Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political football'

Anything and everything related to Barnet FC

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby ninestein » 12 Feb 2018, 18:59

I wonder how many people actually showed up to their meeting on Saturday?

I look at this in two ways. On the one hand, these people can say what they want and so can the club. At the end of the day it should be judged on planning issues, also taking into account the impact on employment opportunities, enhancement to education through the academy, and the cultural impact on the area.

On the other hand, and this is with a totally 'worst case' thinking head on, if this does get refused, TK could probably scale it back slightly and try again, but if none of these extra bits get built, at least it doesn't jeopardise our immediate future like it did in 2000.

Right now i think we'd all trade a new stand and sports hall in favour of a winning side and league survival. The infrastructure doesn't have to happen right now. Don't get me wrong, i hope he does get permission to develop the complex further, but i think unlike before, our fans won't feel as deflated if it goes against us.
Barnet showing all the flair of Rupert-the-Bears trousers, but lots more style!
User avatar
ninestein
 
Posts: 4592
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 20:00

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby beew » 12 Feb 2018, 19:16

ninestein wrote:I wonder how many people actually showed up to their meeting on Saturday?

I look at this in two ways. On the one hand, these people can say what they want and so can the club. At the end of the day it should be judged on planning issues, also taking into account the impact on employment opportunities, enhancement to education through the academy, and the cultural impact on the area.

On the other hand, and this is with a totally 'worst case' thinking head on, if this does get refused, TK could probably scale it back slightly and try again, but if none of these extra bits get built, at least it doesn't jeopardise our immediate future like it did in 2000.

Right now i think we'd all trade a new stand and sports hall in favour of a winning side and league survival. The infrastructure doesn't have to happen right now. Don't get me wrong, i hope he does get permission to develop the complex further, but i think unlike before, our fans won't feel as deflated if it goes against us.


It's more of a matter that he has to spend the money now to gain the maximum tax breaks. We will develop as they can't stop us but we should be spinning the electorate in our favour. Yes they could object if we just carried on regardless but would they really go down that road when the council has already cost the residents significant sums in the recent past and at a time when the areas just outside our grounds are currently being built upon at a furious rate.
beew
 
Posts: 3116
Joined: 29 Jan 2012, 17:46

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby BeesKnees » 12 Feb 2018, 20:22

The argument that the proposed new development is detrimental to residents is clearly nonsense. The buildings around the stadium are going to enclose the ground, preventing noise and light from escaping and so reducing the impact of a game. The new car park increases the number of spaces and the replacing of an outdoor 3G pitch that is near to neighbours rear gardens with an indoor facility is obviously going to reduce the light and noise on non matchdays.

The problem is the council are already fighting the development of the north stand at the planning inspectorate and if the club lose then they will need to start again on geting that stand approved. At the moment the extentions to it for the badminton and basketball courts seem a very long way off.

It's really disappointing that the local councillors have chosen to stir up local residents rather than explain how it will be better for them than what they currently have to deal with.
User avatar
BeesKnees
 
Posts: 6522
Joined: 17 Apr 2012, 16:49

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby shankbee01 » 12 Feb 2018, 21:09

If I lived in the area I’d be far more concerned with who allowed the UFO to built the other side of the tube tracks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
shankbee01
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 19 Apr 2015, 12:31

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby Hiveoccupier » 12 Feb 2018, 22:53

b4life wrote:It's funny how it's LABOUR opposing the club in Harrow and CONSERVATIVES opposing the club in Barnet. Where are all those people who vilified the Conservatives and eulogised the Labour party In Barnet? Embarrassed to have the 'boot on the other foot'? Where is equivalent 'Labour can support Barnet FC in Harrow' thread?


The KBA opposed candidates who didn’t support the club in Barnet. We campaigned for Lib Dem’s and Labour. It wasn’t about eulogising a party it was about supporting the club.

Harrow Labour have smoothed they path for TKs expansion of the Hive and regular flouting of the planning process. They also agreed to let BFC play League football at the Hive when they could have blocked things and caused the Club significant problems. The political reality is that Queensbury council candidates need to respond to their local electorate in order to win seats needed to hold the council.

