Barnet FC morale hit by conflict with council (From Times Series)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news & views by texting TIMES NEWS to 80360, or email us
Barnet FC says morale hit by stadium conflict with Barnet Council after Saracens Copthall plans
2:27pm Tuesday 6th September 2011 in Top Stories By Jack Royston
Tony Kleanthous said Barnet FC's morale has been hit by the long running battle for a bigger stadium.
THE whole of Barnet FC’s morale has been hit thanks to years of conflict with the council and its “love affair” with Saracens, the chairman claims.
Tony Kleanthous said the club’s current Underhill ground is too small and there is no space on the site to enlarge it, meaning a move is essential for its future.
He told the Times-Series he battled with Barnet Council for years to find a solution to the problem only to learn they had given the Copthall stadium site to Saracens for free.
He said he does not want to bring 120 years of local community history to an end but has permission for a stadium at the Hive, in Canons Park, Harrow, and admitted “I’m getting too old and tired to play this game”.
He said: “I think it affects the morale of the whole club. It permeates right through the whole club. We work from portacabins. We’ve got no permanent buildings.
“The ground is okay but it’s not ideal. We’ve got to move forward.
“If they want us gone and Saracens in then fine – say so publically. But don’t pretend you are trying to help when you are making my life a misery and opening your arms to Saracens.
“Watching this lot together is like a love affair. I don’t have an issue with Saracens trying to do the best for themselves – I don’t have a problem with that.
“But if they want to have this love affair then everyone should know what’s going on.”
His comments follow the submission of a new planning application by Saracens which if approved would see £18m pumped into reviving the Copthall site.
The rugby club claims to have the backing of the majority “If the people of Barnet want their council to do these things and behave in this way then fine but let them know where their council tax is going.
“I don’t think the people of Barnet voted for the council to kick out the football club and bring in a rugby club.
“People in the London Borough of Barnet love the things we do in the community, they love our club and they love the fact that Barnet FC represents them with so much pride.”
Councillor Richard Cornelius, leader of the council, replied to a furious statement posted on the club’s website with a single word comment: “Rubbish.”
Comments(15)
Don't Call Me Dave
says...
6:28pm Tue 6 Sep 11
MichaelH
says...
6:56am Wed 7 Sep 11
Would he care to tell readers how much the PricewaterhouseCoope
rs investigation into the Underhill Freehold sale (which HE was responsible for instigating) actually cost the taxpayers of Barnet? The seven-figure sum is in addition to a similar amount wasted by Barnet Council on unsuccessful court cases against BFC to reverse the freehold sale.
And for what? Has the PwC inquiry resulted in any improvement in the way in which Barnet Council draws up contracts, manages projects or uses delegated powers? Recent scandals, such as MetPro, £27million lost in Iceland, Aerodrome Road, and Brian Coleman's sneaky attempt to introduce cashless parking whilst people were on their summer holidays suggest not, with the possibly of even bigger and far more costlier errors in the contracts being drawn up for outsourcing and fleecing off vast swathes of services en masse under OneBarnet/EasyCounci
l/whatever ridiculous title this crazy project has this week.
Look at the way in which Barnet Council treated Hendon FC. They asked the Land Registry to lift restrictive covenants on Claremont Road and then sold the land off for housing. At a stroke, Hendon FC were made homeless and driven out of the borough. A similar fate would probably have awaited BFC, without the ownership of the freehold.
Everything Barnet's Tories have done since 2002 regarding Barnet FC has shown that they do not want Barnet FC to have a viable long-term future at Underhill, or at any other site in the borough. Even modest proposals for a new stand and other facilities at Underhill 4 years ago (improvements required to comply with Football League membership rules) were initially rejected by Barnet Council and had to be scaled back.
Yes, Underhill can be sold next year without Barnet Council getting a penny of the proceeds; however, this clause comes into play if the club has to relocate outside the borough. Do I want BFC to leave Barnet? No, but nothing I have seen over the last 9 years from Barnet Council suggests that they want BFC to stay in the borough. Perhaps Tory hostility towards BFC was intended to drive the club out sooner; any move before next year would mean the council would get a 60% cut of the profits of any sale of Underhill. Maybe the fact that the council has failed to bully BFC out of Barnet before April 2012 is the real source of DCMD's ire.
If Don't Call Me Dave is so concerned about football clubs being subsidised by taxpayers, perhaps he should contact his own team, Arsenal, and ask the billionaires and oligarchs in charge there to stump up the money they promised as part of the s.106 agreements for public transport improvements when their new stadium at Ashburton Grove was built, but have failed to pay.
barnetpete
says...
10:53am Wed 7 Sep 11
BarryFry
says...
3:54pm Wed 7 Sep 11
Never trust politicians who come to your house and accuse Barnet FC of wrongdoing when they have never even taken an interest in Barnet FC or its supporters. They are too busy watching FlyEmirates FC or going back home to watch LEEDS!!!
