Times Series readers vote in favour of Saracens move to Copthall (From Times Series)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news & views by texting TIMES NEWS to 80360, or email us
Times Series readers vote in favour of Saracens move to Copthall
10:21am Monday 13th February 2012 in News
An artist's impression of the Saracens stadium
Eighty-one per cent of Times Series readers have voted in favour of Saracens Rugby Club relocating to Copthall Stadium.
Our online poll asked readers whether they agreed with the decision by Barnet Council to approve the club’s proposal to develop the Sixties stadium on Thursday, February 3.
From Tuesday, February 7, to Monday, February 13, around 1,560 readers took part, with 1,257 voting in favour of the move and 300 voting against.
Some readers voted multiple times, but additional votes were excluded from the final count using unique IP addresses.
The Saracens application has now been referred to the Mayor of London and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
If no objections are made, the Premiership club will develop Copthall into a 10,000-seater venue to be used for up to 16 home matches a year.
Comments(36)
Prestwick
says...
11:32am Mon 13 Feb 12
DannyMan
says...
3:45pm Mon 13 Feb 12
Mr Reasonable
says...
8:03pm Mon 13 Feb 12
DannyMan
says...
8:17pm Mon 13 Feb 12
Fortunately, though, Boris and Pickles will not be swayed by the intemperate BELLOWING of the tiny minority who can't see the blindingly obvious when it's right under their noses.
Mr Reasonable
says...
8:21pm Mon 13 Feb 12
Prestwick
says...
8:58pm Mon 13 Feb 12
- The fact that £20 million will be invested in creating a top quality state of the art sports facility.
- The fact that Copthall will offer free access to schools and the local community all year round apart from the 16 games Saracens will play.
- The fact that children in Barnet will have a few state of the arts sports complex which will promote fitness and self fulfilment through sport and will leave a fantastic legacy for North London.
- The fact that there are multiple stakeholders including Shaftbury Barnet Harriers, most of the local schools in the area and even the local golf club who are very keen in seeing this scheme get the green light.
- The fact that Saracens understand that the site scores low on terms of public transport so will not only provide various schemes to encourage fans to visit by public transport or car sharing, but will also give residents the power to set CPZs to protect their areas and even set up a hotline for any parking issues.
When they consider those facts they will see that the Copthall Revival makes sense.
Also you say that the views of the people of Barnet are trivial and irrelevant...you're not RedRenault are you?
Mr Reasonable
says...
9:25pm Mon 13 Feb 12
Prestwick
says...
9:52pm Mon 13 Feb 12
If anything as it was the NO camp that started attempting to rig the vote in the first place I'd say the NIMBYs dug their own grave on this one.
Also you can't cry foul on this poll thus indicating that it is very important then also dismiss the poll as irrelevant. Is the poll important or irrelevant? Would it still be irrelevant if it was both reliable, fair AND still 70/30 in favour of Copthall?
Mr Reasonable
says...
8:13am Tue 14 Feb 12
What puzzles me is the irrational and aggressive attacks on anyone who makes the slightest comment about this scheme.
The site is in the green belt and it will cause disruption for local residents. Lots of local people are unhappy for various reasons. Perhaps it would be more constructive if you started trying to understand why those people are unhappy and stopped condeming them whenever they make a comment. If this is an indication of the tone Saracens will adopt if they move to Copthall then it is going to be a very unhappy and difficult relationship.
DannyMan
says...
8:24am Tue 14 Feb 12
As for "tone", I suggest you have a look elsewhere on this site and read some of the offensive and borderline libellous comments posted by your sidekicks Growser and redrenault.
Mr Reasonable
says...
8:54am Tue 14 Feb 12
Prestwick
says...
10:13am Tue 14 Feb 12
However Dannyman didn't actually say that it had been knobbled only that people had attempted to influence the result which had been defeated. You need to quote verbatim and understand the texts you are quoting next time.
At the end of the day if the poll had come out in favour of the NO camp and had been verified as fair then most likely you'd be holding it up as proof that Barnet doesn't want Saracens. However as its come out against the NO camp its now suddenly just a bit of fun and was knobbled anyhow so, meh!
Also I'm puzzled that most of the abuse tends to come from the NO camp either towards the good people of Barnet or the Saracens fans who will be enjoying 16 excellent days of rugby a year at Copthall next season.
Nobody has been aggressively attacking anybody and to be honest Saracens have been incredibly constructive when it has come to listening to the views of the local community which is why so much of the community is on board.
