The K's In Point
Newest article: Isthmian League - Premier Division results
by Football Web PagesYesterday 21:52Yesterday at 21:52:08
1 personview thread
Oldest article: Glastonbury by reximus18/6/2022 18:38Sat Jun 18 18:38:54 2022view thread
Next thread: Lovelace by Gary24/6/2022 13:07Fri Jun 24 13:07:49 2022view thread
Stadium Fund
Views: 23863
When is the right time to start a Stadium Fund?
About 19 years ago, when Khosla sold the lease on Kingsmeadow to AFC Wimbledon.
But given where we are now, we'll need to wait until a new ground has been positively identified and costed plans have been developed. But once that's been done, we have the outline of a fundraising campaign ready to roll.
rex
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 13862
wouldn’t the amount of funds dictate what ground we can look at?
Athletics stadium is the only feasible option but it is fun to pretend otherwise
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 12105
wouldn’t the amount of funds dictate what ground we can look at?
Kinda chicken and egg situation, Jon. The specifics of a new ground - and what additional facilities a fundraising campaign could hope to provide - will massively influence the fundraising campaign. And the success of a Stadium Fund will be massively dependent on how the fans feel about that. (I'm sure a decision to invest at the Athletics stadium could inspire a fairly successful campaign. I worry that Lovelace would not.)
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 12098
And the success of a Stadium Fund will be massively dependent on how the fans feel about that. (I'm sure a decision to invest at the Athletics stadium could inspire a fairly successful campaign. I worry that Lovelace would not.)
I don't think this needs to be too big a worry. Within reason we'd back nearly anything if the club actually managed to get planning permission and a spade in the ground. The opposition to the Lovelace strategy, when all our eggs were in that basket, is largely because that green light is so unlikely. But if against all odds we managed it, I'm sure people would contribute towards a small improvement like a roof behind one of the goals.
Of course a stadium fund would only be a very small part of the mix. There aren't many of us and those who can afford to give much are probably already doing 12th man, patrons lounge, etc. It would only be a small dent in the many millions we'd need, particularly if the ambition is still that it would be the envy of non-league.
Totally agree with Jon that some professional expertise would be a good use of some of our money. Someone to help us navigate the political process; how to maximise what grants are out there; and understand how much stuff actually costs to build. A lot of non-league clubs have successfully built new grounds, some of them must have got that sort of help along the way.
Edited by SDG (Ks) at 20:40:58 on 18th June 2022
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 12144
agree.
hard to inspire people to put cash into an abstract project, especially as money already put aside for stadium funds has been dipped into (arguably rightly so). but easier to say £xxx,xxx gets you _____ and that’s what we should aim for
each day we pretend Lovelace is an option is another day away from something tangible IMO
the only thing worth paying for at the moment is a project manager who can take this on and give us some kind of realistic options
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11951
I don't even think you need a project manager to come up with realistic options. People just need to do a bit of research.
Regarding funding, the problem the club has is that because of grants available from the football foundation, it is very difficult to support funding streams from Sport England who are the other major funding body for sports.
You can have an entire 3g pitch and basic infrastructure like goals, floodlights, dressing rooms and perimeter fencing funded in its entirety with support of a county FA, but you need somewhere to put this.
There is no way the Football Foundation or Sport England would invest in the Athletics track. And if Sport England did, it would be to either facilitate Athletics or some other major community investment like a Sports Hall or a swimming pool.
Realistically, the easiest option would be to buy and redevelop an existing ground like Chalky Lane. Our money plus Football Foundation funding could get at least some sort of ground with 3g pitch, basic facilities and whatever we can afford to develop such as some small terracing or temporary seating like they have at Colliers Wood. Also, a 3g pitch is a must, apparently they can generate income of up £200,000 per year.
Edited by Lesmundo at 23:23:15 on 18th June 2022
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11882
We can't do a Wimbledon on another club though! When thinking about existing stadiums surely it would have to be a willing partnership, along the lines of what we had with Casuals only with a club that actually wants a long term partnership instead of free investment for a few years.
Chalky Lane was muted a couple of years ago on here & it pissed off the Chessington & Hook support :(
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11872
It would have to be a partnership, but we are getting into the territory of where we need to ask ourselves some tough questions. Is keeping the 30-40 Chessington and Hook fans happy more important than our continued existence?