How do you think TK would get on with the Tories in control of Harrow Council ?
Hiveoccupier
 
Posts: 2737
Joined: 02 Feb 2011, 16:59

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby let_it_bee » 13 Feb 2018, 13:01

b4life wrote:It's funny how it's LABOUR opposing the club in Harrow and CONSERVATIVES opposing the club in Barnet. Where are all those people who vilified the Conservatives and eulogised the Labour party In Barnet? Embarrassed to have the 'boot on the other foot'? Where is equivalent 'Labour can support Barnet FC in Harrow' thread?


Not condoning the councillors' behaviour in any way, but there is a difference in the sense that we'd been at Underhill for over 100 years (longer than any resident!) and were the local club carrying the borough's name. Therefore the moral case for getting support from local politicians was a lot stronger, though ultimately not strong enough as things turned out.
let_it_bee
 
Posts: 764
Joined: 29 Jan 2011, 20:59

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby hendon4bee » 13 Feb 2018, 13:07

Shah appears to be as odious and snide as Coleman.
hendon4bee
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 13:27

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby Bee52 » 13 Feb 2018, 13:31

hendon4bee wrote:Shah appears to be as odious and snide as Coleman.


Truth and fairness hold little value to these type of people. Worms with teeth!
Bee52
 
Posts: 637
Joined: 09 May 2015, 10:59

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby NorthFinchleyBee » 13 Feb 2018, 13:55

Agree with this Ninestein. It would be nice to develop the ground a little but it's a secondary concern for me. The other point for me is whether it could be broken down so we develop some of the commercial elements, but do we need a nearly 9000 seater stadium? Could we rein in that element of the equation? Exciting as it sounds (Championship here we come!) stability comes first and even if things improve, 2500-3000 is what we are looking at realistically. That in a nearly 9000 capacity stadium does not sound great. I do wonder whether bringing other sports in (London Irish?) or someone else is part of the long term goal, to make it a multi sports area. but who knows.

I'm also a bit disappointed with Labour colleagues in Harrow (I'm quite involved in Labour in Barnet, declaring my allegiance). As other posters have said, I know it's local election time, but I'd welcome a slightly longer term strategy that sees the football club and the Hive complex per se as a strategic asset for the local community and a possible growth pole for mixed employment in a range of occupations. I'm conscious that councillors have to respond to 'perceived' (rather than real) issues sometimes, but it looks strange when full council run by Labour supports the club (effectively by selling the ground to the club) but then opposes it as well and local councillors do some election time posturing, but que sera, they have individual majorities to defend.

As others have mentioned I'm struggling with parking as a bona fide issue. I go to probably 10-15 homes games a season. I've never, and I mean never, had a problem finding a parking space, so i'd really contest claims to there being a match day problem. Attendances have ranged from 1500 to 3500 or so over that time, and it's been fine.
NorthFinchleyBee
 
Posts: 231
Joined: 17 Jan 2017, 13:53

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby jerroll » 13 Feb 2018, 14:59

NorthFinchleyBee wrote:Agree with this Ninestein. It would be nice to develop the ground a little but it's a secondary concern for me. The other point for me is whether it could be broken down so we develop some of the commercial elements, but do we need a nearly 9000 seater stadium? Could we rein in that element of the equation? Exciting as it sounds (Championship here we come!) stability comes first and even if things improve, 2500-3000 is what we are looking at realistically. That in a nearly 9000 capacity stadium does not sound great. I do wonder whether bringing other sports in (London Irish?) or someone else is part of the long term goal, to make it a multi sports area. but who knows.

I'm also a bit disappointed with Labour colleagues in Harrow (I'm quite involved in Labour in Barnet, declaring my allegiance). As other posters have said, I know it's local election time, but I'd welcome a slightly longer term strategy that sees the football club and the Hive complex per se as a strategic asset for the local community and a possible growth pole for mixed employment in a range of occupations. I'm conscious that councillors have to respond to 'perceived' (rather than real) issues sometimes, but it looks strange when full council run by Labour supports the club (effectively by selling the ground to the club) but then opposes it as well and local councillors do some election time posturing, but que sera, they have individual majorities to defend.


As others have mentioned I'm struggling with parking as a bona fide issue. I go to probably 10-15 homes games a season. I've never, and I mean never, had a problem finding a parking space, so i'd really contest claims to there being a match day problem. Attendances have ranged from 1500 to 3500 or so over that time, and it's been fine.

