Cost to dismantle, transport & rebuild probably counts against it. You can't get grants for 2nd hand stands either.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.
Underhill
Re: Underhill
Re: Underhill
But you reckon the Colin Montgomerie was worth it vs the South?jerroll wrote:Cost to dismantle, transport & rebuild probably counts against it. You can't get grants for 2nd hand stands either.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.
Re: Underhill
Just for the name alone!MCB wrote:But you reckon the Colin Montgomerie was worth it vs the South?jerroll wrote:Cost to dismantle, transport & rebuild probably counts against it. You can't get grants for 2nd hand stands either.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.
Re: Underhill
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?jerroll wrote:Cost to dismantle, transport & rebuild probably counts against it.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.
Re: Underhill
Temporary construction & 1/4 of the size so less to transport/dismantle.MCB wrote:But you reckon the Colin Montgomerie was worth it vs the South?jerroll wrote:Cost to dismantle, transport & rebuild probably counts against it. You can't get grants for 2nd hand stands either.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.
-
- Posts: 4367
- Joined: 02 Feb 2011, 16:59
Re: Underhill
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.MCB wrote:What a good idea. Have Ark been broadly supportive?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.
Also if anyone hears back from the auctioneers do let the forum know...
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.
-
- Posts: 8119
- Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 20:59
Re: Underhill
To think we left Underhill for a better future at the Hive.
Re: Underhill
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?letchbee94 wrote:To think we left Underhill for a better future at the Hive.
-
- Posts: 3250
- Joined: 03 Jun 2017, 09:22
Re: Underhill
Maximum slop is indeed what we have witnessed on occasions this season.
Re: Underhill
Remember Southport wanted it until they discovered the costs would be prohibitive.jerroll wrote:Cost to dismantle, transport & rebuild probably counts against it. You can't get grants for 2nd hand stands either.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.
-
- Posts: 3002
- Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 18:37
Re: Underhill
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?MCB wrote: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?letchbee94 wrote:To think we left Underhill for a better future at the Hive.
-
- Posts: 1730
- Joined: 26 Feb 2011, 11:50
Re: Underhill
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.
Re: Underhill
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.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.
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
-
- Posts: 3002
- Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 18:37
Re: Underhill
Thanks guys, would love to have seen Fat Stan shovelling earth into a skip, no bodies with it I hope!MCB wrote: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.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.
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
- torontobee
- Posts: 3313
- Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 01:24
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Underhill
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.MCB wrote: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?letchbee94 wrote:To think we left Underhill for a better future at the Hive.
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.