The only time when conflict has broken out has been when the likes of RedRenault and Growser make unfounded and frankly bigoted comments about Saracens being this corporate monster intent on enslaving Barnet and its fans being nothing more than beer swilling louts who will cause mayhem in Barnet.
If you really were reasonable then you'd actually listen to the views not only of honest decent Saracens fans but of the schools of Barnet who whole heartedly back this scheme and the various people and businesses in Barnet who look forward to the Copthall Revival getting the go ahead!
Prestwick
says...
10:17am Tue 14 Feb 12
Seriously when you see that the No camp are hardly whiter than white!
Mr_Growser
says...
11:41am Tue 14 Feb 12
Prestwick
says...
4:02pm Tue 14 Feb 12
I'm afraid Growser is simply wrong. Of course theres going to be amateur sport in the open air in the green belt! Which is why most amateur sports clubs that use Copthall are backing the investment of £20 million in a world class sports facility open to one and all in the community for free.
At the end of the day though I think Boris will take seriously the views of the schools who are backing this project, the views of the next generation of Olympic athletes who desperately need new and modern facilities to compete with the best and the people in Barnet and across North London who want a real legacy which they can be proud of.
Again and again the message from Barnet is loud and clear: it most definitely should be allowed! :D
Mr Reasonable
says...
5:09pm Tue 14 Feb 12
Transport is still an issue simply because the Ptal score is zero. Reading the comments of quite a few Saracens fans they remain concerned about how they will get to Copthall. The transport plan is still not sufficiently detailed to give me confidence that it will overcome this massive lack of public transport.
3,000 matchday spectators will get soaked when it rains because their seats or standing places are not covered. It may happen at Bath but as a club they have been trying for the last 6+ years to overcome that problem with a new stadium development including covered seats.
6,500 spectators will have to use portaloos on matchdays which in this day and age seems utterly unacceptable. It may be ok at Glastonbury (though most people would tell you it is terrible) but at Copthall that just seems appalling.
As currently designed in the planning application, the North Stand will not get a safety certificate for anywhere near the 1400 capacity stated. They cannot put in a seated stand at the North end without losing so much capacity that it would bring them back below the 10,000 capacity threshold.
On 16 Saturdays a year the pool at Copthall have to be closed because of the traffic and parking restrictions. That was confirmed at the planning meeting. Given we only have three public pools in Barnet that seems like quite a loss of public amenity.
Athletics will gain an indoor facility but they will lose the outside running track completely for 90 days a year and have only 4 lanes for six months of the year.
Kentish Town FC will be homeless.
These issues have not gone away therefore you have to understand why people like me, who look in detail at what is being proposed are still worried about the Copthall scheme.
nw7resident
says...
6:56pm Tue 14 Feb 12
Please forgive the possibly over- enthusiastic defence of the plans by some fellow posters - this has been going on for a long time and sometimes it feels as though one just ends up repeating oneself ad infinitum which can be incredibly frustrating.
Let my try to answer your points. Of course I agree with you (as I am sure everyone else would) that transport remains the main concern. However I honestly believe the disruption on matchdays has been massively over-estimated and that the provision for shuttle buses and expansion of public transport, together with the plans to spread the arrivals and departures over a longer period, and well publicised limits on parking will mean it will be far less disruptive than has been envisaged.
Fans are well aware of the uncovered seating - but still support these plans. I am sure that Saracens will sell these seats at a more affordable price - and at other grounds where there is a similar situation, it breeds camaraderie and for some strange reason seems very popular! It isn't ideal of course, but I am sure most will accept it if it means having somewhere to finally call home. Watford is hardly luxury after all ...
The description of toilet facilities as 'portaloos' is to my mind rather misleading! There are portaloos and rather pucka portaloos after all - and whilst it may not be ideal - I feel certain these will be very comfortable! They most certainly won't be the kind of thing my builders put in the garden when they did our extension! Again - it is hardly a reason for refusing permission, though I agree it would be better to have more permanent toilet facilities, as in the two permanent stands. But there are rightly limits on the stadium footprint ... so compromises have to be made! On both sides!!!!
On the same subject - with any schemes like these there are bound to be compromises - for this one it will be possible - not definite -matchday closures of the pool - but if this works out, perhaps the pool will also be the beneficiary of future investment - it is starting to look as though it definitely needs money spending on it, as I am sure you would agree! But then look what we are getting in exchange!!!! I still feel the citizens of this borough get by far the best deal out of all of this!
