Chairman's statement

[Sam_BFC]

Is that 3719 figure for 92-93 accurate even with Flashman’s fiddling ?

[Mikel Bee]

Our highest ever average attendance is 3719 when we won Division 4 in 1991/92. So we'd need to increase the fanbase by over 2000 people from that peak for a 6000 capacity stadium to become problematic.

I'd love that to happen, of course, but realistically something around the 6000 mark will be more than sufficient for our needs, even if we see a big boost upon returning to Barnet.

Smaller can often be better - even though it limits your revenue for the odd big game, it'll make the ground feel full and improve the atmosphere, which will hopefully increase demand because people want to attend packed out events.

I also think that it'll help with the planning process if the stadium doesn't appear to be a hugely imposing structure.

If they include sufficient terracing then you get the benefit of a larger capacity and the place not feeling so empty when it isn't full.

[jerroll]

Our highest ever average attendance is 3719 when we won Division 4 in 1991/92. So we'd need to increase the fanbase by over 2000 people from that peak for a 6000 capacity stadium to become problematic.

I'd love that to happen, of course, but realistically something around the 6000 mark will be more than sufficient for our needs, even if we see a big boost upon returning to Barnet.

Smaller can often be better - even though it limits your revenue for the odd big game, it'll make the ground feel full and improve the atmosphere, which will hopefully increase demand because people want to attend packed out events.

I also think that it'll help with the planning process if the stadium doesn't appear to be a hugely imposing structure.

If they include sufficient terracing then you get the benefit of a larger capacity and the place not feeling so empty when it isn't full.

certainly a viable option as no grants being applied for.

[ricardobee]

“Is that 3719 figure for 92-93 accurate even with Flashman’s fiddling?”

Hard to say, I certainly knew there were crowds over 4,000 and nearer 5,000 a number of times. The Burnley game was more of an exception, the fact there was nearly 10,000, but there was nearly always more than was declared.

[beew]

I think to be able to accommodate for bigger away followings in the football league and to grow our own fan base, we need a ground bigger than 6,000. I think 7,500/8,000 would be perfect

The new ground (if built) will be closer to 8000 than it will to 6000 and it will have a quick fit solution to get it to 10000 if and when required. And having a totally enclosed ground means we can put seats into the corners that are currently missing at the Hive The initial proposed stand elevation will be much lower than those at the Hive (less rows) to appease the residents.

This 8000 capacity stadium in Switzerland looks interesting, with solar panels on roofs supplying the local community.

http://stadiumdb.com/news/2020/10/new_s ... haffhausen

Out of interest, how do you know this re: the capacity, corners being filled in and the elevation? I can't see any info about those things in the public domain.

I have no knowledge of what will be built should we get permission but in the artist drawings it shows a fully enclosed ground. On the capacity it's suggested by the club a 6-8000 capacity, I'm sure they'd want it closer to 8000 than 6000. I'm also assuming that as the drawing shows a fully enclosed ground, they'd look to fill seats in the corners, to make maximum use of space and avoid proposing something in it's original version that is to high in its elevation.

[pgbee]

If say go for the most that fits in the space. If you buy a 6x4 greenhouse you always wish you'd bought a bigger one because you fill it in no time.

[hoofer2]

I think to be able to accommodate for bigger away followings in the football league and to grow our own fan base, we need a ground bigger than 6,000. I think 7,500/8,000 would be perfect

The new ground (if built) will be closer to 8000 than it will to 6000 and it will have a quick fit solution to get it to 10000 if and when required. And having a totally enclosed ground means we can put seats into the corners that are currently missing at the Hive The initial proposed stand elevation will be much lower than those at the Hive (less rows) to appease the residents.

This 8000 capacity stadium in Switzerland looks interesting, with solar panels on roofs supplying the local community.

http://stadiumdb.com/news/2020/10/new_s ... haffhausen

Out of interest, how do you know this re: the capacity, corners being filled in and the elevation? I can't see any info about those things in the public domain.

I have no knowledge of what will be built should we get permission but in the artist drawings it shows a fully enclosed ground. On the capacity it's suggested by the club a 6-8000 capacity, I'm sure they'd want it closer to 8000 than 6000. I'm also assuming that as the drawing shows a fully enclosed ground, they'd look to fill seats in the corners, to make maximum use of space and avoid proposing something in it's original version that is to high in its elevation.

Or omit a row of seats / don't fill corners in - 6k to guarantee the build and architect accommodates just adding extra rows at the back / filling in corners to increase capacity if needed

[EastBarnetFan]

Looking at the various new images, the corners are not filled in but instead have building in their place. It’s 4 individual stands.

Assume this is where this range of 6,000-8,000 comes from, meaning it can be scaled up by 2,000 as and when needed. If this is the case, it’s a wise plan.

[Tuesds]

Sadly I have to say the council’s new comments in this Standard article have left me feeling very gloomy.

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/footba ... 48370.html

They go much further than the initial response about the green belt and suggest to me that the council’s firm position is that regardless of planning status etc., it will not agree to allow its land to be used for this purpose.

We need the council’s support in two respects: 1. as planning authority, which would ultimately be determined by the council’s planning committee, and 2. as the landowner and prospective landlord. While the council cannot prejudge a planning application which must be tested via a highly regulated process, as landowner the council’s leadership can simply decide that it doesn’t want its land used for this purpose.

