euclid
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 459
|
Post by euclid on Mar 2, 2015 19:53:29 GMT
Not exactly encouraging remarks from the two councillors.
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 2, 2015 19:59:07 GMT
Those comments were made before last week's Fans Forum. For me, it demonstrates why we need to put in the work to make sure the people of St Albans realise why the football club does - and can continue - to provide value to the wider community.
|
|
|
Post by steve27 on Mar 2, 2015 22:34:21 GMT
Confirmation that artificial 3G (and 4G?) pitches will be allowed at Conference level from next season and Eastbourne intend to install one. From footballconference website dated 28th Feb 2015:- "At its EGM at Telford on 29th January the Football Conference confirmed that all member clubs would be permitted to convert their main playing surfaces to FIFA 2 star 3G pitches from the summer. A handful of clubs are expected to do so and Eastbourne Borough hope to be amongst them. Full article at www.footballconference.co.uk/news/details.php?news_id=14670 and www.ebfc.co.uk/news.php?viewmessage=247From Eastbourne Herald 27th Feb 2005:- "Eastbourne Borough fully intend to play next season’s home fixtures on a new 3G surface at Priory Lane. Three weeks ago the Football Conference confirmed all member clubs can convert their main playing surfaces to FIFA two-star 3G pitches and Borough are determined to be at the forefront. It is expected to cost the club between £350,000-£375,000 to install the surface at Priory Lane but they hope to generate £100,000 per year from renting out the pitch. Borough board chairman Paul Maynard said, “The only question for me and the board is whether the pitch will be constructed in this close season or next. There is a good chance it will be in place for next season. Full article: www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/sport/football/eastbourne-borough/eastbourne-borough-set-for-370-000-3g-pitch-at-priory-lane-1-6603710
|
|
|
Post by bob666 on Mar 3, 2015 1:06:51 GMT
If we stay at CP - and I accept this will always have to be a consideration - we need to understand that the only revenue for the club whilst at CP can be obtained through: 1. Match day tickets/season ticket sales 2. Money from bar sales 3. Concessions (food) 4. Shop sales 5. Sponsorship (but this would diminish the further down we go...) i.e. match day only revenue which does not support a team at anything other than step 3 or step 4 ...unless the council/local residents can be persuaded to allow CP re-development so that revenue outside of match days can be generated to support a forward thinking club. I'd be very keen to understand what other supporters want - are we all keen to see us drop down to step 3 / step 4 and see ever reducing attendances and lack of money to even maintain CP? Obviously, you some very valid points and I do not disagree but I put a slightly different case. In part I playing devil's advocate here - and I lack the legal training to properly assess the rigidity of the covenants. First, on a positive side the club are only charged a nominal rent for CP. This does not eliminate the need for non match day revenue but it does effect the level of revenue we need. People has discussed Hemel bar revenues as being £350K per annum. If the club are running a deficit of about £100K I do see why we need to generate this sort of income, Second, the difficulties of developing CP has to be set against the difficulties of achieving planning permission on green belt land - the council are already in a tricky position balancing local opposition to development on the green belt with national government's demands that they approve new homes, the club proposals just seem to compound the issue. Admittedly the rugby club OA got planning permission but they were not also proposing putting up a load of housing. Maybe a idea would be to frame any proposal for changes in convents/development of the ground differently. So if we plan to develop bar/conferencing facilities make it clear that they will be multi-user, so their would be scope for community groups/charities to use facilities for free on a set number of occasions per year. Involve other user groups at a early stage and that they are not simply being developed for the benefit of the club. Or if we were to install a 4G pitch made it clear that off-peak periods the pitch made available for local schools etc. CP is a prime site and the location means any facilities would command a premium (if Eastbourne can made £100000 a year from a pitch at edge of town than surely a pitch in centre of one most affluent cities in UK has a higher potential value? ) as long as rent remains nominal it still make sense to develop facilities on a multi-user basis (allow both commercial and community group use) - also the council paid for the hockey pitch so surely if we frame it properly they could make a contribution to a 4G pitch given appropriate guarantees regarding access. Make it clear that we only seek to make adequate funds to keep going at a reasonable level not a profit and respect other user groups. As long as St Albans FC lobby for redevelopment of CP or a new ground as simply good for the club/owners they will get nowhere, the club simply do have enough public support . The only way to put pressure on the council and overcome residents objections is to place the club within a wider coalition supporting redevelopment. From the outside the narrative at the moment looks terrible. It looks like club is being used by owners as vehicle to achieve planning permission to develop green belt land - the fact one owners never goes to games and has no obvious non-financial interest in the club does not exactly help the club counter this narrative. Politically the narrative of a club, with greater supporter involvement in decision making , asking for permission to develop the commercial facilities (which will be extended on a concessionary basis to other community groups) it requires to sustain (not make a profit for owners) itself is very difficult from the current narrative. Of course they still be legal problems and opposition but you at least have a fighting chance. Again I think you could make