On the athletics front, my response to your point is simple - Shaftesbury Barnet Harriers and Middlesex Harriers are vehemently in favour of this scheme, so with all due respect, I don't understand who you are actually speaking for here ... they want this to go ahead and that is what really matters.
I agree - Kentish Town FC look like they may lose the facility to play at Copthall - but I don't believe this has been set in stone, and I remember Mr Griffiths saying this was open to discussion. I can imagine that with everything else going on, it may not have been top of the agenda.
As for the North stand - again - I am pretty sure Saracens will be prepared to accept restrictions if it means the scheme goes ahead.
There seems to be a basic misconception here - which is that this is about making pots of money. Anyone who understands rugby accepts that it has never been a money making sport. Nigel Wray and Nick Leslau knew that when they first put money into the club. They may be businessmen, but they are also above all else, rugby fans. My understanding is that this is more about finally having control over the club's destiny rather than jumping to the dictates of a football club. In terms of location - many have criticised the club for having no links to North London or to Barnet. I have lived here most of my life - and I know this is not true. Thirty years ago, I went to see Saracens, then an amateur club, play around the corner from where I worked in New Southgate. Before that, they began their existence in Hampstead (the Barnet bit). I have never been a 'fan' but I have personal experience of the good work they have done through their foundation, and links with our local rugby club, where my son played. Watford never worked for the club. I only went there a couple of times with friends and would never go again. I am sure there are plenty of other local people who would embrace this - the investment, the good works and the pride it would give to our borough, to have a successful team as part of our makeup.
Never mind the fact that the stadium desperately needs investment - and in this day and age, no matter what the Copthall Community Initiative say, I cannot see anyone else paying for it - and then even more importantly -continuing to pay for it, long into the future.
As I have repeatedly said - I support this because I believe it is the best chance to secure Copthall's future - as something we can all be proud of, and all get real use out of as a community.
It really is as simple as that.
redrenault
says...
8:13am Wed 15 Feb 12
saracenman
says...
1:32pm Wed 15 Feb 12
What if the result was in your favour would you have been so magnanimous and said it was skewed?
I don't think so and the majority of right minded people would agree with me.
You have only complained because you don't like the result.
redrenault
says...
2:39pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Address the issues and get round a table ... reduce the number cars and on site parking ..more details on traffic plans for smaller events ... and signed documents that there will never be a stadium larger than 10,000 ( That should be an easy one as there is no trojan horse )
saracenman
says...
6:50pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Just Asking
says...
10:11pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Prestwick
says...
10:12am Thu 16 Feb 12
I think the fact of the matter is that Saracens have consulted across Barnet over a period of six months and put out a comprehensive strategy parts of which are legally binding (such as NO music concerts) under the terms of the planning consent.
And also putting words in peoples mouths? Really RR? I think the reality is that the poll was being rigged by the NO camp and in any case the duplicate votes were removed to reveal the actual result which came out in favour of the Copthall Revival.
No amount of sour grapes or paranoid delusions is going to change the fact that Barnet wants investment in Copthall for it to be transformed into a modern state of the art athletics and sports facility North London can be proud of.
Also, Just Asking, it has been well known for a while that KTFC will be moving to playing fields nearby. This was reported by the Guardian as far back as 2010. Also your description of Eddie Griffiths does not fit the man who lives on the Saracens fan forum and mans the pre-match gatherings at away games handing out free beer to one and all.
If KTFC want to work something out with Saracens then I'm sure a deal can be worked out but I think KTFC need to decide whether they want to stay or go.
redrenault
says...
10:48am Thu 16 Feb 12
Prestwick
says...
12:44pm Thu 16 Feb 12
Saracens are required for each event to submit a bespoke SMP (Stadium Management Plan) and transport plan tailored specifically to the event Saracens or the community group wanting to use the new Copthall stadium want to do.
At the end of the day the council have the right (quite rightly) to veto any event that it feels would not be appropriate and I for one feel it a good bit of foresight on their part to insist that NO music events take place period at Copthall. Furthermore there are restrictions on the use of PA systems at all other events so for example if they hold a horse riding and showjumping event at Copthall they wouldn't be able to use a PA system without restrictions.
All of this is repeatedly mentioned within the application.
Finally as I've pointed out already, KTFC had already made plans to move to Chase Lodge playing fields even before Saracens had chosen to apply to move there. This was confirmed in 2010 by the Guardian.
If KTFC do want to stay at Copthall then I feel Saracens will engage with them. If they're letting everyone else stay at Copthall it makes no sense not to allow KTFC to continue.
Just Asking
says...
10:11pm Thu 16 Feb 12
redrenault
says...