I'm not saying that this is what has to be done, but it would definitely be the easiest thing to do.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11867
I reckon that's how Wimbledon viewed us: It's only 250/300 K's fans. Comparatively smaller numbers here even if it is the most realistic option for K's own survival of sorts but it still would be a hard thing for me to get passed personally, I don't know if anyone else feels the same.
Maybe things will change & there will be an entity out there in the borough, if not the town, with existing facilities that we can happily co-exist with on all levels, that would be ideal.
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11879
That's understandable, and part of a debate that we need to have as a club. As is the importance of town v borough. Its been mentioned before but the board needs to maybe put out a number of options to explore with logistical and moral positives and negatives. We also need to know the costs and +/- points to being nomadic so that we can counter balance this.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11925
It *should* piss off our support too! Not only for the cuckooing point, but also the fact we'd be giving Kingston away forever, for a slow death.
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people 1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11855
Why do you think being in the town is the most important element for our continued existence? Our attendances in the last couple years at Kingsmeadow hardly set the world alight, did they?
I think a ground in the Borough would be satisfactory. What the club really needs to grow and thrive is a USP. Look at what clubs like Dulwich and Clapton have done in creating a unique environment built around support for left of centre issues. Forest Green have a wealthy owner, but look what they have done with the whole green/sustainability stance. We need to give people a reason to come and be involved because our locality has not achieved this.
When I was running the community coaching scheme and going round to schools while we were at Kingsmeadow, it was alarming how few of the people I spoke to had even heard of us.
Edited by Lesmundo at 13:35:03 on 19th June 2022
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11976
hear that
okay how can we Google how much buying another football ground is on the very edge of the borough (leaving aside those ethics and if people want to sell, and if either of those sites is sustainable for step 3 football) and how that ties in with the undoubted planning permission obstacles, and why we haven’t done this in the last decade.
I reckon it’s not as easy as you think or we’d have done it by now. but as above, it’s fun to pretend there’s any other option than the Athletics Staidum
Edited by jon tolley at 08:55:55 on 19th June 2022
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11870
I never said it was easy, just the most straight forward option to go with. If you want something sustainable this is the only way that would work.
Not only is the Athletics ground unsustainable in that we would be permanent tenants, but you are immediately cutting off in excess of £1 million of grants available to you. We would have no control, ownership, or ability to rent the facility out.
Of course it isn't easy, but the Athletics track is impossible. I run a club in Reading where we have junior football, senior futsal and are looking to expand to senior football. For this I have looked into the viability of building 3g pitches, sports halls, funding streams, pooling resources with other sports, converting commercial buildings for futsal etc. This Athletics track idea is just completely unworkable.
Also, why would getting planning permission at Chalky Lane be so much more unworkable than the Athletics track? It's an existing site and you would be able to give the community a new sporting facility it desperately needs.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11922
your experience is valid and real.
i too am experienced albeit it at different things.
the often not mentioned part for me is that (that part of) Chessington is not preferable to the town centre. being Kingston's football club is our biggest asset. But i accept I'm in a minority on this.
the reason Chalky Lane would be hard for some of the same reasons why Lovelace is. flooding and green belt. less housing NIMBY there for sure., but costs to make that place useable for something that could go to Step 2 would be a lot more than somewhere with existing infrastrucutre.
and yes, i don't doubt those grants would be harder to get, but there's other funding streams for building community assets. bear in mind the GLA granted hundreds of thousands of pounds to make Tolworth look nicer (Casuals benefit off this still) through its Good Growth fund, there's no doubt in my mind that if, at the time of the biggest regeneration program in the borough for a generation, in the 17th most deprived area of London, with a new school being built just metres from the Athletics staidum, with the current tennant of Kingsmeadow reviewing their tenancy and talk of moving away, a council owned facility would be able to receive money and permissions. to make the nearly-ready to go facility into something that can work. Nearly all the infrastrucure is in place already. we could end the nomad nature if we chose to.