Unless there is an event at Wembley or Lincoln/lutonesque away support parking isn't an issue.
jerroll
 
Posts: 8377
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 17:25

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby Norfolkbee » 13 Feb 2018, 15:11

This is an observation NOT a conspiracy theory. Ealing Trailfinders are a very ambitious rugby union club who are currently second in the RFU Championship. Their current ground holds a little over 3,000. What would happen if they hit the real big time and needed increased ground capacity. I wonder........
Norfolkbee
 
Posts: 2735
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 09:43

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby jerroll » 13 Feb 2018, 15:18

Norfolkbee wrote:This is an observation NOT a conspiracy theory. Ealing Trailfinders are a very ambitious rugby union club who are currently second in the RFU Championship. Their current ground holds a little over 3,000. What would happen if they hit the real big time and needed increased ground capacity. I wonder........

or if their RL tenants return to SuperLeague.
jerroll
 
Posts: 8377
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 17:25

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby Tuesds » 13 Feb 2018, 16:40

Norfolkbee wrote:This is an observation NOT a conspiracy theory. Ealing Trailfinders are a very ambitious rugby union club who are currently second in the RFU Championship. Their current ground holds a little over 3,000. What would happen if they hit the real big time and needed increased ground capacity. I wonder........


They wouldn’t come to the Hive any time soon. 10,000 covered seats is a minimum requirement for Premiership rugby. Even under our ambitious plans, we’d be a long way short of that.
Tuesds
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: 27 Jan 2011, 12:26

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby STAVROS » 13 Feb 2018, 18:46

Rugby Clubs tend to have very good relationships with local authorities and always respect planning procedures.
Who knows Ealing Trailfinders may find they can work well with Harrow.
Mr K, if he wishes, does not need to complete any Planning applications and build anything. Ealing Trailfinders, I suspect
are more than capable of carrying out English Premiership requirements, if given the opportunity.
Please Note Saracens were once the equivalent of a non-league club, look at them now.
Their Copthall planning application was well thought out and designed to have minimum impact on the existing
facilities, why would locals object to them. In essence nothing has really changed at Copthall.
So if the Bees continue to bomb down through the levels "any time soon" may be very soon.
I have supported Barnet since 1966, still go occasionally, however I now watch Saracens probably the best club in Europe.
Why, because the club puts their supporters and sport right at the top of their priorities. Also they are relatively near to
High Barnet and straight forward to get to.
Its not all about expanding portfolio's of wealth and selling bits of chicken.
Sorry to give you this news, I am a totally disillusioned Barnet FC fan quite shocked to see the meltdown in the last 16months.
I think its makes our last meltdown after beating Blackpool 7 nil, seem quite minor.
STAVROS
 

Re: Queensbury Labour - Epitomising BFC as 'political footba

Postby shankbee01 » 14 Feb 2018, 11:29

STAVROS wrote:Rugby Clubs tend to have very good relationships with local authorities and always respect planning procedures.
Who knows Ealing Trailfinders may find they can work well with Harrow.
Mr K, if he wishes, does not need to complete any Planning applications and build anything. Ealing Trailfinders, I suspect
are more than capable of carrying out English Premiership requirements, if given the opportunity.
Please Note Saracens were once the equivalent of a non-league club, look at them now.
Their Copthall planning application was well thought out and designed to have minimum impact on the existing
facilities, why would locals object to them. In essence nothing has really changed at Copthall.
So if the Bees continue to bomb down through the levels "any time soon" may be very soon.
I have supported Barnet since 1966, still go occasionally, however I now watch Saracens probably the best club in Europe.
Why, because the club puts their supporters and sport right at the top of their priorities. Also they are relatively near to
High Barnet and straight forward to get to.
Its not all about expanding portfolio's of wealth and selling bits of chicken.
Sorry to give you this news, I am a totally disillusioned Barnet FC fan quite shocked to see the meltdown in the last 16months.
I think its makes our last meltdown after beating Blackpool 7 nil, seem quite minor.


Not entirely true. Saracens constantly break the terms of the Copthall agreement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
shankbee01
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 19 Apr 2015, 12:31

PreviousNext

Return to General Barnet Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 19 guests