case more strongly with a different ownership structure. A PLC asking for permission to develop a publicly owned piece of land is more problematic than a community organisation doing so. You make the point (in another post) that for a club to function without owners than needs access to greater non-match day revenue. OK but maybe this would be more achievable for a community organisation than a PLC? On final point if we drop down I not sure we will see 'ever reducing attendances' and revenue, there a core support that would go regardless of level and revenue would stabilise at some point. also the council would have preform some basic maintenance (so that still be used as a football ground) as there is not much else they can do with the site and they cannot simply have a unused piece of land in central St Albans. For me personally I love CP and yes I rather we played their at any level than a soulless ground in the middle of nowhere. Also the green belt is already under intense pressure and I cannot support anything that compounds this and the destruction of the distinctive identity of our city. I just don't see the point in the city having football club if it does play in what I define as the City or is not owned by the community. If its owned by two men and it does not even play in St Albans in what meaningful sense is the city's club? So for me it becomes about standard of play. I can watch Watford play a much better standard of football for only slightly more money.
|
|
|
Post by Hatboy on Mar 3, 2015 7:36:36 GMT
As we invite school children and youth football clubs etc along to games free it might be an idea to see if we could ask them if they would pass on the link to the petition to parents to try and really bump up signatures and maybe also other non league clubs especially in our division.
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 3, 2015 8:16:49 GMT
I'm certainly looking to give out flyers at Highfield park - where my son trains - on Saturday mornings.
Re: CP - yes, would be great if we could both hold private parties and lay a 4G pitch to generate income. The problem is the combination of the restrictive covenants and the opposition for the groups with an interest in Clarence park. That combination means that applications to change the covenants would be challenged and provides significant risk that they do not get changed and then all of the costs are passed on to the applicant. Even a previous application to rent out some office space was rejected. The local groups for example do not want football at a level where tannoy announcements, music are required... (check out the PCP! Twitter feed - they don't like the football club but support the cricket club). However, staying at CP and maximising revenue has to remain an option - but we need the council fully on side and committed to support football at CP for the long term. Which is why the petition is important
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 8:58:11 GMT
dont you think there would be opposition from groups with an interest in colney heath lane or the radlett airfield or any green belt land as well ?
i dont hold out much hope for the petition and i definitely dont think we'll be able to get other conference south clubs on board - wealdstone are looking to build a brand new ground outside of town with 3g pitches and conference facilities and a bar and everything, who wants to sign their petition ? not me
by the way great post bob
|
|
|
Post by minty on Mar 3, 2015 9:19:23 GMT
If the covenant states against the commercialisation of Clarence Park, how did Verdi's come about or is it considered to be outside the park's boundaries? I bet a lot of the Nimbys go in there!!
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 3, 2015 9:47:52 GMT
Ah minty - that was because it converted the previous public toilets - that caused public safety concerns to local residents... - to something they valued! (however, the public toilets were also not covered by many of the covenants)
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 3, 2015 18:42:15 GMT
Written 5 years ago but message remains just as valid... One Of The Richest Cities In England And One Of The Poorest Clubs twohundredpercent.net/?p=1423
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 8:10:14 GMT
the message remains valid
'The good news for the club is that is has no significant assets'
etc etc
good old Kingy
|
|
|
Post by ad43footsoldier on Mar 4, 2015 12:46:04 GMT
no im saying we've been at clarence park for decades and have got along just fine ( ! ) at the level we are currently at. non league chairmen have to put money in to non league football clubs, ask any of them. we need a sustainable club for the future, but we can have the makings of one at clarence park. one of the current owners has chucked his toys out of the pram because the council arent playing ball and the threat of walking away has sent everyone crazy. no one has answered what they think will happen if he does walk away, or how it will work ie will he just padlock the gates and leave ? i dont think so budgeting on attendances of 1000 at home games, or on cup runs, isnt sustainable either 1908 and still going strong before the owners and after them too. It's the not the same now. There's so much more money at the level compared to 15-20 years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 14:06:01 GMT
there is more money at our level - would love to find out how much the chairmen of each club in the conference south put in a year though not gonna mention ticket prices again
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 4, 2015 15:30:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hatboy on Mar 7, 2015 12:31:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Canary Saint on Mar 7, 2015 16:03:54 GMT
"The football club is more than just 90 minutes on a Saturday, he stressed. That was the message he wanted to portray and all the 60 or so fans at the forum left supporting his vision" Slight exaggeration by HA? Can well believe a large majority of the fans may have been swayed by the owners' (some would say rather biased) view of the situation. I do however feel that just maybe not all 100% of fans were in total agreement.