7:51am Fri 17 Feb 12
Prestwick
says...
10:44am Fri 17 Feb 12
As for Chase Lodge the fact remains that KTFC were looking at moving away from Copthall even before Saracens announced their move. However as we haven't heard from either KTFC or Saracens officially its all speculation I'm afraid.
And so we come back to Raving Red Renault! Still peddling those conspiracy theories, eh? You still trying to ruin it for everybody in Barnet who wants better facilities in the area? Neither you nor the CCI have bothered to reveal how exactly Copthall would be renovated and maintained if Saracens' bid was turned down. At the end of the day all the CCI want to do is leave Copthall to decay and their selfish behaviour will doom the people of Barnet to having to make do with sub standard and under funded facilities all. What a legacy to leave future generations!
At the end of the day a £20 million investment in Copthall to turn it into a world class sporting venue isn't hype, its fact. Giving the community a fantastic new facility for free, gratis, tasuta, volný, etc isn't just some marketing spiel its something that will happen from day one!
The bottom line is that a wide variety of stakeholders including UK Athletics, local schools and amateur clubs, the RFU and so on back Saracens plans to revive Copthall.
Also I notice you're not continuing with your events argument after I pointed you to the planning docs and instead moved back to your corporate monster conspiracy theories. Not got any response to the fact that Saracens would have to submit a SMP and a TMP for any event they or another community group would want to hold at Copthall? Haven't got any reply to the fact that music events are banned at Copthall and use of PA systems are restricted? No? Thought not.
At the end of the day the community of Barnet are loud and clear on this: it absolutely SHOULD be allowed! ;)
Mr Reasonable
says...
12:26pm Fri 17 Feb 12
conflict with Saracens home rugby matches". Strange that so many professional rugby clubs happily co-exist with professional football clubs such as London Irish and Reading FC, Wasps and Wycombe wanderers, Bristol and Bristol Rovers. Strangely one of the other reasons for keeping KTFC out was that they "would impact to a greater extent on the availability of
the Stadium for Community Use". surely what KTFC represent community use? Kicking them out of Copthall will mean that the community will lose all of the help, training and support they give to their junior teams ranging from under 8 year olds all the way up to under 18 year olds. That strike me as pretty devastating on the community. KTFC have now been permanently precluded from ever using Copthall because it has been included as one of the planning conditions. That is a tragedy.
redrenault
says...
12:48pm Fri 17 Feb 12
saracenman
says...
1:22pm Fri 17 Feb 12
These rants of yours at 07.51 are just rants and add nothing to the argument.
As I said before when you make some intelligent remarks they should be dealt with but rants are not worthy of being replied to.
redrenault
says...
2:35pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Prestwick
says...
4:43pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Interesting points Mr Reasonable but still strangely without any evidence to back them up. Strange that you've included quotes but haven't said who was quoted and from what source. However lets go through each point:
1. Saracens refuse to re-paint the pitch.
This is false as Saracens will repaint the pitch according to athletics markings for the summer. Also I believe it is easier to mark an artificial pitch than a natural one.
2. Schools and football teams can't play on the artificial pitch Saracens propose to use.
This is completely false. I refer you to a press release by Sport England (http://www.sporteng
land.org/media_centr
e/press_releases/agp
_agreement.aspx).
This highlights an agreement by Sport England, the FA, the RFU and other sporting bodies to jointly approve a preferred artificial surface for clubs, schools and other entities to use. Both Sport England and the UK government have issued advice to schools that it is not only okay to play on these surfaces but to encourage the installation of such products in school grounds.
This would be a full sized artificial pitch approved by multiple bodies including the UK government as being fit to do much more than have a mere "kick about" on. Thus the community value of the stadium is boosted immeasurably.
Saracens have already signed a contract with Ireland based Support in Sport group (www.supportinsport.
com) who's artificial surfaces are approved by the IRB, FA, RFU and Sport England.
3. KTFC may conflict with Saracens fixtures.
Again it is worth pointing out that KTFC were considering moving from Copthall before Saracens unveiled their plans. We also have no firm confirmation from a spokesman from either KTFC or Saracens as to what exactly is happening so again this is all speculation.
However Saracens usually almost always play on a Sunday and this is usually because of their ground share with Watford FC. Also the fact that pro football clubs don't share with pro rugby clubs isn't as strange as you may think as many football leagues require that the clubs be the primary owner of the ground at which they play and not be a tennant of another sports team football, rugby or otherwise.
