The K's In Point

Return to front page

Newest article: Re: Usual slapdash Lazyness by SeniorToday 14:06Today at 14:06:43view thread

Oldest article: Have a good Christmas by Perth WA Ks24/12/2020 03:02Thu Dec 24 03:02:18 2020view thread

MenuSearch

Next thread: Player of the Season by Taimour8/5 14:10Sun May 8 14:10:26 2022view thread

The "new ground" debate

By reximus1/3 15:26Tue Mar 1 15:26:46 2022

Views: 1310

About 4 months ago, Mark Anderson gave a pretty decent update on the Club's search for a new ground. It was reasonably detailed, quite optimistic and (to me at least) quite unexpected. From memory - and a few tiny details gleaned since - it seems the Directors are talking to RBK about the possibility of acquiring from a school some land in the Borough that is being (or has been?) used for sport and has a clubhouse of some sort already on site.

Not green belt land; no need for change of use. Football to take primacy on the site; community involvement and usage hard-baked in to the plans.

Now, it may be that other sites have great merit - or greater appeal to specific supporters. (Personally, I've always thought that Goals (next door to the University Sports Ground) would be a good option.) But ultimately the choice rests with the Directors - and their capacity for exploring all the options is obviously limited.

Can I suggest that supporters with a strong interest in this might want to get together to explore some of the options. Perhaps a steer from the Directors could be given to outline the possibility frontiers? Perhaps the Supporters Club could help to coordinate the efforts and feed back to the Board? Perhaps a shortlist of options could eventually be put to the wider supporter base for discussion? Whatever...

Because I doubt that opinions expressed on here (however well meaning) will be answered by the Directors, in detail, in time. And I think John Bangs has kindly and patiently done as much as he can do in the meanwhile to address the comments being made.

rex

reply to this article | return to the front page

4 people like this 4 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By K's19604/5 11:47Wed May 4 11:47:46 2022In response to The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 491

It will be nice to hear 'Come on You K's' echoing from the terraces of a home in the RBK once again, preferably in the town itself.

reply to this article | return to the front page

4 people like this 4 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By ollie4/5 11:17Wed May 4 11:17:53 2022In response to The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 523

Football to take primacy on the site

So although this *may* be true (often rumored, but I'm not sure I've seen absolute confirmation / would be surprised given how many clubs *do* share), there is nothing in the Premier League Stadium Fund guide that suggests you're ineligible for funding if you share with any other sport.

/premierleaguestadiumfund.co.uk/

reply to this article | return to the front page

4 people like this 4 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Suom Ynona3/3 10:17Thu Mar 3 10:17:10 2022In response to The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 802

Maybe a discussion with the borough to try to end Russian ownership of a stadium...

reply to this article | return to the front page

6 people like this 6 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Iang3/3 19:04Thu Mar 3 19:04:22 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 696

going back to a 5k all seater stadium - nah

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people   3 people dislike this 3 people

Re: The "new ground" debate

By jon tolley3/3 19:46Thu Mar 3 19:46:13 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 675

of course Kingsmeadow is not all seater, but I understand that’s not the substantive point

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Iang3/3 20:32Thu Mar 3 20:32:07 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 646

Thought that when I was typing, still the pea rattles round the same can.

I still recall 270 of us in there

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people   1 person dislikes this 1 person

Re: The "new ground" debate

By John Bangs3/3 13:28Thu Mar 3 13:28:50 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 749

Well, it seems Kingsmeadow may well be sold as Chelsea now appears to be up for sale. There is no reason to think this likely, but if Kingsmeadow were sold separately , it would be for far more than we can afford. Let’s stick to real world options.

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people   5 people dislike this 5 people

Re: The "new ground" debate

By jon tolley3/3 15:13Thu Mar 3 15:13:52 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 700

give us a real world option, John.
then we can stick to it.

reply to this article | return to the front page

5 people like this 5 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Suom Ynona3/3 13:31Thu Mar 3 13:31:16 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 721

Maybe if the council was able to somehow revoke the lease we might stand a chance?

reply to this article | return to the front page

   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Olde School Ks (OldSchoolKs)3/3 13:41Thu Mar 3 13:41:15 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 689

Why would they revoke the lease ?
There would have to be a very good reason with legal people watching carefully but if the lease for any reason would be resigned we would need plenty plenty money.

reply to this article | return to the front page

   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By John Bangs3/3 13:41Thu Mar 3 13:41:05 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 694

The Council simply does not have the power to do so.

reply to this article | return to the front page

   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Olde School Ks (OldSchoolKs)3/3 14:42Thu Mar 3 14:42:47 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 661

Thats right JB because of coarse its a legally binding contract.
I guess talk of returning to Kingsmeadow will not go away although it will never happen.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By reximus3/3 14:47Thu Mar 3 14:47:35 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 698

Ukraine’s parliament just has approved a bill to allow the seizure of assets or property in Ukraine owned by Russia or Russian citizens due to the invasion of Ukraine.

