Alternative to the Hive

[DerekRocholl]

Well said BarnetJohn so here is an alternative perspective.

The club's lease on the cricket club ground expired in December 2012 but a 6 month extension was agreed which allows the club to complete this season at Underhill without losing use of facilities at the south end of the ground.

Tony Kleanthous' ambition is to have a fit for purpose stadium to move to once the temporary stay at the Hive comes to an end. The cost of developing a stadium of this nature is likely to run into 10s of £millions.

No one in their right mind would would make that sort of investment on land covered by a 15 year lease - a lease on similar terms to those that Saracens have for Copthall would be needed.

There is then the question of financing the development - the approach of maximising the value of the existing Underhill site for development to generate the funds required for the construction of the new stadium makes total sense. It reduces the need for the club to finance the development by saddling itself with debt. The Priory Grove licence issue undermines the potential development value.

Even if the financing was available from a different source and the existing Underhill site with some extensions could provide the necessary site for a new stadium we would have to play somewhere while the development is taking place.

There is a contractual commitment on TK's business to build a 5,000 capacity stadium at the Hive - so unless you believe that it would be possible to redevelop Underhill to meet the future needs of the club and play there at the same time - surely it makes sense to use the Hive Stadium in the mean time.

Based on this rationale if the mid to long term aim is to have the stadium we want in Barnet the temporary move to the Hive is a potentially important enabler, the other enablers that need to be in place is the availability of land and funds to build the new stadium in Barnet. The land could be made available if the council granted a lease to the club for the cricket club on terms similar to those given to Saracens at Copthall and were positive about the idea of a fit for purpose stadium being built there. A large part of the financial equation could be addressed if the part of the old Underhill site not required for the new stadium could be developed for other purposes (e.g. housing) which raised cash to put into the new stadium.

What TK has said over many years and keeps saying is completely consistent with this rationale. Seeing a temporary move to the Hive as an enabler to the long term future in Barnet is also the rationale that the Trust Board have been working to for most of the past year.

All the while the council believe it is to their political advantage to obstruct this sort of approach they will continue to do so - if we want a decent new stadium as our long term home in Barnet it is up to us to help change the political agenda.

[Mem Beespod]

Well said John so here is an alternative perspective.

The club's lease on the cricket club ground expired in December 2013 but a 6 month extension was agreed which allows the club to complete this season at Underhill without losing use of facilities at the south end of the ground.

Tony Kleanthous' ambition is to have a fit for purpose stadium to move to once the temporary stay at the Hive comes to an end. The cost of developing a stadium of this nature is likely to run into 10s of £millions.

No one in their right mind would would make that sort of investment on land covered by a 15 year lease - a lease on similar terms to those that Saracens have for Copthall would be needed.

There is then the question of financing the development - the approach of maximising the value of the existing Underhill site for development to generate the funds required for the construction of the new stadium makes total sense. It reduces the need for the club to finance the development by saddling itself with debt. The Priory Grove licence issue undermines the potential development value.

Even if the financing was available from a different source and the existing Underhill site with some extensions could provide the necessary site for a new stadium we would have to play somewhere while the development is taking place.

There is a contractual commitment on TK's business to build a 5,000 capacity stadium at the Hive - so unless you believe that it would be possible to redevelop Underhill to meet the future needs of the club and play there at the same time - surely it makes sense to use the Hive Stadium in the mean time.

Based on this rationale if the mid to long term aim is to have the stadium we want in Barnet the temporary move to the Hive is a potentially important enabler, the other enablers that need to be in place is the availability of land and funds to build the new stadium in Barnet. The land could be made available if the council granted a lease to the club for the cricket club on terms similar to those given to Saracens at Copthall and were positive about the idea of a fit for purpose stadium being built there. A large part of the financial equation could be addressed if the part of the old Underhill site not required for the new stadium could be developed for other purposes (e.g. housing) which raised cash to put into the new stadium.