4. KTFC would impact on the community use.
Again is this confirmed? If so where? A statement from KTFC or Saracens? Is it in the planning documentation? I'm very loathe to answer anything else on KTFC unless we get some bone fide proof that someone somewhere within Barnet, KTFC and/or Saracens has said this.
Mr Reasonable
says...
6:00pm Fri 17 Feb 12
I would suggest you read the planning document and the council's responses to questions asked at the meeting which are all on the council's website. Sadly Prestwick you simply don't read what I wrote but overlay it with your own assumptions. Let me deal with your points one at at time.
Point 1 Re pitch markings. I would draw your attention to the response given to question 11 on page 10 of the public questions document and provided at the planning meeting which states "The artificial pitch installed would be suitable for informal football use, such as that by schools. However, the pitch will not be laid out with markings for football and these could not easily be installed given the nature of the surface". I think that relfects what I said and contradicts what you assert.
Point 2. I am fully conversant with the specification for dual use artifical turf, IRB Regulation 22 so please do not assume I do not understand. I have recommended its installation on several projects and there are numerous examples where it works well. That is exactly why I am so upset. It is perfectly possible to play both codes on artifical turf but somewhere in the planning process this has been forbidden as is stated in the council's response and included within planning conditions.
Point 3. You appear to have gone a bit Pete Tong on this one. The council in its response says " a professional
or semi-professional football club would have matches which would be much more likely to conflict with Saracens home rugby matches." You say pro football clubs don't share but I gave a number of examples where they do share and I could give you plenty more.
Point 4 Please read the council document where it says "They (KTFC) would also have a much greater frequency than Saracens home rugby matches and would impact to a greater extent on the availability of
the Stadium for Community Use".
Prestwick, I have taken all these statements from published documents which were distributed at the planning meeting and I believe that it would help the debate if more people actually read what has been published rather than making their own often inaccurate assumptions.
Just Asking
says...
9:10pm Fri 17 Feb 12
I will say once again KTFC are and always have been unable to play their First Team, Reserves, Under 17 and Under 18s at Chase Lodge and this was never the intention no matter what you have read in the Guardian.
Chase Lodge is used by a lot of people who play football there including the youngsters of KTFC.
As has been stated it is easier to remark an artificial pitch but Saracens have said they will not do this for football. They will re mark for Athletics in the summer but then again as they wont be able to hold the javelin, shot putt events on artificial surface which is why they have been moved round the back of the stands this will be an easy job for them to do.
As Mr Reasonable stated that in the planning conditions it says "no semi professional or professional football to be played".
I am able to make all my previous and this statement because I am part of KTFC and we as a club have lived with Saracens for over 18 months now. Everything I have said in any of my posts is officially from Kentish Town FC.
Prestwick
says...
5:33pm Sat 18 Feb 12
1. I think the pitch marking issue isn't really an issue at all, in fact it is more a case of what the planning conditions say and if Barnet Council have laid a condition down stating that no semi professional or professional football to be played at Copthall then that is disappointing.
2. Firstly I'd advise you to calm down as where did I say that you didn't understand the aspects of the artificial pitch? I commend you for quoting regulations from the IRB but I don't understand why you'd get so hot under the collar about this.
At the end of the day the Sport England advice agreed by the FA, RFU, etc have been followed by Saracens which will result in a pitch that is perfectly acceptable for professional sport be it football or rugby which is why I am baffled at the strange planning conditions. However if you accept that this pitch is perfectly good to play professional sport on and this is more a case of red tape preventing football from being played on it then that is perfectly fine.
3. I'm sorry but being deliberately obtuse so you could be insulting is a very poor way of conducting a debate.
My point was that professional football clubs DO share but that they MUST be the primary tenants of any ground they play in. Saracens share with Watford FC and London Irish share with Reading because they always are and always will be the secondary tenants and thus must work around the schedule of the football club. Thus if Reading and Irish's schedules clash due to a posponed game, etc then Irish must move their game to make way for Reading.
In this case as Saracens will be the primary tenant of Copthall it would be very difficult for any professional football club to co-share. This isn't an assumption this is a real problem that has dogged any co-share between football and rugby clubs for years. The likes of Bristol, Sale and Wasps have all had problems playing second fiddle to their football cousins.
At the end of the day we've both put our points forward but it would help the debate if we dispensed with the "gone a bit Pete Tong" and "don't assume that I do not understand." We know you're not another troll like Mr Growser and Red Renault but it would be a tremendous shame if you descended to their level of gutter debating.
As for Just Asking, thanks for the clarification.
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with