Underhill

Anything and everything related to Barnet FC

Re: Underhill

Postby jerroll » 05 Jan 2018, 12:09

MCB wrote:As you say, without knowing the terms it's impossible to say. We obviously had an agreement to take the Colin Montgomery, or any other removable stands / items as part of the deal.

Am suprised by the South not going anywhere as relatively new and would improve many a ground.

Cost to dismantle, transport & rebuild probably counts against it. You can't get grants for 2nd hand stands either.
jerroll
 
Posts: 8637
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 17:25

Re: Underhill

Postby MCB » 05 Jan 2018, 12:32

jerroll wrote:
MCB wrote:As you say, without knowing the terms it's impossible to say. We obviously had an agreement to take the Colin Montgomery, or any other removable stands / items as part of the deal.

Am suprised by the South not going anywhere as relatively new and would improve many a ground.

Cost to dismantle, transport & rebuild probably counts against it. You can't get grants for 2nd hand stands either.


But you reckon the Colin Montgomerie was worth it vs the South?
User avatar
MCB
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: 11 May 2016, 17:41

Re: Underhill

Postby pgbee » 05 Jan 2018, 12:35

MCB wrote:
jerroll wrote:
MCB wrote:As you say, without knowing the terms it's impossible to say. We obviously had an agreement to take the Colin Montgomery, or any other removable stands / items as part of the deal.

Am suprised by the South not going anywhere as relatively new and would improve many a ground.

Cost to dismantle, transport & rebuild probably counts against it. You can't get grants for 2nd hand stands either.


But you reckon the Colin Montgomerie was worth it vs the South?

Just for the name alone! :-)
pgbee
 
Posts: 2342
Joined: 08 Mar 2011, 20:56

Re: Underhill

Postby Tuesds » 05 Jan 2018, 12:35

jerroll wrote:
MCB wrote:As you say, without knowing the terms it's impossible to say. We obviously had an agreement to take the Colin Montgomery, or any other removable stands / items as part of the deal.

Am suprised by the South not going anywhere as relatively new and would improve many a ground.

Cost to dismantle, transport & rebuild probably counts against it.


Wasn't it rumoured that we had some sort of agreement in place with Southport for them to take the South Stand, only for it to break down when the full extent of the factors mentioned above became clear?
Tuesds
 
Posts: 1470
Joined: 27 Jan 2011, 12:26

Re: Underhill

Postby jerroll » 05 Jan 2018, 12:42

MCB wrote:
jerroll wrote:
MCB wrote:As you say, without knowing the terms it's impossible to say. We obviously had an agreement to take the Colin Montgomery, or any other removable stands / items as part of the deal.

Am suprised by the South not going anywhere as relatively new and would improve many a ground.

Cost to dismantle, transport & rebuild probably counts against it. You can't get grants for 2nd hand stands either.


But you reckon the Colin Montgomerie was worth it vs the South?

Temporary construction & 1/4 of the size so less to transport/dismantle.
jerroll
 
Posts: 8637
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 17:25

Re: Underhill

Postby Hiveoccupier » 05 Jan 2018, 13:00

MCB wrote:
Hiveoccupier wrote:Gerry Bates and Gary Cooper went to Underhill yesterday by arrangement with Ark to see if there is anything that is worth salvaging and perhaps selling or auctioning as memorabilia to raise funds for some form of memorial to Barnet FC and its supporters on the site of the old stadium. I

If and when they are able to secure any items for this purpose next steps will be communicated through this forum.


What a good idea. Have Ark been broadly supportive?

Also if anyone hears back from the auctioneers do let the forum know...


The Back2Barnet campaign originally contacted ARK to ask about a memorial on the site and the possible release of memorabilia a couple of years back when the proposed sale of Underhill site to the Education Funding Agency was first announced.

Understandably things went quiet for a while as the sale was going through and the EFA and Ark were going through the planning process.

The project manager from ARK made contact at the end of 2017 to re-engage on the subject and this resulted in yesterday's visit and also discussions with SGD Ltd who are managing the disposal of site assets.

From what I understand it appears Barnet FC may still have an interest in some of the assets that are there but I'm not sure which ones - I suspect this could include the floodlights (which are quite new) and the tannoy system, amongst other things.
Hiveoccupier
 
Posts: 2880
Joined: 02 Feb 2011, 16:59

Re: Underhill

Postby letchbee94 » 05 Jan 2018, 19:43

To think we left Underhill for a better future at the Hive.
letchbee94
 
Posts: 5337
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 20:59

Re: Underhill

Postby MCB » 05 Jan 2018, 19:53

letchbee94 wrote:To think we left Underhill for a better future at the Hive.