|
|
|
Post by EFMTFTV on Mar 11, 2015 7:01:44 GMT
What's the PCP twitter address? I can't find it via a simple search
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 11, 2015 7:30:18 GMT
@pclarencepark and with the profile description: "Love the park? Don't let it be commercialised to fund St Albans Football Club's ambitions". It also provides a link to their Facebook group.
|
|
kroofs
Saints Trialist
Posts: 74
|
Post by kroofs on Mar 11, 2015 9:11:30 GMT
This seems to be de ja vous. Enfield FC chairman sold Southbury Road ground in the 90's to Lang homes and the rest is now history. Enfield FC now play in the Ryman and their home games are at Harlow (not as bad as Shaktar Donetsk's situation for home games but nonetheless) ! On another note - EFC went 2 seasons without a home defeat way back when. Any chance that I could see 2 home wins in a row at Clarence park anytime soon ?
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 11, 2015 9:38:58 GMT
Two clubs came out of Enfield's demise - Enfield Town FC and Enfield 1893 FC. Enfield Town FC plays in the Ryman Premier League and is a supporter owned club that benefited from the council having kept hold of £100K of the money made from the sale of Southbury Road to be used to assist a new club being formed. Additionally, the council effectively gave Enfield Town FC the QEII, Donkey Lane stadium - which can generate a decent amount of revenue... I wouldn't be surprised to seem them make it into the Conference South at some point in the near future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2015 10:40:09 GMT
enfield town fc were formed by their supporters trust because the other new club didnt play close enough to enfield or their old ground or something also the council kept hold of 750000 but had to give 650000 to the former chairman. the money came from the sale of their ground to housing !
currently 12th in the ryman prem surrounded by a lot of old friends of ours having been at their new ground for 3.5 years
we don't have a ground to sell, the council dont have a stadium to give to us complete with running track, also i thought the feeling is the council dont like to help !
|
|
|
Post by bob666 on Mar 12, 2015 0:32:52 GMT
I had a look at PCP website they are very uncompromising, I was surprised by how openly anti-football they appear, this also appear to downplay that the park was established for sport- lots of pictures of general greenery etc. The civic society also completely fails to take into account of how a football team can enhance the city. Also by taking such a militant position regarding the regeneration of sites within the city they risk further undermining the green belt. But from their number of twitter followers the PCP group seem very small (I imagine their quite wealthy and have disproportionate social power relative to their numbers but still) and their position seems to be so radical as potentially alienate the average resident of the city- maybe this is overoptimistic but I think most residents like the idea of the city having a football club even if they no interest in ever watching them. Surely it not impossible to build a coalition of support behind a intelligent sensitive modernisation plan that enhances the overall aesthetic appeal of the park to overcome oppoistion of what seems to be a very small group. Because the owners preference is to move there seems a tendency to construct PCP as a immovable leviathan
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 12, 2015 7:26:22 GMT
You are spot on with your comments. PCP! do have a larger Facebook group of more than 900 members and are supported by Cllr Chris White. Their opposition causes real problems with removing any restrictive covenants as it guarantees that it would be a very lengthy process and secondly increases the risk that the decision would be to not remove the covenants - and then all the costs would need to be paid by the applicant...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2015 8:57:29 GMT
it will be a lengthy process anyway surely - there will be opposition anywhere. the football club was playing off york road long before anyone in that facebook group moved there, so i dont think we should give in to the so quickly
trying to remove any restrictive covenants increases the risk that the decision would be to not remove the covenants ? ? ?
