Ronnie Edwards

Anything and everything related to Barnet FC
User avatar
ninestein
Posts: 6897
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 20:00

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368767Post ninestein »

If we get things right in the next 2 months, we won't be playing them again for a while, and the rivalry with Wealdstone becomes a welcome footnote. I'm all for having local derbies. At least the B'Wooders leave the stadium and its staff in one piece when the game is over. The playoff game was how it should be. Lots of pride. Lots of banter over the fence, but when all is over everyone accepts the result and goes home.

Back to the original topic of the thread, and Ronnie Edwards in particular, I suspect we will see some movement in the summer. With 1 year remaining, Posh will know that they can no longer ask for silly money. There will come a time when they have to accept a reasonable offer or let him walk away for virtually nothing. If Posh don't get promoted, he will have plenty of suitors in the top 2 divisions.
Barnet showing all the flair of Rupert-the-Bears trousers, but lots more style!
DerekRocholl
Posts: 4312
Joined: 02 Feb 2011, 16:59

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368768Post DerekRocholl »

Sam_BFC wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 22:37 Was there ever any suggestion that they use the training facility too since they would be in evenings and not coinciding with Barnet training periods?
Can’t say I’ve ever seen anything specific about this but the site is 44 acres and even before TK embarked on a programme of trying to replicate Hackney marshes in astroturf it was designed to have 10 pitches, so accommodating training for multiple clubs wasn’t likely to be a pinch point.
barnetpete
Posts: 2290
Joined: 24 Jan 2011, 13:37

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368773Post barnetpete »

Love how my tongue in cheek jibe about putting the tunnel in the wrong place has caused such a discussion.
Please consider donating, to help disadvantaged Children & Young People in Barnet, https://www.youngbarnetfoundation.org.uk/donate,
John Hunt
Posts: 3136
Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 13:27

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368788Post John Hunt »

hoppy wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 09:45
John Hunt wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 09:10 Though if they are struggling to get games on due to postponements we could offer them the use of one of our two stadiums to fulfil their fixtures.
Three if you count the one with the golf stand.
Surprised that wasn't moved to the Bees Stadium
FCBFCSA Manager / Former committee member of BFCSA and BFCSA1926
Big Bondz NGala
Posts: 39
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 20:32

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368900Post Big Bondz NGala »

Valentin Gyokaj
tonbridgebee
Posts: 1001
Joined: 18 Jan 2014, 23:26

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368927Post tonbridgebee »

DerekRocholl wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 21:50
tonbridgebee wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 18:47
DerekRocholl wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 11:17
tonbridgebee wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 00:27
DerekRocholl wrote: 11 Feb 2024, 09:32

Shouldn’t we park this jibe until we have a ground that is more than 75% complete ?

IMO there are enough reasons to enjoy a rivalry with Wealdstone without continually demonstrating a lack of understanding of why they have such disregard for the bona fides of the person who acquired the site in which they had invested supporter raised funds and hoped would be their permanent home.
Oh there's so much to unpick in there, but we'll leave that alone for a few months......
I look forward to your in depth interview with Nick DuGuard.
Why would I speak to Nick? Paul Rumens was in charge.
Because Nick is the person who documented everything that went on at the time it went on. Either you are interested in what happened and are prepared to comment from a fully informed position or you aren’t.
I am very interested Derek trust me! Feel free to share your own views as well, all entitled to an opinion as well as facts.
tonbridgebee
Posts: 1001
Joined: 18 Jan 2014, 23:26

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368929Post tonbridgebee »

DerekRocholl wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 22:02
tonbridgebee wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 18:51
DerekRocholl wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 13:08
Sam_BFC wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 12:35 For me the important questions are :

1. Regardless of the reasons Wealdstone lost control of the site, was there any condition that they be tenants under reasonable terms as part of any deal that rewarded the site to someone else ?

2. If so, why did that not happen ?
Here is the Harrow Council document concerning the Football First proposal which led to Kleanthous getting the right to develop PEPF as Barnet’s training ground and the home ground of London Bees and Wealdstone. Harrow council chipped in £750k of the development cost and had the option of paying a further £1m to allow another local team (probably Edgware) to be based there too.