Just sayin...

rex

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By ollie3/3 15:16Thu Mar 3 15:16:16 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 689

Now, now Rex, real world options only please on this forum. Real world like the envy of non-league football on GLA green belt land that has no infrastructure, all for a sum of money that's <8% higher than the average house price in Kingston.

Kingston is our biggest asset.

reply to this article | return to the front page

8 people like this 8 people   1 person dislikes this 1 person

Re: The "new ground" debate

By reximus3/3 15:39Thu Mar 3 15:39:13 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 679

I'm not generally known for defending things but

AFAIK, the plan is to acquire some land and building(s) in the Borough, previously used for sport, belonging to a school. That suggests some infrastructure already exists and no 'change of use' planning needed. The current owner/tenant (the school) and the leaseholder of the land (RBK) are both keen apparently to proceed. We have between £850k and £1m in cash, and access to substantial grant income.

That all sounds more "real world" than anything we've dared to dream since Khosla screwed us over.

It's frustrating that there's been no update recently - but perhaps not surprising.

rex

reply to this article | return to the front page

4 people like this 4 people   1 person dislikes this 1 person

Re: The "new ground" debate

By K's19603/3 16:44Thu Mar 3 16:44:00 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 655

I'm getting to old for surprises Rex. I just hope this sordid affaire is coming to an end and K's can progress. The future is looking bright

reply to this article | return to the front page

   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By jon tolley3/3 16:41Thu Mar 3 16:41:10 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 647

I left this council administration (and probably my political career) because of this council’s promises of completely undeliverable projects.

wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if this is another of those

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person   1 person dislikes this 1 person

Re: The "new ground" debate

By ollie3/3 15:53Thu Mar 3 15:53:03 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 665

I believe your last line is key. I'm going off a combination of open source research available and what we've been told and have come to a different conclusion to your assessment re: location. If you go back through previous comms you'll have talk of *near* a school, not belonging to, by my reckoning. But if there is a school option too, then great - the more the merrier (as opposed to exhausting a single option over a period of months/years and then having to start again - too familiar so far). Let's hope it's in Kingston.

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people   1 person dislikes this 1 person

Re: The "new ground" debate

By reximus3/3 16:19Thu Mar 3 16:19:05 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 662

I think we've been told to expect it's in the Borough of Kingston, rather than the town.

rex

reply to this article | return to the front page

3 people like this 3 people   1 person dislikes this 1 person

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Olde School Ks (OldSchoolKs)3/3 10:44Thu Mar 3 10:44:40 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 711

Quite right Russian ownership is very difficult at this time so many have to think very carefully about where their dependent money or ownership comes from.
May well be some shocking stats revealed.

reply to this article | return to the front page

   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By John Bangs1/3 17:02Tue Mar 1 17:02:20 2022In response to The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 950

As far as I know the Club’s Directors are focused on current discussions with Kingston Council. If these succeed then Kingstonian have a clear way forward but as has been pointed we may need a plan B and maybe plan C

It would certainly be helpful if fans who want to advocate for a particular location could collate their comments and present these in a coherent form. We can’t expect the Directors to trawl through loads of posts to try and figure out what is being proposed.

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people   1 person dislikes this 1 person

Re: The "new ground" debate

By jon tolley1/3 17:36Tue Mar 1 17:36:51 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 916

agree to an extent, but without detail it’s impossible for us to know what the options are, and then how to advocate for one or another

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By John Bangs1/3 17:48Tue Mar 1 17:48:21 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 914

I’m talking about when fans themselves are making suggestions not debating options suggested by the Club. For example, your good self and others are advocating further consideration of the Athletics Centre as a place for a ground. My point is that if people want this or other suggestions considered, it might help to collate their comments and include any background information or evidence. These could then be presented to the Directors for consideration.

reply to this article | return to the front page

5 people like this 5 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Senior (BE)2/3 08:36Wed Mar 2 08:36:27 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 797

I feel sorry for the Directors having obviously splashed out the cash for the club to get promoted and bringing in class players.The manager has obviously upset some players who have now gone and left the supporters with a team of ex Merstham players from yesteryear. Yes we need a new ground and the school site looks ideal but when do we progress to saying it is ours?

reply to this article | return to the front page

5 people like this 5 people   1 person dislikes this 1 person

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Iang2/3 08:50Wed Mar 2 08:50:50 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 770

Hi Senior, I'm not in the know I'm afraid, school site?

Ian

reply to this article | return to the front page

   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Senior (BE)2/3 09:46Wed Mar 2 09:46:00 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 810

RBK school with excess playing fields any ideas where in the Borough?

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Iang2/3 10:52Wed Mar 2 10:52:23 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 810

My kids old school in chessington would fit the bill - one site hasnt been used as a school for years near chessington OAK

reply to this article | return to the front page

5 people like this 5 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Iang2/3 10:50Wed Mar 2 10:50:50 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 777

ideal!