artificial pitch, extend and remove main stand, lower ticket prices, premiership in seven years, cpos on york road houses, urban regeneration
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 12, 2015 11:19:18 GMT
trying to remove any restrictive covenants increases the risk that the decision would be to not remove the covenants ? ? ? Yes, you have to make an application to the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal and you have to prove that the covenant has become obsolete or will impede reasonable use or development of the relevant land. The applicant will also usually have to pay compensation to get the covenant discharged or modified as well as having to pay their own costs even if the application is successful. Having been involved in the process in a past career, there is no guarantee of success when there is local opposition - no matter how big or small that opposition is. In addition, I am aware the council/trustees would not want to remain owners of CP and so the lease would need to be transferred - which then involves the Charity Commission who are required to give their consent. I am not saying this all impossible but it does need to be considered in terms of balancing the available options. If, for example, the club was handed over to be owned by supporters - it would be extremely difficult to fund the above activities as well as then investing in the maintenance of CP let alone any development work (and then the finances that go along with actually running a club). Bath City will likely be transferred to supporter ownership - however, they have the assets to generate sufficient income stream to make that a viable proposition. However, they have had to raise the funds to buy a controling stake in the club from the current owners (who wanted to move to a new site) - which has come from supporters buying £500 community shares. www.southwestbusiness.co.uk/news/12032015072433-new-business-model-of-ownership-on-cards-at-bath-city-football-club/
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 12, 2015 23:10:43 GMT
There is now both a Save Our Saints Twitter account and website: @saveoursaints www.saveoursaints.comWe will be using both #saveoursaints and the more positive #ProudOfOurClub when tweeting. Both Kerry Pollard and Jacob Quagliozzi (London Colney cllr) have committed to support the campaign and both attended a fans committee this evening (as did Malcolm Mcmillan who is also of course very much behind the campaign).
|
|
|
Post by EFMTFTV on Mar 14, 2015 13:28:05 GMT
I was actually shocked at the tactics of the York Road mob and the coming together of so many legal brains to prevent the club from moving forward when I attended that meeting on Thursday
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Mar 14, 2015 14:02:39 GMT
Please enlighten us with some detail EFMTFTV, because, frankly, nothing they get up to surprises me.
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 15, 2015 20:55:44 GMT
Having also been at the meeting, I'd summarise as follows: - they look down upon the game of football (we come bottom of their heap - tennis being their preferred sport, football being the sport of the oi polloi...) - they have no understanding of the importance of active sports to local young people - they include land and property lawyers who have sufficient resources and capability to fight attempts to remove the restrictive covenants - they do not invite the club to meetings but the club tries to attend - but then they are simply criticised - they do not want any further commercialisation of the football club (and would rather it was not there) as it already spoils the tranquil nature of Clarence Park... - they did not want the council to spend money on changing the deeds /licence (changes that were required for acceptance by the Conference South ie we would be thrown out of the league) as there are greater priorities (ramp etc) - they do not want the club to do anything extra to generate revenue
There are other things that might be best left off this site (given they are lawyers!) but I'm happy to share in a conversation at any time!
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Mar 16, 2015 8:30:33 GMT
Interesting to see the local politics crank into gear.
I am sure the residents around the ground are keen to protect their environment and the value of their properties but on the other hand, the football club has been there for 100 years.
I find it sad that over the past 20 years or so, our towns and cities have ceded almost everything to housing and retail. A football club may not be to everyone's taste but it could be a source of great pride to the city. Personally, I believe the best way to be a truly integrated part of the city's community is to be in the city. In an ideal world, the club would be able to develop/expand facilities appropriately for the level of football it hopes to compete at and in keeping with its surroundings.
I've said it before, but I don't share the vision of a new ground made out of Lego and Meccano somewhere out of town, inaccessible to pedestrians and public transport and propped up by some ghastly gym or retail units. I've travelled to plenty of grounds like that, both in the league and non-league, and they are all awful. Scunthorpe United moved to Glandford Park 20-odd years ago, a huge retail park with restaurants, including a drive-thru Costa Coffee (!) and shops grew up around it, creating terrible traffic congestion on matchdays and now Scunthorpe are moving again!
To pick up on what Canary Saint said about the Herts Ad. I completely agree. I find the Herts Ad's coverage to be far too cosy. By all means support the club and campaign for its future but credit us with some intelligence and don't do their PR for them. To say: "all the 60 or so fans at the forum left supporting his vision" is stepping over the line of objective journalism and into the realms of the PR stooge. Firstly, if the audience was 60 or so, do us a favour and actually count them and give us an accurate figure. Secondly, how can Michael Edwards possible know whether everyone supported the vision unless he spoke to them. People may well have been broadly supportive but it's not for a newspaper journalist to guess how a group of approximately 60 people feel without asking them.
|
|