It didn’t happen because Wealdstone like Broncos later couldnt agree to a deal where the only revenues they were able to gain from using the stadium were tickets sales (this is an over simplification but not far away from the reality)

https://moderngov.harrow.gov.uk/documen ... s.doc?CT=2
In all my years of football I can't say I've come across a groundshare where the tenants are entitled to anything other than their own gate receipts, they own nothing and using someone else's facilities, I mean what were Wealdstone expecting?
Talk to Nick but my guess is they were expecting to play at the PEPF stadium as their Home Ground with Barnet using the complex as a training ground as per the deal Kleanthous offered to Harrow Council. This would be more akin to the relationship that exists between a stadium owner and a tenant club rather than a ground share arrangement. Do you think West Ham let the London Stadium owners claim all the revenue from merchandising, perimeter advertising, TV royalties etc. and just get by on ticket sales ?
So they expected Barnet to finish off their stadium, play there and expected to take all the revenue? Nuts. Plus if anyone ever thought we would never end up there that was clear in plain sight.

Not sure how you compare West Ham and Wealdstone here, the Hammers saw an opportunity and took it, negotiated a decent deal for peanuts. Besides, quite clearly, that is not a groundshare with no one else playing there!
#Beebot
Posts: 5661
Joined: 04 Feb 2016, 19:54

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368931Post #Beebot »

The mention of Wealdstone in this article is very interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... t.comment5
becbee
Posts: 11719
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 11:43

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368937Post becbee »

The article you posted is from 2004 , it's all about Hornchurch and doesn't mention Wealdstone.
beew
Posts: 4591
Joined: 29 Jan 2012, 17:46

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368938Post beew »

becbee wrote: 17 Feb 2024, 13:22 The article you posted is from 2004 , it's all about Hornchurch and doesn't mention Wealdstone.
From the article....

The source of the Urchins' funding is as much of a mystery as the size of it. Two businessmen, both associated with the double-glazing company Bryco Windows, are rumoured to be chief financiers. Bryco are a subsidiary of The Carthium Group, who are developing a new sports complex in Harrow for Wealdstone FC in 2005
becbee
Posts: 11719
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 11:43

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368954Post becbee »

Sorry I missed that. But it was all about Hornchurch and was over 19 years old.
#Beebot
Posts: 5661
Joined: 04 Feb 2016, 19:54

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368957Post #Beebot »

becbee wrote:Sorry I missed that. But it was all about Hornchurch and was over 19 years old.
It's very relevant. 19 years ago was when Wealdstone were still building PEPF. The article gives some indication as to the kind of people they were building it with.
DerekRocholl
Posts: 4312
Joined: 02 Feb 2011, 16:59

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 368973Post DerekRocholl »

tonbridgebee wrote: 17 Feb 2024, 10:22
DerekRocholl wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 22:02
tonbridgebee wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 18:51
DerekRocholl wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 13:08
Sam_BFC wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 12:35 For me the important questions are :

1. Regardless of the reasons Wealdstone lost control of the site, was there any condition that they be tenants under reasonable terms as part of any deal that rewarded the site to someone else ?

2. If so, why did that not happen ?
Here is the Harrow Council document concerning the Football First proposal which led to Kleanthous getting the right to develop PEPF as Barnet’s training ground and the home ground of London Bees and Wealdstone. Harrow council chipped in £750k of the development cost and had the option of paying a further £1m to allow another local team (probably Edgware) to be based there too.

It didn’t happen because Wealdstone like Broncos later couldnt agree to a deal where the only revenues they were able to gain from using the stadium were tickets sales (this is an over simplification but not far away from the reality)

https://moderngov.harrow.gov.uk/documen ... s.doc?CT=2
In all my years of football I can't say I've come across a groundshare where the tenants are entitled to anything other than their own gate receipts, they own nothing and using someone else's facilities, I mean what were Wealdstone expecting?
Talk to Nick but my guess is they were expecting to play at the PEPF stadium as their Home Ground with Barnet using the complex as a training ground as per the deal Kleanthous offered to Harrow Council. This would be more akin to the relationship that exists between a stadium owner and a tenant club rather than a ground share arrangement. Do you think West Ham let the London Stadium owners claim all the revenue from merchandising, perimeter advertising, TV royalties etc. and just get by on ticket sales ?
So they expected Barnet to finish off their stadium, play there and expected to take all the revenue? Nuts. Plus if anyone ever thought we would never end up there that was clear in plain sight.

