The K's In Point
Newest article: Re: Kingstonian is dying
by supahoops7Yesterday 19:18Yesterday at 19:18:57
2 peopleview thread
Oldest article: Craig Edwards
by Taimour26/3/2023 09:12Sun Mar 26 09:12:56 2023 3 peopleview thread
Next thread: Fair play to Walton & Hersham by reximus11/5/2023 15:56Thu May 11 15:56:59 2023view thread
Football Web Pages
Views: 5213
Gary Ekins on FWP (and the state of Ks)
https://audioboom.com/posts/8297279-the-d-k-a-reposs-non-league-show-08-05-23-with-gary-ekins?utm_campaign=detailpage&utm_content=retweet&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Also, unmentioned by Gary, he built the current Ks website!
reply to this article | return to the front page
8 people
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 4226
Video from below, very good watch
[url][https://youtu.be/GNd-w8n2xA4/url]
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 3160
Good interview
But again athletics track mentioned lol
reply to this article | return to the front page
8 people
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 3133
What is 'lol' about it? Every alternative the board have come up with has fallen at the first hurdle. The only arguably better idea anyone else has had has been Kingston Uni, which relies on them wanting us. Even the board have now finally put tbe track on their shortlist to discuss with the Council.
Your point against it the other day appeared to be that you think it's too narrow. But given all tracks are a standard size and shape it's no narrower than any of the thousands of other athletics stadiums that host football worldwide, two of them in our own league.
reply to this article | return to the front page
7 people
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 3090
My may concern is taking corners one step I reckon and that cannot be widened as you will be on the track
Maybe I am wrong who knows
Stands and bar no issue as we would have to build that anywhere else.
Running on a pitch falling down hols etc is a concern but sure that can be sorted
Me personally don't like grounds with athletics tracks round them
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person 1 person
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 3158
There'd be as much room as to take a corner as there is at Enfield, Hornchurch, etc. If you look on Google Maps there's as much room as there is at the football ground next door.
It's fair to debate the pitch quality (no 3G), the sightlines from outside the track, that we wouldn't own the site; and whether they're compromises we can or can't accept in exchange for something that is a) in Kingston and b) deliverable.
We should have been able to have that debate a long time ago, instead too many people (and I don't mean you here) have tried to shut that debate down over the years by declaring the track to be impossible when it clearly isn't.
reply to this article | return to the front page
6 people
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 3073
I was one of thrm but with age comes wisdom, or maybe just willing to compromise
And while the stadium itself might not be ideal, and it is a big place when you have 200 people rattling around in it, it is a good compromise. It’s sustainable and it’s community use too. It’s also unlikely to face much opposition because it’s an existing one
I’d definitely back it - and also it’s closer so I could go to a home game more then once a season
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 3093
Okay fair point and noted
Suppose all we can do is wait and see
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 3058
While we dont currently have any solutions, one thing the club could look at is buying some movable seated stands. Whatever plan we use surely these could be of use in multiple ways.
1) While I think the Athletics track is going to be a much trickier solution than people think, we would certainly need something like this were we to make this work.
2) If by some miracle we do get a permanent site that's ours it's something we would also need there.
3) This could help us with a temporary groundshare at another ground that doesn't have the right ground grading but is in the borough. It's been done by others.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 2982
one thing the club could look at is buying some movable seated stands
It's certainly an idea. I assume you're offering to keep them in your garden until such time as there's somewhere to put them?
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people 2 people
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 2961
I know I've maybe jumped the gun with regards to that, but temporarily adding to a smaller ground in a better location that we could maybe move on from is more the kind of idea. Playing a couple seasons with this type of ground share must be better than Mitcham, and other teams have done this.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 2990
IMO it’s the short-termism that got us into this mess.
I can see how temporarily joining somewhere else (if that place existed) would be better for the next couple of seasons but that would further rinse any money from this ever decreasing pot for a new ground
I’m convinced we would not be at Mitcham now had we not fallen for the Lovelace lie.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 2856
The thing is, say we get a go ahead with the Athletics track, a lot of work will be required to meet the ground grading. This work would have to take place during the season so as not to disrupt the Athletics. This means we are looking at at least two seasons until we could use this option.
