Albans on land at Oaklands College; ◾500 dwellings to the north west of Harpenden. The meeting will consider asking the Council on 16 July to debate whether the housing need, in the context of national policy, the law and the circumstances of the district, represents the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required to alter the Green Belt boundaries. These were last altered in 1994. The PPC has received legal advice on the subject of ‘exceptional circumstances’, which it has chosen to publish in order to facilitate public understanding of the matter. National planning policy requires Councils to make progress with Local Plans, which are examined by a government appointed Inspector. The Plans have to comply with national policy. This includes the requirement set out in the National Planning Policy Framework3: “to boost significantly the supply of housing…to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework”. When adopted, the Local Plan provides a framework for controlled development. A previous draft Plan was put forward but not voted on by full Council in November 2012. The existing 1994 District Local Plan Review is the second oldest Local Plan in England. The timetable4 for the completion of the local plan includes a period of statutory public consultation planned for October/November 2014. Residents and other stakeholders will be invited to comment. Councillor Julian Daly, Leader of St Albans City and District Council and Portfolio Holder for Planning and Conservation said: “None of us want to build in the Green Belt. However, the Council needs to make progress with our Local Plan on the basis of national policy and the law. If we do not do so, we risk having little control of what developers do in our District. We must be objective in our appraisal and choice of sites. If it’s accepted that we must build in the Green Belt decisions will need to be based on solid evidence. Our role is to come to the best balance between economic, environmental and social aims, in order to deliver sustainable development, as defined by the Government. The report asks us to consider taking 1% out of the Green Belt over the 20 year period.” Papers for the Planning Policy Committee Meeting in the Council Chamber on Thursday 3 July at 7pm are available at: stalbans.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=459&MId=7539 The meeting can be viewed by members of the public either in person on the night or via live/recorded webcast. See: www.stalbans.public-i.tv/core/portal/home. More information on the website: www.stalbans.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/press-room/items/2014/july/2014-07-02-st-albans-planning-policy-committee-considers-potential-sites-for-housing-and-economic-development.aspx
|
|
|
Post by westwalessaint on Jul 3, 2014 18:39:07 GMT
Well it would be great if there was some recognition and reference to St Albans City FC getting a new ground on the back of a development. There have been discussions - on and off - since the late '60s do I'm not holding my breath. My experience tells me that they just don't care. What a cynic I am!!
|
|
|
Post by citycentresaint on Jul 7, 2014 5:57:42 GMT
Council are muppets.
They won't do anything to help the club.
|
|
theduke
Saints Youth Team Player
Posts: 113
|
Post by theduke on Jul 7, 2014 14:53:44 GMT
What do you expect the Council to do?
|
|
|
Post by citycentresaint on Jul 7, 2014 17:50:20 GMT
Get behind the club and help with the new stadium.
Look at the support afforded by the Stevenage council.
We just have a bunch of clowns more interested lining their pockets with tax payers money.
|
|
|
Post by bob666 on Jul 7, 2014 22:31:55 GMT
surely local councilors are interested in getting votes?. So the real problem, if you support a new ground, is not the council but general lack of support for the idea among the community (voters). If there was a large enough pressure group behind the idea it would happen due to electoral pressure. If the large majority of residents of St Albans privilege limiting the erosion of greenbelt over to construction of a new ground (and the attendant residential developments to make it profitable for the owners) than the councils position seems perfectly reasonable to me. For general conversations in the Pub, on the train to work in the mornings etc I get the impression that most St Albans residents have some concern with green belt issues, balanced against a recognition of housing needs, and no real interest in (or even awareness of) the club desire to move. The club can only expect council support if they can first win a reasonable degree popular support. To a extent you could argue that government ought to lend rather than passively reflect public opinion but there a limit they also ought to reflect the views of the community .
|
|
yellowalf
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 301
|
Post by yellowalf on Jul 8, 2014 8:06:50 GMT
surely local councilors are interested in getting votes?. So the real problem, if you support a new ground, is not the council but general lack of support for the idea among the community (voters). If there was a large enough pressure group behind the idea it would happen due to electoral pressure. If the large majority of residents of St Albans privilege limiting the erosion of greenbelt over to construction of a new ground (and the attendant residential developments to make it profitable for the owners) than the councils position seems perfectly reasonable to me. What would happen to the old ground at Clarence Park? There are two angles to this - one to persuade the St Albans residents of the overall benefits in taking some green land at Colney Heath for a football ground and other facilities but the other is to persuade the residents that if they allow a new ground on the outskirts of the city then they can get a consequential benefit from freeing up space at Clarence Park for something they would personally find more useful - perhaps a salmon lake for the residents of York Road. So maybe a more effective solution is to persuade the wealthier voters of the Clarence Park environs that they should be voting for sticking the football club out by the poor folk in AL4 - the end justifies the means, surely? Should the Trust be organising marches around the streets of the surrounding area along the lines of "If you want to stop us common oiks bringing the price of your property down then vote Yes for a new ground"? I accept that as a chant it needs some work on scanning, however it would be the sight of a rabble of people like us which would really get up the noses of the locals of Park or Sunderland Avenue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 8:20:32 GMT
Yellowalf - I thought Colney Heath was ruled out due to the ground being contaminated?