The council’s comments suggest the prospects in respect of 2. are pretty bleak, but the position could change if we could demonstrate to the council that residents want a football club more than they want the current ‘green space’ (much of which is unused, as far as I know) preserved exactly as it is.

In other words, the council’s comments, while disappointing and even somewhat disheartening, show the critical importance of positive campaigning of the like we have seen so far by all involved with Bring Barnet Back.

[beew]

Sadly I have to say the council’s new comments in this Standard article have left me feeling very gloomy.

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/footba ... 48370.html

They go much further than the initial response about the green belt and suggest to me that the council’s firm position is that regardless of planning status etc., it will not agree to allow its land to be used for this purpose.

We need the council’s support in two respects: 1. as planning authority, which would ultimately be determined by the council’s planning committee, and 2. as the landowner and prospective landlord. While the council cannot prejudge a planning application which must be tested via a highly regulated process, as landowner the council’s leadership can simply decide that it doesn’t want its land used for this purpose.

The council’s comments suggest the prospects in respect of 2. are pretty bleak, but the position could change if we could demonstrate to the council that residents want a football club more than they want the current ‘green space’ (much of which is unused, as far as I know) preserved exactly as it is.

In other words, the council’s comments, while disappointing and even somewhat disheartening, show the critical importance of positive campaigning of the like we have seen so far by all involved with Bring Barnet Back.

The council already have plans to build on the land, so I can't see how they could object on a green belt basis.

[Mem Beespod]

This to me holds the key to whether or not we get our stadium. If this is included in the plans then I would expect it would be presented as a win win for the council and Barnet

https://www.barnetsociety.org.uk/long-w ... lis-valley

[Evanstribe]

This to me holds the key to whether or not we get our stadium. If this is included in the plans then I would expect it would be presented as a win win for the council and Barnet

https://www.barnetsociety.org.uk/long-w ... lis-valley

You would hope that this gets discussed at the pre-planning meetings and that the club are aware of it. Because, as you say, this hands the council an easy opportunity to pivot from scepticism to being publicly supportive of the development.

[beew]

This to me holds the key to whether or not we get our stadium. If this is included in the plans then I would expect it would be presented as a win win for the council and Barnet

https://www.barnetsociety.org.uk/long-w ... lis-valley

You would hope that this gets discussed at the pre-planning meetings and that the club are aware of it. Because, as you say, this hands the council an easy opportunity to pivot from scepticism to being publicly supportive of the development.

I don't get the negativity on here.

Barnet council have had plans since 2015 to build a community hub and cafe, with a couple of football pitches on the land that we have identified as suitable for a new ground. This proposal was identified in a forward strategic planning document in 2015 and was still on the list in 2019.

They have also indicated that they want to turn the Pavilion into a zero carbon hub for the Rainbow Centre, this was proposed and promised in 2021.

It's no coincidence that these plans have failed to be built, as both projects would cost serious cash.

Our plan to build a stadium could incorporate both of these projects with ease, and at no cost to the council and the residents they represent.

IMO Barnets initial stance is all a political game, to reassure the residents they will be robust, in any plans to bring us back home. But if you look at their own proposals to build on the greenbelt, the promise to The Rainbow Centre 2021 and the timeline of TK meeting Barnet during lockdown, there's a strong probability of a link.

[Evanstribe]

This to me holds the key to whether or not we get our stadium. If this is included in the plans then I would expect it would be presented as a win win for the council and Barnet

https://www.barnetsociety.org.uk/long-w ... lis-valley

You would hope that this gets discussed at the pre-planning meetings and that the club are aware of it. Because, as you say, this hands the council an easy opportunity to pivot from scepticism to being publicly supportive of the development.

I don't get the negativity on here.

Barnet council have had plans since 2015 to build a community hub and cafe, with a couple of football pitches on the land that we have identified as suitable for a new ground. This proposal was identified in a forward strategic planning document in 2015 and was still on the list in 2019.

They have also indicated that they want to turn the Pavilion into a zero carbon hub for the Rainbow Centre, this was proposed and promised in 2021.

It's no coincidence that these plans have failed to be built, as both projects would cost serious cash.

Our plan to build a stadium could incorporate both of these projects with ease, and at no cost to the council and the residents they represent.

IMO Barnets initial stance is all a political game, to reassure the residents they will be robust, in any plans to bring us back home. But if you look at their own proposals to build on the greenbelt, the promise to The Rainbow Centre 2021 and the timeline of TK meeting Barnet during lockdown, there's a strong probability of a link.

I do hope you're right. It certainly does seem curious for the council to be talking about the greenbelt being an obstacle if they were planning to build on it.

I'm also hoping that it's all part of a political game, and that a compromise can be found to suit all parties. But I suppose you can't blame people for feeling slightly concerned by the council's initial public stance, especially considering the planning difficulties we've had in the past.

[foxy]

You’re seriously underestimating how many fans would suddenly come out of the woodwork. As part of the Bring Barnet Back campaign, we’ve had so many fans tell us that if we achieve our goal they’d definitely start coming back and we’ve had Arsenal and Spurs fans living in Barnet, telling us that their clubs have priced them out and they’d love to bring their kids to games

Talk is very easy though!