What TK has said over many years and keeps saying is completely consistent with this rationale. Seeing a temporary move to the Hive as an enabler to the long term future in Barnet is also the rationale that the Trust Board have been working to for most of the past year.

All the while the council believe it is to their political advantage to obstruct this sort of approach they will continue to do so - if we want a decent new stadium as our long term home in Barnet it is up to us to help change the political agenda.

The best post I've read on here in a long time.

[Sam_BFC]

What club moves to 2 new sites in 10 years?

Rotherham and Brighton & HA.

Charlton left The Valley then returned to a pretty much rebuilt one within 10 years. Bristol Rovers played in Bath for 10 years before returning to Bristol.

[teatime_bee]

Ok, but we're these between two different local councils? I just don't see us moving back once we're at The Hive.

[barnetjohn]

Thanks for this Derek. A neat summary of the situation and a good example of the reasoned debate that I hope we can all have on the issue. This is the sort of constructive contribution we need.

[petersperoni]

Good post Derek - at last we agree on something!

[Evanstribe]

Well said BarnetJohn so here is an alternative perspective.

The club's lease on the cricket club ground expired in December 2012 but a 6 month extension was agreed which allows the club to complete this season at Underhill without losing use of facilities at the south end of the ground.

Tony Kleanthous' ambition is to have a fit for purpose stadium to move to once the temporary stay at the Hive comes to an end. The cost of developing a stadium of this nature is likely to run into 10s of £millions.

No one in their right mind would would make that sort of investment on land covered by a 15 year lease - a lease on similar terms to those that Saracens have for Copthall would be needed.

There is then the question of financing the development - the approach of maximising the value of the existing Underhill site for development to generate the funds required for the construction of the new stadium makes total sense. It reduces the need for the club to finance the development by saddling itself with debt. The Priory Grove licence issue undermines the potential development value.

Even if the financing was available from a different source and the existing Underhill site with some extensions could provide the necessary site for a new stadium we would have to play somewhere while the development is taking place.

There is a contractual commitment on TK's business to build a 5,000 capacity stadium at the Hive - so unless you believe that it would be possible to redevelop Underhill to meet the future needs of the club and play there at the same time - surely it makes sense to use the Hive Stadium in the mean time.

Based on this rationale if the mid to long term aim is to have the stadium we want in Barnet the temporary move to the Hive is a potentially important enabler, the other enablers that need to be in place is the availability of land and funds to build the new stadium in Barnet. The land could be made available if the council granted a lease to the club for the cricket club on terms similar to those given to Saracens at Copthall and were positive about the idea of a fit for purpose stadium being built there. A large part of the financial equation could be addressed if the part of the old Underhill site not required for the new stadium could be developed for other purposes (e.g. housing) which raised cash to put into the new stadium.

What TK has said over many years and keeps saying is completely consistent with this rationale. Seeing a temporary move to the Hive as an enabler to the long term future in Barnet is also the rationale that the Trust Board have been working to for most of the past year.

All the while the council believe it is to their political advantage to obstruct this sort of approach they will continue to do so - if we want a decent new stadium as our long term home in Barnet it is up to us to help change the political agenda.

Spot on in my opinion.

[MajorBrownEye]

Ok, but we're these between two different local councils? I just don't see us moving back once we're at The Hive.

I can't say about Charlton, without doing a little research, but Bath and Bristol are very separate towns. Likewise, I don't know much about Rotherham, but Brighton ended up playing in Gillingham before their return.

[jerroll]

I can't say about Charlton, without doing a little research, but Bath and Bristol are very separate towns. Likewise, I don't know much about Rotherham, but Brighton ended up playing in Gillingham before their return.[/quote]

Rotherham played in Sheffield for 4 years, different councils and town/city.

[John_c]

Good point, well made as always by Derek.

I fear that the good people of Barnet don't care for their club, to be honest. Although the national mood will decide the result of the local elections next year - which could be in our favour.

Here's hoping.

[Stingtastic]

Well said John so here is an alternative perspective.