It is at least worth sending an email. From everything i know (admittedly i am not a councillor for a month but was the previous 7 years) this is entirely achievable and senior cllrs have been interested, but the club doesn't seem to want to persue this route.
and some of that is because the pain of being in the inferior Kingsmeadow from the one we used to own. and some is because of the obsession with needing to own the land rather than being a tennant. some will believe that passionately. I don't and i'm quite confident there's other local football clubs where having the council as the landowner actually provides the security many think can only come from ownership (owned of course by directors who can sell on if they choose). Revenue streams may well be lower. But costs (not least cos we'd need to borrow huge amounts for a new build) would be lower too
The council has bought the lie that you can't fit a football ground inside the athletics track, fans have somehow all okay'd that it's in Kingstonian's best interests to leave the town, that Tooting is an okay for now, and Lovelace being "the envy of non-league" was bullshit.
seeya in Mitcham
Edited by jon tolley at 12:37:21 on 19th June 2022
reply to this article | return to the front page
8 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11838
a council owned facility would be able to receive money and permissions. to make the nearly-ready to go facility into something that can work.
What are you basing this assertion on, is there something you know that you have not disclosed yet?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11874
Well, Jon says ‘would be able’ which is not the same as “will”. I think we can be pretty sure that there is no such agreement in place to develop football on the Athletics Stadium . We have been told quite the contrary by the Local Authority: which is that this is not part of plans for the site. If Lovelace does not come to fruition, we will have to hope that there is mileage in one of the other options the club is pursuing.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11921
If an ex-councillor (with good knowledge of processes and good connections in the council) is saying the athletics track is deliverable, for goodness sake let's pursue it! There is nothing to loose and everything to gain.
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people 1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11944
The Kingsmeadow Athletics Track has be touted as a solution for the Club. It a great location for sure but the site has significant limitations as a site as a venue for senior football.
Most significant is that Kingston Council’s administration have made clear that the Athletics Track is not an available option for Kingstonian. The local authority appear to see future development there as being for athletics. Indeed there have been several recent enhancements of athletics facilities: all of which would make use for senior football more difficult.
There are no bar or catering facilities on the Athletics site and it is not at all clear that there is adequate space to build these.
There are currently insufficient changing room facilities.
The football pitch in the centre of the running track is too short for senior football. It has been suggested by a couple of fans that the hammer and javelin circles be moved to enable the pitch to be expanded but does not seem at all a practical; particularly in the light of recent enhancement of the facilities.
We could not have 3 G pitch at the Athletics Track site as javelins, discus and shots would be thrown on to this during these field events. There would therefore be no added value through facilitating greater availability of football facilities.
There would not be scope for our under 18s or other youth teams teams to be accommodated there.
As has been explained, the fact that football is not the prime focus of the venue, means that the Club would be very unlikely to be able access grants such as those available from the Football Foundation.
All of this means that the Athletics track is not a realistic option: no matter how much some would like it to be.
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people 5 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11232
The fund is the responsibility of the limited company not the supporters ,it's their greed that has brought the club to this point and by the time they have finished apart from no ground. There will be no money left from the million blood money A F C have supposedly given.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people 2 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 13689
Whose greed?
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11802
It's important that we look at all potential options properly. Jon has covered the issues around the politics and the funding in a lot of detail here, but just on some of these practicialities:
It has been suggested by a couple of fans that the hammer and javelin circles be moved to enable the pitch to be expanded but does not seem at all a practical
Why? We're talking about building a stadium from scratch where there's no infrastructure whatsoever and probably a large funding gap. But it's not at all practical to move a throwing cage back a few metres?
There are no bar or catering facilities on the Athletics site and it is not at all clear that there is adequate space to build these. There are currently insufficient changing room facilities.
The site is huge, there's loads of space, particuarly outside turn 1. There are teams in our division who literally have portakabins for their changing rooms (Margate) or board room (Cor-Cas). You could fit a dozen burger vans in at least. These aren't serious barriers.
Indeed there have been several recent enhancements of athletics facilities: all of which would make use for senior football more difficult.
Which enhancements are these? The main one I know of is adding a practice throwing cage in the field at the back, this is probably helpful for football if fewer hammers etc are being thrown on the pitch. Have recent changes created a problem for football?
The other big misconception about the track is that we couldn't have our own clubhouse to profit from. Hornchurch have a clubhouse in a Council-run track, which they hire out. I assume they pay a ground rent and then run it themselves. Although I'd wonder how much anyone actually profits from these facilities, particularly in the current climate with costs soaring.