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Senior (BE)6/5 11:39Fri May 6 11:39:59 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 393

Meadowbank at Dorking cost nearly 6 million with Mole Valley council funding 5million of the cost. What would RBK donate? Sod all they are not a sport related council but like to do projects like bike lanes and then not oversee the work which has still not finished!

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Kingting (Ksuals)7/5 11:45Sat May 7 11:45:03 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 329

Maybe as there is a top flight women's team and another non league club at a good level they feel the borough is adequately served?

Ksuals

reply to this article | return to the front page

   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Suom Ynona7/5 12:07Sat May 7 12:07:44 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 320

K's & Chessington & Hook are the only two borough teams. Then there's two cuckoo's playing in the wrong Borough and a team that doesn't represent the borough and only stands for ideals that it no longer adheres to (you pay your players if you're reading here).

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Kingting (Ksuals)7/5 13:23Sat May 7 13:23:15 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 299

Your opinion might be right,but perhaps not shared by the council?
If memory serves me right there were ideas to develop alarger stadium nearer Berrylands if AFCW would commit to the borough.
How long does a club have to play in the borough to be considered local?

Ksuals

reply to this article | return to the front page

   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By jon tolley7/5 15:17Sat May 7 15:17:22 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 300

while I'm officially not a councillor from Monday onwards, I think this will still be the case.

Kingstonian is barely on the council's radar. What there is a need to is provision, but who has that provision is really not something I see the council having any kind of interest in. it remains the strategic direction of travel to have a 3G pitch in the borough. who owns it, I really dont think the council could (or should) care about.

The Berrylands site won't work. not just cos Thames Water don't want to sell, but the infrastructure changes won't be possible. Probably more possible than at Lovelace, but that's a tangent.

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Kingting (Ksuals)7/5 15:37Sat May 7 15:37:50 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 316

Wasn't it a possibility a few years back but as AFCW were intent on Merton and Ks too small a club for the council to make it work it never got off the ground?

Ksuals

reply to this article | return to the front page

   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By SDG (SDG (Ks))6/5 12:13Fri May 6 12:13:45 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 398

They might well say no anyway but one of the surprising things from the Mark interviews is that we aren't actually asking the Council to invest with us, in fact he's specifically said we aren't asking for money.

We have £750k, plus we can be reasonably confident there'd be £150k from the Football Foundation. This leaves us way short of the millions required to develop a new ground from scratch, what other grants are we expecting to get? If it's all about community benefit you'd think the Council would be the first people we'd approach but we explicitly aren't.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Lesmundo6/5 15:40Fri May 6 15:40:09 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 395

Why would football foundation be limited to £150K? Most new local 3gs have been funded pretty much entirely by the football foundation. They usually ask two clubs to chip in £5-10k for preferential usage. I know this project would be a bit different, but it would be a surprise to see a funding cap like this when the area is so short of facilities and there are apparently other grassroots clubs potentially involved.

reply to this article | return to the front page

3 people like this 3 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By SDG (SDG (Ks))6/5 16:35Fri May 6 16:35:50 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 402

£150k is the step 3 limit for the Premier League Stadium Fund, to build all the stuff you need to meet a ground grading. It's great if there's additional funding streams on top of that for the pitch and things like changing rooms that are needed for community football, that obviously goes some way to helping. But given our history I worry a lot about the financial side and it would be good to have some proper reassurance about how this project will be funded.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Lesmundo7/5 23:50Sat May 7 23:50:50 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 289

The football foundation would fund at least the cost of the pitch and floodlights, and maybe the perimeter fencing as well. If Berks and Bucks FA are willing to do this then I can't see why Surrey FA wouldn't.

If we put in our £750K, along with community clubs putting in thier bit, we could achieve something with that. The issue would be how they meet seeting/covered terrace allocation and what other funding streams could be accessed. Partnering with archery may well be a good strategic move here, as it is an Olympic Sport also lacking facilities making Sport England more likely to invest in a provision for that, like a club house or changing facilities.

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By John Bangs7/5 10:23Sat May 7 10:23:01 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 368

There are a variety of Football Foundation funding streams and the £150k for ground grading is for just that. That is to say where an existing ground is upgraded.

As “Lesmundo’ has explained, the limit of £150k simply does not apply and is not relevant to projects of this nature.

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people   

Re: The "new ground" debate

By Suom Ynona6/5 17:17Fri May 6 17:17:37 2022In response to Re: The "new ground" debateTop of thread

Views: 426

I worry about this as well. Maybe some of the other parties needing the facility are also contributing towards funding (except for the council)?

reply to this article | return to the front page

   

Previous thread: Grier's Guide to Dorking Wanderers by www.kingstonian.com7/5 17:56Sat May 7 17:56:16 2022view thread