Not sure how you compare West Ham and Wealdstone here, the Hammers saw an opportunity and took it, negotiated a decent deal for peanuts. Besides, quite clearly, that is not a groundshare with no one else playing there!
They didn’t expect to take all the revenue, they expected to be offered reasonable commercial terms for using the stadium. You claim to be interested in facts but keep ignoring them. The reason West Ham’s use of the Olympic Stadium is comparable is because under the agreement with Harrow Council Wealdstone were supposed to be the team that played at the stadium, not Barnet.
Anthony
Posts: 1043
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 17:22

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 369042Post Anthony »

#Beebot wrote: 17 Feb 2024, 14:50
becbee wrote:Sorry I missed that. But it was all about Hornchurch and was over 19 years old.
It's very relevant. 19 years ago was when Wealdstone were still building PEPF. The article gives some indication as to the kind of people they were building it with.
Don't worry, those of us who managed to read the whole article understood the relevance!

Of more interest to me though was a 20k bid to sign Grazioli, which seems miniscule considering the amount of cash floating about at Hornchurch. Also, if Gary Hill was being paid £76,000 in 2004, how much are conference managers on 20 years later? I'd have assumed it would be around 60-80k but unless Dag and Red were a massive aberration (or the Guardian have got it wrong - possible/likely) then NL managers must be pretty well paid these days...
tonbridgebee
Posts: 1001
Joined: 18 Jan 2014, 23:26

Re: Ronnie Edwards

Post: # 369072Post tonbridgebee »

DerekRocholl wrote: 17 Feb 2024, 15:26
tonbridgebee wrote: 17 Feb 2024, 10:22
DerekRocholl wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 22:02
tonbridgebee wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 18:51
DerekRocholl wrote: 12 Feb 2024, 13:08

Here is the Harrow Council document concerning the Football First proposal which led to Kleanthous getting the right to develop PEPF as Barnet’s training ground and the home ground of London Bees and Wealdstone. Harrow council chipped in £750k of the development cost and had the option of paying a further £1m to allow another local team (probably Edgware) to be based there too.

It didn’t happen because Wealdstone like Broncos later couldnt agree to a deal where the only revenues they were able to gain from using the stadium were tickets sales (this is an over simplification but not far away from the reality)

https://moderngov.harrow.gov.uk/documen ... s.doc?CT=2
In all my years of football I can't say I've come across a groundshare where the tenants are entitled to anything other than their own gate receipts, they own nothing and using someone else's facilities, I mean what were Wealdstone expecting?
Talk to Nick but my guess is they were expecting to play at the PEPF stadium as their Home Ground with Barnet using the complex as a training ground as per the deal Kleanthous offered to Harrow Council. This would be more akin to the relationship that exists between a stadium owner and a tenant club rather than a ground share arrangement. Do you think West Ham let the London Stadium owners claim all the revenue from merchandising, perimeter advertising, TV royalties etc. and just get by on ticket sales ?
So they expected Barnet to finish off their stadium, play there and expected to take all the revenue? Nuts. Plus if anyone ever thought we would never end up there that was clear in plain sight.

Not sure how you compare West Ham and Wealdstone here, the Hammers saw an opportunity and took it, negotiated a decent deal for peanuts. Besides, quite clearly, that is not a groundshare with no one else playing there!
They didn’t expect to take all the revenue, they expected to be offered reasonable commercial terms for using the stadium. You claim to be interested in facts but keep ignoring them. The reason West Ham’s use of the Olympic Stadium is comparable is because under the agreement with Harrow Council Wealdstone were supposed to be the team that played at the stadium, not Barnet.
You seem more interested in Wealdstone than Barnet. Any more supporting documents which I did ask, but surely this piece which I've read isn't the only communications at the time?
Post Reply