Ronnie Edwards

[Sam_BFC]

Broncos played at Hive for some time so must have agreed to a deal for a limited period of time.

[BigBee]

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

Correct.

[ETBee]

We seem to have drifted a long way from the subject of Ronnie Edwards. Perhaps we need a subject called The Hive and Related Matters!

[thebeekeeper]

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

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Wealdstone were offered terms that made playing at The Hive untenable from their point of view.

However, what I'd like to know is if any rules were broken by TK in this entire process? If not, I can't quite get my head around where the animosity to Barnet FC comes from. Why isn't their anger aimed at any of: 1) Harrow Council for putting the site back out to tender and allowing Barnet to build on, 2) their developers, if presumably their financial issues caused construction to stop, or 3) their own internal processes that allowed the situation to play out in the way it did?

Didn't Barnet / TK simply take advantage of an opportunity, rather than being to blame for anything?

[beew]

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

An interesting read.

I love the bit where it states that Barnet FC are prohibited from relocating or playing at the Hive under the proposed lease agreement. When did Wealdstone pull out of the agreement to play their games at the Hive, and what were the reasons given?

[tonbridgebee]

Not only could the 85%'s not complete the ground, they couldn't even design it properly in the first place!

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.

[tonbridgebee]

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?

[tonbridgebee]

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

Any more documents to hand or is this it?

[HertsBee]

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?

According to some Wealdstone fans, they have paid 800k and wanted 50% of all takings at the Hive.

[Jimbokav1971]

Not only could the 85%'s not complete the ground, they couldn't even design it properly in the first place!

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.

I don't feel any rivalry towards them Derek, but their continued poor behaviour is the only reason I continue to refer to them as 85%ers. They're a bunch of eegits and it annoys the hell out of them. I don't care that it's not true in the same way that they don't care that we didn't actually steal their home from them, (cuckoos).

I quite like lots of what they do and how they do it, and if they weren;t such eegits I might even lavish them with praise for their consistent over-performance. Instead they're the 85%ers and I think they always will be. They play good football in contrast to Boring Wood for example, but despite Boring Wood beating us in the Playoffs last season I have much more respect for Boring Wood playing hoofball than I do for 85%ers playing lovely attractive football and punching above their weight, and that's all about their fan base.

[Jimbokav1971]

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

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Wealdstone were offered terms that made playing at The Hive untenable from their point of view.

However, what I'd like to know is if any rules were broken by TK in this entire process? If not, I can't quite get my head around where the animosity to Barnet FC comes from. Why isn't their anger aimed at any of: 1) Harrow Council for putting the site back out to tender and allowing Barnet to build on, 2) their developers, if presumably their financial issues caused construction to stop, or 3) their own internal processes that allowed the situation to play out in the way it did?

Didn't Barnet / TK simply take advantage of an opportunity, rather than being to blame for anything?

There is huge animosity towards Harrow Council I think. The difference though is that Harrow Council no longer own the Ground and TK does, and Harrow Council don't have a football Team and TK does. He/We are basically an easy target for their angst, (and I understand that to a certain extent). We all like someone to blame and the "rivalry" has been great for them since they were promoted.

[Jimbokav1971]

Wealdstone always built the stadium with the idea of Barnet taking it on, otherwise it wouldnt have been called The Hive. The clue was there all along.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are joking.

[DerekRocholl]

Not only could the 85%'s not complete the ground, they couldn't even design it properly in the first place!

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.

[DerekRocholl]

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 ?

[Sam_BFC]

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?