Mr Winderuupp
says...
7:30pm Wed 7 Sep 11
barnetpete
says...
7:43pm Wed 7 Sep 11
Lets look at Facts, Mr Kleanthous has spent millions over the past 15 years on improving Underhill to meet at least the minimum standards required by the league. The Ground is in a far better condition than it was even 5 years ago let alone 15, yet due to being surrounded by houses on 3 sides cannot expand to offer the relative modern amenaties required at a modern sports arena and to provide off pitch revenue on non match days to generate income needed to keep a sports team functioning and growing.
in addition, Mr Kleanthous has personally written off at least £2m of his own money to the club and has a number of Millions of pounds of loans to the club/or under personal guarantee.
The discussion point here should be the hypocritcal actions of the council, which is what Mr Kleanthous has tried to highlight in his anouncement. The council has tried to bring Saracens into the borough (which I am not against) but whilst forgetting its current professional sports team, breakng planning rules in the process.
barnetpete
says...
8:14pm Wed 7 Sep 11
120 year history in the Borough, employment for local people, a leisure facility for local people, and a Community Trust Charity linked to the Club that is doing excellent work across the Borough, including work on our estates that has proven to lower Anti Social Behaviour.
Yet within the last year, the Council are happy to give the most ideal site for BFC to relocate (Copthall) to Saracens, and, from what I understand, break planning laws to help the planning application for Wingate & Finchley/Hadley Youth to take over the Old Stationers site on Barnet Lane (a site BFC have openly expressed interest in to develop and use for community use).
After 20 years of trying to find a site for BFC to relocate and plan a long term future, with the necessary modern facilities of a Football Stadium within the borough it must surely be time for the Chairman and the Club to say this is enough, we are not wanted, this and explore the serious consideration of expanding the Training site in Harrow, where the Local Council appear to want a League Football Club.
The Chairman has shown, having explored dozens of options and drawn up planning documents on a number of sites within the borough to develop a ground, training facilities & community hubs (often in derelict, run down council owed sites that they had/have little plans on improving/using), that the Club want to stay in Barnet or at least the borough, yet unlike other councils up and down the land they have failed to assist and look to accommodate the club on any serious level.
Don't Call me Dave, as MichaelH has said above you were involved in calling for the PwC investigation that cost the council (the taxpayer) over £1m to find out the football club did nothing wrong in taking over the Lease on Underhill, will you be again asking the council to waste taxpayers money to investigate how come Saracens got Copthall without making sure it got the most value for one of its sites, as I understand is the requirement.
I am all for Saracens moving to the borough, the positive impact of well run sports teams, for offering Leisure, employment and the positive impact they can have in community from their community projects is brilliant, but that shouldn't overshadow the fact the Council has failed to look after the current Professional sports team it already has.
chris stevens
says...
9:35pm Wed 7 Sep 11
If as you say Tony has "spent millions over the past 15 years" of his own money on BFC and "written off at least £2m of his own money" (btw, do you mean he has given his own personal money? Because 'written-off' usually means a non-cash Balance Sheet company book-keeping entry), in other words if Tony has given millions of personal hard cash then I take my hat off to him. I was not aware of that.
I am sceptical. Maybe he made inter-company loans and company guarantees rather than personal guarantees? I must take a look at the notes to the accounts again.
Last time I looked Underhill was "surrounded" by housing on one side out of four. And there is plenty of scope for ground improvements, better stands, seating etc to make it an attractive venue to bring in bigger gates.
Where have all Tony's "millions of personal cash" gone? The pitch is still wonky, the gates are still in free-fall.
Underhill is not an attractive place for a day out for young people. The average fan is aged 60+.
This is not a good business model, it is a one-way street to failure.
Someone's head should roll - and the change should begin at the top.
TerryCheaton
says...
10:48pm Wed 7 Sep 11
You need to check up on some of your facts.
Have a look on Google Earth, it is very clear that there are houses right next to the ground on three sides and it is obvious there is no room for any real expansion.
The gates are hardly in free-fall, they have been very poor for years now and that is precisely why we need a new ground.
The average fan is not aged as you claim the very precise figure of "60+", I can assure you that it is younger than that. I can't supply you with an official statistic regarding the average age but unlike you I'm not going to pluck some random number out of the air in an attempt to try and validate an invalid point.
As for Underhill being an unattractive place for young people, I am aged 17 and my friends and I turn up to every home game and I couldn't really care less about what the ground is like because I am a real football fan and prefer to support my local team rather than complain about it.
Don't Call Me Dave
says...