The club's lease on the cricket club ground expired in December 2013 but a 6 month extension was agreed which allows the club to complete this season at Underhill without losing use of facilities at the south end of the ground.

Tony Kleanthous' ambition is to have a fit for purpose stadium to move to once the temporary stay at the Hive comes to an end. The cost of developing a stadium of this nature is likely to run into 10s of £millions.

No one in their right mind would would make that sort of investment on land covered by a 15 year lease - a lease on similar terms to those that Saracens have for Copthall would be needed.

There is then the question of financing the development - the approach of maximising the value of the existing Underhill site for development to generate the funds required for the construction of the new stadium makes total sense. It reduces the need for the club to finance the development by saddling itself with debt. The Priory Grove licence issue undermines the potential development value.

Even if the financing was available from a different source and the existing Underhill site with some extensions could provide the necessary site for a new stadium we would have to play somewhere while the development is taking place.

There is a contractual commitment on TK's business to build a 5,000 capacity stadium at the Hive - so unless you believe that it would be possible to redevelop Underhill to meet the future needs of the club and play there at the same time - surely it makes sense to use the Hive Stadium in the mean time.

Based on this rationale if the mid to long term aim is to have the stadium we want in Barnet the temporary move to the Hive is a potentially important enabler, the other enablers that need to be in place is the availability of land and funds to build the new stadium in Barnet. The land could be made available if the council granted a lease to the club for the cricket club on terms similar to those given to Saracens at Copthall and were positive about the idea of a fit for purpose stadium being built there. A large part of the financial equation could be addressed if the part of the old Underhill site not required for the new stadium could be developed for other purposes (e.g. housing) which raised cash to put into the new stadium.

What TK has said over many years and keeps saying is completely consistent with this rationale. Seeing a temporary move to the Hive as an enabler to the long term future in Barnet is also the rationale that the Trust Board have been working to for most of the past year.

All the while the council believe it is to their political advantage to obstruct this sort of approach they will continue to do so - if we want a decent new stadium as our long term home in Barnet it is up to us to help change the political agenda.

The best post I've read on here in a long time.

Agreed.

If the club could communicate the reasons for having to move to the Hive in such an clear, concise and articulate way I feel there would be far more support for the move coupled with less opposition). However, I'm not sure they have quite got the message right yet.

[WelwynBee]

All the while the council believe it is to their political advantage to obstruct this sort of approach they will continue to do so - if we want a decent new stadium as our long term home in Barnet it is up to us to help change the political agenda.

So would it follow that if we fail to help change the political agenda, we will not see Barnet FC play in Barnet again?

Who would we be helping to change the political agenda?
Is Kleanthous engaged in meaningful discussions to try and change the political agenda or will he be leaving that to the Trust whilst settling in to Edgware?

[DerekRocholl]

All the while the council believe it is to their political advantage to obstruct this sort of approach they will continue to do so - if we want a decent new stadium as our long term home in Barnet it is up to us to help change the political agenda.

So would it follow that if we fail to help change the political agenda, we will not see Barnet FC play in Barnet again?

Who would we be helping to change the political agenda?
Is Kleanthous engaged in meaningful discussions to try and change the political agenda or will he be leaving that to the Trust whilst settling in to Edgware?

It obviously has to be something we work with the Club on and it has to be about trying to help TK deliver on the statements he has made about having its long term home in Barnet.

[WelwynBee]

Based on your comment, if we fail to change the political agenda, we will not see Barnet FC play in Barnet again. This is what your comment means isn't it? Am I taking it too literally?

''if we want a decent new stadium as our long term home in Barnet it is up to us to help change the political agenda''.

I'm not being negative about the chances, I'm merely looking at the risks involved in removing Barnet FC from the town and the chances of us ever coming back.

[DerekRocholl]

It means that if we fail I think it is very unlikely that we will ever see Barnet FC playing at a decent stadium in Barnet. There are all manner of scenarios that could pan out that would see Barnet FC playing in Barnet again.