From the look of it we would need to build/install:
A new seated stand (temporary)
A new covered terrace (temporary)
A new club house
New changing rooms with physio room
New dugouts
A separate toilet block
Whatever alterations are required to the pitch
Relaying pitch surface/drainage.
People need to think about how to do this because it is going to cost a lot of money, and at best case two more seasons of ground sharing. And that's if they even want us.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 2906
Yes, I think we all need to be highly concerned about money and there's no way we're getting anything anywhere within two years, probably much longer.
The sad reality is that for any option the ~£1m we had in 2018 when the Casuals option fell through would have gone so much further than £650k or whatever it is we have left would go at today's prices. We're burning through the Womble money and the years wasted on Goals and Lovelace are a tragedy.
Broadly yes, that's about what the track would need except the seated stand (the current one is fine for step 2). But given the board were happy to start with just a muddy horse field, look at what it *wouldn't* need. Buying land, laying a pitch from scratch, barriers round the pitch and site, car park, access road, connecting to utilities, floodlights, press box, PA system...
That, plus the difficulty of getting planning permission for something new when nearly every bit of green space in the RBK is MOL or green belt, is why the track is so much more realistic than the pipe dreams the board and Supporters Club have come up with so far.
You've said before without 3G and/or being football specific it would be harder to get Football Foundation money which is fair enough. But the whole thing still has to be a fraction of the price of a Lovelace.
There are probably two ways you could go - either do it on the cheap ourselves (bearing in mind teams in our league have things like changing rooms and boardrooms in portacabins); or, bearing in mind the Council have publicly acknowledged the site needs improving, try to go in with them/the new school/CRE regeneration/Sport England on a wider improvement to also benefit athletics and the gym. That would get a better end product but of course add time and uncertainty.
reply to this article | return to the front page
6 people
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 3016
Given that CCFC said that K’s could no longer play at KGF where would K’s have been playing if it had not been for the Lovelace ‘lie’?
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people 1 person
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 2888
Casuals reapproached Ks to extend the deal and the Board weren't interested because mitcham was cheaper and Lovelace was blinding them.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 2959
K’s being initially told to find somewhere else to play had nothing to do with it?
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people 2 people
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 2812
No one is saying it had "nothing" to do with it.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 2943
Even if as a majority of fans we didn't accept the dream of Lovelace the directors would have still done this regardless. History tells us they don't actually care or listen to anyone or their opinions unless they are a 'yes man'.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person 1 person
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 2962
I wonder if there's going to be an end of season interview with some/all of the directors for them to give us some updates. I'm not talking about any "we've sent an email to the council, aren't we great" update either. Hopefully an update on where the Imperial Fields Hoops will be playing next season and the likely venue for the next few seasons, how they anticipate season ticket sales will be during the close season, plans to increase sponsorship revenue (not from the supporters club), what marketing has been done etc. Just the usual stuff that we always want updates on. Is there any update on from the supporters club for their site visit scheduled for this month with members of the board? Surely no other club treats its fans as poorly as this group of directors?! It is truly awful.
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people 1 person
Re: Football Web Pages
Views: 2845
Yes, isn't this 'site visit' supposed to be taking place around now?
I'm a supporters club member and have been for many years.
I've never been to an AGM and have never/not received a personal invite to anything related to potential ground developments. The SC commitee have removed themselves from commenting on this site and set up on facebook.
I simply don't do facebook. There simply must be a 'coming together' of the board, SC and KBH to underpin the future of our club. There is so much well meaning, knowledge and ultimately power in all three to propel Kingstonian football club in the right direction. I hope that an Extraordinary meeting can be called in this close season to consider this?
reply to this article | return to the front page
8 people
Previous thread: Kingston Beer Festival by LiamKs11/5/2023 20:09Thu May 11 20:09:02 2023view thread