TK used his influence to adjust the maximum slop permitted on football league pitches to match that exactly of Underhill, but the football league wanted to change it back. I wonder if they subsequently have after we moved to the Hive? I know the current maximum slope in the football league is 1:41. Wonder what Underhill was anyone?
User avatar
MCB
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: 11 May 2016, 17:41

Re: Underhill

Postby Norfolk & Chance » 05 Jan 2018, 19:59

Maximum slop is indeed what we have witnessed on occasions this season.
Norfolk & Chance
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: 03 Jun 2017, 09:22

Re: Underhill

Postby becbee » 05 Jan 2018, 20:08

jerroll wrote:
MCB wrote:As you say, without knowing the terms it's impossible to say. We obviously had an agreement to take the Colin Montgomery, or any other removable stands / items as part of the deal.

Am suprised by the South not going anywhere as relatively new and would improve many a ground.

Cost to dismantle, transport & rebuild probably counts against it. You can't get grants for 2nd hand stands either.


Remember Southport wanted it until they discovered the costs would be prohibitive.
becbee
 
Posts: 6712
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 11:43

Re: Underhill

Postby amberforever » 06 Jan 2018, 10:51

MCB wrote:
letchbee94 wrote:To think we left Underhill for a better future at the Hive.


TK used his influence to adjust the maximum slop permitted on football league pitches to match that exactly of Underhill, but the football league wanted to change it back. I wonder if they subsequently have after we moved to the Hive? I know the current maximum slope in the football league is 1:41. Wonder what Underhill was anyone?


Does anyone know the precise gradient? I was always informed that the difference between the two goal heights was exactly the height of the goal. Maybe this was achieved after the modification to cut into the north end level by some 2ft or so?
amberforever
 
Posts: 1391
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 18:37

Re: Underhill

Postby ricardobee » 06 Jan 2018, 12:25

Just before we originally joined the Football League, Stan was told to reduce the slope. This he did by flattening out the top right hand side, removing what was something like 30+ skips of earth. This part of the pitch afterwards was always prone to waterlog in heavy rain due to the fact that there was no drainage pipes below the surface. Football League were quite happy with the slope after this had been done.
ricardobee
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: 26 Feb 2011, 11:50

Re: Underhill

Postby MCB » 06 Jan 2018, 12:28

ricardobee wrote:Just before we originally joined the Football League, Stan was told to reduce the slope. This he did by flattening out the top right hand side, removing what was something like 30+ skips of earth. This part of the pitch afterwards was always prone to waterlog in heavy rain due to the fact that there was no drainage pipes below the surface. Football League were quite happy with the slope after this had been done.


That was changed when we dropped out the league at the turn of the millenium. It was the specific reason the first season back in the Conference was so depressing as we would not be allowed to play at Underhill should we get promoted.

This was changed thanks to TK's influence based on his time on the football leaugue board: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 063540.stm
User avatar
MCB
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: 11 May 2016, 17:41

Re: Underhill

Postby amberforever » 06 Jan 2018, 15:31

MCB wrote:
ricardobee wrote:Just before we originally joined the Football League, Stan was told to reduce the slope. This he did by flattening out the top right hand side, removing what was something like 30+ skips of earth. This part of the pitch afterwards was always prone to waterlog in heavy rain due to the fact that there was no drainage pipes below the surface. Football League were quite happy with the slope after this had been done.


That was changed when we dropped out the league at the turn of the millenium. It was the specific reason the first season back in the Conference was so depressing as we would not be allowed to play at Underhill should we get promoted.

This was changed thanks to TK's influence based on his time on the football leaugue board: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 063540.stm


Thanks guys, would love to have seen Fat Stan shovelling earth into a skip, :D no bodies with it I hope!
amberforever
 
Posts: 1391
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 18:37

Re: Underhill

Postby torontobee » 06 Jan 2018, 16:10

MCB wrote:
letchbee94 wrote:To think we left Underhill for a better future at the Hive.


TK used his influence to adjust the maximum slop permitted on football league pitches to match that exactly of Underhill, but the football league wanted to change it back. I wonder if they subsequently have after we moved to the Hive? I know the current maximum slope in the football league is 1:41. Wonder what Underhill was anyone?


I believe the slope was originally about 11 feet from goal to goal (or rather top right corner to bottom left corner, as the slope was on a diagonal). That top right corner (near the Westcombe Drive turnstiles) was lowered by a couple of feet before we first entered the League in 1991, which reduced the slope somewhat. So I believe the FL slope was about 9 feet. The pitch was a standard 115 yards (345 feet) long, so the FL slope ratio would be 9:345 which translates to 1:38. I imagine TK may have got it accepted based on the original 1991 (Flashman/Fry) decision.

And just to say well done to Hiveoccupier and the others for following up with Ark. It would be a tragedy if Underhill-related items were lost through simple neglect, and even more so if an appropriate memorial to the club and its history, and to players / supporters who died / had their ashes scattered there was not arranged at the new school.
User avatar
torontobee
 
Posts: 3323
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 01:24
Location: Toronto, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to General Barnet Chat

Who is online

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