Presumably the York Road Brigade don't care about the club moving or not, they just don't want redevelopment (and are therefore are happy with the way things are). The AL4 NIMBYs don't want a new ground next door either, so are happy with the way things are.
I still say expand over the embankment!
|
|
yellowalf
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 301
|
Post by yellowalf on Jul 8, 2014 8:35:20 GMT
Yellowalf - I thought Colney Heath was ruled out due to the ground being contaminated? Presumably the York Road Brigade don't care about the club moving or not, they just don't want redevelopment (and are therefore are happy with the way things are). The AL4 NIMBYs don't want a new ground next door either, so are happy with the way things are. I still say expand over the embankment! Ah, I didn't know that - or simply missed it. Or did I mean Colney Heath Lane, which is still on the Saints website under City of St Albans Stadium link? It's all getting far too confusing for me - a clear, up-to-date proposal with a map would help us all (or maybe its only me that needs some help). I don't think the York Road residents care too much, so we need to change that! I also can't see any reason why a large stand can't be built over the railway line, Chelsea should have done that with their East Stand all those years ago. Stick some plans in to the council - they'll obviously be thrown out but the locals would be scared into action.
|
|
|
Post by davymac55 on Jul 8, 2014 13:01:17 GMT
I am very grateful to the current owners for keeping the club going and bringing us relative success. I am also aware, like many others, that if we owned CP it would have gone long ago-maybe the local inhabitants would have tried to block a re-development. Unsuccessfully I'd have thought. However , the reality is that the club still exists by virtue of the fact,IMO, that we don't own the ground. We have several issues with the current situation re owning of the ground. We cant re-develop and therefore no one will put money into the ground(as it would not be an investment) and locals will NIMBY all the way. This raises another issue, namely, the lack of GENUINE, local interest in the club. For a city with our catchment the general apathy of the population toward the club means that the council will not see us as a priority. Maybe we could get some one to stand at a local election under a 'Support The Saints' manifesto? The council have missed a trick on many occasions re developing sports facilities around St Albans( The Batchwood White Elephant-sorry but it is in need of a Lazarus like turnaround- but that is another story) and would almost seem happy to have the ground turned over to flower beds. The ownership of CP is a real mare So, having wittered enough, how long will the current owners fund the club as a means to an end? They must have a maximum timescale? what is it? We cant have admission prices jumping by 50% every two years. Should all go to plan(whatever that is) and a new ground is part of the development, are there written guarantees regarding steward/ownership of the Football Club and ground as living under a boom/bust economy would always put us under duress at times of downturn, as many other former clubs have found. I don't have answers and maybe a local philanthropist with billions is the real solution. At the moment, even with our relative success, it still feels that the Sword of Damocles hangs over us.
|
|
|
Post by bob666 on Jul 8, 2014 14:01:40 GMT
I think davymac raises a number of good points and I broadly agree but two things. First, we can never own CP but the club really only need a long lease to make investment viable. Surely this is possible? This raises the question of what the owners actually want. Clearly redevelopment of the Park offers no possibility of making a profit simply cutting losses. Second, as you say the lack of assets and the charitably owned ground possibly make St Albans more resilient. If owners pulled out we could probably still survive, just at a very low level. In the long term though might be certain benefits to a change in ownership model. If we were run more along Lewes type model we be better position to negotiate with the trust and friends of CP? At the moment friends of CP strongest argument for me is this: St Albans FC is technically a for profit limited company (I understand we never actually make a profit) why should a firm be allowed to develop extensive commercial activities on a site they pay a nominal rent to a charity for? Now there are counter arguments and I do not agree with the friends of CP but there is a logic to the argument. If the club itself was a charity their argument is undermined.
|
|
|
Post by EFMTFTV on Jul 8, 2014 22:15:22 GMT
Football clubs at this level should be not for profit anyway (lets face it they aren't anyway by default) Any monies generated by anything the club has to offer in outside revenues should be ploughed back into the club
|
|
|
Post by COYS on Jul 14, 2014 15:54:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jul 14, 2014 16:16:31 GMT
Uh-oh
|
|