2:03am Thu 8 Sep 11
You never let facts get in the way of a good rant! It is true that I made a complaint to PwC (along with 2 other members of the public) but they did not take any action until a formal request for an investigation was received from the council itself (I have a copy of that letter signed by the then leader). It is a matter of public record that I opposed the legal case brought against BFC Holdings because it was doomed to failure. I even provided the council with a solicitor’s opinion that it would not succeed, but that opinion was ignored. The council brought a case which simply could not be won (a fact which the Borough Solicitor must have been aware of, but if he had brought the case which could have been won, it would have exposed his incompetence in the transaction).
You are wrong about the claw back provision only coming into effect if BFC relocate outside of the Borough. That was one of the main problems with the contract. From April 2012, BFC can relocate to anywhere inside or outside of Barnet (or even close down) and the council will not get a bean. That is why the people responsible for drawing up and approving the sale contract should have been surcharged and kicked out of the council. Instead, they all got promoted.
As for the matter of lessons learnt, I agree with you on this point. The council is contemptuous of the public. Always has been, and probably always will be. They resent their shortcomings being exposed by ordinary electors.
BarryFry. What are you talking about? I’m not a politician. It would be nice if just occasionally people who try to slag me off could get their facts right.
barnetpete
says...
7:39am Thu 8 Sep 11
In addition he has confirmed that he has, from personal wealth, lent the Club money, and also put up personal assets/wealth as guarantee against loans. Again if I can find the articles I will post links.
As Terry Cheaton says the Club is not full of 60+ people, as a claimed 'fan' you were obviously not there to witness the Kids for £1 last Saturday that was well attended, or seen that the south stand is taken up with young families and kids at every home game.
The Clubs charity arm the Barnet Community Trust, do excellent work in the schools and on the estates of this borough and we see regularly kids in attendance from these projects who have been given free tickets to attend.
The point I am trying to make is that Underhill is full of families and kids, as well as the older long suffering fans, wouldn't it be a shame if this is lost because Barnet Council wouldn't work with the Club?
Dont Call me Dave - I agree with something you say!!!! "The council is contemptuous of the public. Always has been, and probably always will be"
Nickyisgod
says...
11:20am Thu 8 Sep 11
I have a season ticket in the family stand along with my 3 kids. We sit with and meet other like minded families at every home game.
The kids for a quid promotion last week was a great success in that local kids turned up and participated.
Having said all that - are you suggesting that the council should ignore any groups with "elderly" membership? Strange thing to say...
chris stevens
says...
1:19pm Thu 8 Sep 11
It's madness to blame the Council for Barnet's bad management, that is pure party politics.
I wish Tony (and others) would stop whinging about the Council and get on with the job of running BFC professionally.
It's like the Captain of the Titanic blaming the iceberg which he hit for the catastrophic accident - if Captain Tony steered BFC around (or worked with) the Council instead of antagonising them by public spats we'd all be better off.
Btw, an income generation policy of £1 for kids seats will not keep BFC afloat, the club income needs a bigger boost than £1 seats.
If you make the ground more attractive, attract better players and play better football and get better results, then our attendance and income will go up. Whinging at the Council is peeing in the wind.
I stand in the East, North and North West terraces, and sometimes sit in the Main Stand, and at 59 and a half I am one of the youngest fans anywhere (except for the £1 kids seats at the South end or a few families in the Community Stand).
@TerryCheaton, you should get out more and look at Underhill with your own eyes instead of Google Earth. The South side is bordered by open space, the East side by car parking and a depot, the South West side by the cricket ground. Only the North terrace and the North West terrace has restrictions from close housing adjoining. Moving the ground a few metres to the south would solve this problem. In other words, the club has more than enough space where it is to re-develop and modernise on its current footprint without demolishing any housing.
Tony says he has planning permission for a new ground at The Hive, well I've been to The Hive (and I've looked at Google Earth too!) and the space he has permission for which is between the new building complex and the Jubilee Line is tiny, certainly a smaller potential footprint than Underhill.
There is no reason (other than Tony and his personal anti-Council agenda and his reluctance to invest in a proper new facility at Underhill) why the present site could not be modernised to create a better club and a better community facility with the full support of the Council.
COYB!
dawat6295
says...
8:38pm Fri 9 Sep 11
I have to admit that I an disturbed by the open hostility thta exists between the Council and football club. I appreciate that the Council has no obligation to look after Barnet FC, but it does has an obligation to be fair and honest. As an outsider in this dipsute,over the years I have become increasingly aware of the depths to which the Council will sink to undermine and obstruct the football club. The Council appear to have lost sight of the club's fans , who are their constituants and lost their intergrity in attempts to win a hollow victory at any cost.
I have communicated with councillors and received responses which I know to be disingenuous just to fob me off.
Whatever the relationship has degenarated to between the Council and Barnet FC, the abuse of trust and power has a habit of coming back to haunt people as many MP's have found to their cost. Pehaps this should be borne in mind before Councillors become too arrogant.
Mr Winderuupp says...
4:31pm Tue 6 Sep 11