Not having 3G is of course a genuine drawback and ideally we'd have something that could accommodate more teams than just the senior men's first team. But (assuming from Yioryos' recent comments and the lack of positive news from the Council) that Lovelace isn't going to happen, beggars can hardly be choosers. It's at least something worthy of proper discussion as to whether it's a compromise we're willing to take, or if dreaming of the perfect will continue to be the enemy of the good.
Edited by SDG (Ks) at 18:05:12 on 19th June 2022
Edited by SDG (Ks) at 18:05:22 on 19th June 2022
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11767
The enhancements to throwing areas include allowing the whole area for an improved run up for javelin throwing is covered in the orange asphalt style surfacing. It would have to be dug up to move things around if indeed this is possible .
Ks fans are understandably reticent about doing an AFC on neighbouring football clubs. Why then is it reasonable to assume we can move in on the Athletics and Wellness Centre and that we can have it re-arranged to suit ourselves ?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11768
As the person who made the comment about 'doing a Wimbledon' (& not for the first time) I don't think the Athletics Track theory could be considered a true 'doing a Wimbledon'.
Moving into someone else's gaff is about the only similarity & only a small part of what I personally consider to be 'doing a Wimbledon'. Maybe it's Wimbledon-lite but we won't be in direct competition with another entity in the same sport, starving the smaller entity of future support, the better youth prospects locally etc. There would not even be any competition in marketing.
Where with AFCW/K's this was all the case, a K's/Athletics combo could theoretically provide each other party with more support not less because there will be more K's fans interested in Athletics then there is K's fans interesred in watching AFCW & presumably the reverse would also be true. We won't be poaching future Javalin olympians & turning them into Kingstonian youth footballers either. Plus when all is said & done we wouldn't be planning to move elsewhere in a decade or so & sell the site to any questionable people either (questionable as in Chelsea, not as in woman's football).
I don't think the morality issue here is as problematic as it would be to mooch in on another football club in the Borough who's supporters (hands down most important aspect of any football club) might not want us anywhere near their patch. Or i would say even as problematic as building somewhere in Chessington where all but one local resident is by all accounts not exactly enthralled with the idea of development & a football team on their doorsteps.
But I do appreciate football & morality are not exactly the most important duo to the majority in this modern era of Qatar world cups & such.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11804
The track's usage has been discussed numerous times on here before. The club trains Tuesday and Thursday evenings and weekend mornings. So we have Monday or Wednesday as our midweek. Competitions are almost entirely outside the football season - there's actually a list on the website of when it's booked, almost entirely May to July. It's a non-issue and not remotely worthy of comparison to 'doing an AFC'.
I'm not sure I entirely follow what's new about the javelin, there have always been properly surfaced run-ups at both ends of the stadium. If we needed to cut a few metres to extend the pitch, it's easy. Just add more to the start of the run-up outside the track. Look at Hornchurch for an example of this.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11808
Why would they want this though?
We would have to do a lot of work on that site and there would not be enough benefit to athletics for them to let us rip up areas of the facility during their season to ensure we can use it. The amount of money needed would be huge to move the throwing areas, rebuild the changing rooms, meet the ground grading and that's if the playing area is big enough (which at a larger venue near me, it isnt).
So, we would be left needing grants, and nobody would give us money for this. The only chance of using that site would be if it was completely levelled and rebuilt in a huge community infrastructure project.
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people 1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11840
"Kingston Council’s administration have made clear that the Athletics Track is not an available option for Kingstonian"
But have they? when did they? who did? and why?
Also: deprecating Kingsmeadow II was a more forceful position when other options had yet to be tried and exhausted. Now perhaps we return to where started - a council owned sports facility in/very near the town, to which K's are in a position to contribute significant investment in return for stability of tenure.
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people 1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11813
The “Depreciating Commitments” are real issues that would need to be addressed and in my view taken together make the Athletics Track option non-viable.
If you or others wish to express a view about the merits of using the Athletics Track to the Club, then why not actually write to the club making a considered case?
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11803
I've been an administration councillor for 6 of the last 7 years, including being in a cabinet position. your assessment is not my understanding of the situation. The most recent reason, at the most recent committee that talked about it, for the Athletics Stadium not being an option is because a football pitch couldn't fit inside an athletics track. when I spoke to the lead officer about it, he said there'd been no conversations about Kingstonian and Athletics stadium. that was also backed up by the leader, and two former leaders. Conversations I've had since and before seemed positive, but all caveated by me not being a representative of the football club.
happy to do an FOI on it.
even if your assumption was true, we've recently had a senior Cllr tell us Lovelace was a goer despite having never seen the plot of land being talked about, and not having spoken to any local councillors on the issue. so clearly things CAN change.
all the other hurdles are no worse than at any other green belt field being talked about. I mean, there's not adequate changing facilities, perhaps, but elsewhere there's not even a building or running water.
I'm just here demanding harder, if you wanna ignore the funding we can get from GLA just cos it doesn't have the word "football" on the bank account that does the transfer, that seems mighty backward. I presume the disparaging comments on this, and elsewhere, are just yours and don't reflect the supporters club.
don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11804
Hi Jon
The comments are simply mine. The Supporters Club has not debated the specific merits of the Athletics Track or any other options being considered .
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11777
When is the right time for the supporters club to discuss it, do you think ?
I saw the supporters club recently congratulate Walton Casuals for winding up with no debts. I hope that’s a very long way from its wishes for K’s
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11924
Just out of interest, do the club have any other outside investment? As the Lovelace option would surely require more money than FF funding and our ringfenced money alone.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11913
I’m afraid I don’t have that detail
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11814
Here's an idea,why don't those putting forward the athletics ground get together approach the board and say,look we will research the feasibility of the athletics option and present our findings to you?
Ksuals
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11720
because we can’t speak for the club. the club said it was impossible to have a football ground inside the athletics track.
it has to be a representative from the club. not least cos the benefit of Kingstonian is the £850k that would be spent on improvements which could be mutually beneficial. but while being blinded by the lights of an alternative ground in the borough that would be the envy of non-league, it just hasn’t been pursued.
but informally (and formally as a councillor) I’ve had those conversations and it would certainly be looked at.
it’s a mindset problem. not a pragmatics problem
Edited by jon tolley at 13:28:23 on 20th June 2022
Edited by jon tolley at 13:29:23 on 20th June 2022
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11725
Yes and no Jon.
As I said those who think it's a possible option to have the athletics as Ks home approach the board and say these are reasons why it should be considered,we'll try and research where and if similar has worked,where funding streams might be sourced.
The board might well reply in a similar vein to you. But at least they would taking action not just posting on the forum.
Apologies to any who have done this, as a group or individuals.
Ksuals
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11757
That conversation has certainly been had
But others may want to do the same
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11719
Thanks Jon,it seems as the option of the athletics stadium continues to be touted some will not let it go.
I can see the appeal as probably there is nothing else as near to the town centre.
Shame it is a non starter.
Ksuals
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11361
Has this been started yet?
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11164
I'm sure it's been mentioned before but have we thought about starting a new association from the fans purely for raising funds for a new stadium should the worst come to fruition? I know it may be too little too late but yknow should we just stand and watch instead?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11134
It's an interesting idea. In theory, I could set up a bank account and start accepting donations tomorrow.
But I think any sort of fund would be better controlled by a proper 'organisation' of some sort. I wouldn't donate to it otherwise and I couldn't ask other people to.
At a minimum, it could be managed by the Supporters' Club. (Is the SC a registered charity?) I can see why some supporters might not want it "controlled by the Board" but, equally, many potential donors might see that as the sort of minimum guarantee they'd require.
More than that, tho - I think we need to identify a stadium first. Then work out what it's gonna cost. Then see what differences or improvements or additionalities could be financed by a Stadium Fund. Then decide how donors would be thanked and rewarded.
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11119
Is it time for the supporters trust to be resurrected? That might help with a stadium fund.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11169
I used to give a monthly amount and eventually got it refunded ( in less Lucky times Jon).
12th Man and this - hmmmm
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11134
Maybe a company something similar to the Chelsea pitch owners?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Stadium Fund
Views: 11194
My issue with that is there is still shareholders but I believe they are limited so no one can gain a majority.
C.I.C are limited by guarantee so no overall person owns it so to speak. Kind of half way between a charity and limited company
reply to this article | return to the front page
Previous thread: Saturday's match v Beaconsfield Town by www.kingstonian.com15/7/2022 12:00Fri Jul 15 12:00:58 2022view thread