New ground

[Kit]

Currently being unable to attend games due to a most annoying hip problem that we "wrinklies'" do have to contend with occasionally,I read the web page as a daily duty, I am finding the accusations made in regard to the intended ground projects and gate figures as out of order, the suggestion of the Grange tie up was hilarious !!.

It is doubtful if any amatuar club in the land has a Committee as professional as we are fortunate to have, and may I suggest work far in excess of 48 hrs weekly in some cases, if you do not like what you get at the club look elsewhere for your footie fix , a simple solution !!.

Why ‘hilarious’ Frank? Do you not think it’s worth exploring all potential opportunities? There seems to be a bit of a ‘well that won’t happen so we won’t bother’ attitude. Surely every single piece of land should be explored and discounted. I do have a bit inside knowledge of The Grange which is why I suggested it.
If you read the history of my posts, I am full of admiration and respect for the board. There’s nothing wrong with aspiration and ambition though. However, I will be making no more suggestions or offering any help.

 

[Frank Fallows]

I also have a good contact at the Grange and can enlighten you that ALL the land they have purchased over the years is scehuled for future projects, further we could not possibly come anywhere near the current value of which would come in the range of housing projects cost !.

 

[Alan M]

It’s a shame we felt there wasn’t time to get this sorted, however we could have started negotiations with Witton before the Vase run and maybe achieved a better deal. I wrote to the board long before then but I was told we had a deal to honour at Winsford which was why we weren’t approaching Witton - I found this frustrating. I believe we could have met the rent through increased crowds and other revenue streams. It was clear we were stagnating at Winsford in terms of gate numbers (kind of proven this season) and we handed the initiative to Vics on a plate - although I know they wouldn’t be able to pay the rent in their own like we would have to. They are now a club with momentum - it’ll all come crashing down again but at the moment they have the profile and we are invisible.
I really hope you are right and caution will win out in the long run and I do think the Barnton move is a good one. I just wish we had capitalised on publicity we had achieved through the Vase run. We had raised our profile in the town and I think we blew it a bit. It certainly hasn’t helped having a poor season - again we seemed to lack ambition in bringing players in but then maybe we didn’t have the budget too.
I urge the club to promote itself over the summer - we are ‘back in Northwich’ let’s get out there and tell people.

Kit, you will recall we had the discussions on here at the time about relocating to WA, and you will recall there were deep divisions on that idea too. But ultimately, what you seem to be saying here is that it would have been ok for us to renege on our agreement with Winsford (even though we had criticised Barnton's previous tenants for doing exactly this at Townfield) to move to WA and that we should have possibly gone down the route of buying success on the field (again, something we have criticised in others and which we are seeing locally at the moment).

On the former, I believe even tentative negotiations showed that a move would not have been financially sustainable (there are attendance expectations build into the budget, and these need to be realistic rather than just hopeful, and we are already raising huge amounts for a club our size from other revenue streams). On the latter, wanting players to come to us and actually securing their services are two different things - even at this level, players see success and raise their demands (Greg Hall as an example), and again an overriding factor for this club is financial sustainability. In addition, such 'mercenary' players often do not fit in with the club ethos.

I would counsel against measuring ourselves against the standards of club management (on the widest level) witnessed elsewhere in the area. The simple fact is that when we formed we were fortunate in bringing with us those people with the brains, brawn, aspiration, acumen and commitment to make a success of the club behind the scenes. Elsewhere, the momentum is paper thin and has little by way of solid, long-term foundations, and the ethos remains at best opaque. As you rightly observe, it will all come crashing down sooner or later. I do not want to emulate them, or see them held up as a model to aspire to.

 

[Frank Fallows]

Well said and to the point, Alan, agree with you once again, must be the age factor !!

 

[Kit]

I also have a good contact at the Grange and can enlighten you that ALL the land they have purchased over the years is scehuled for future projects, further we could not possibly come anywhere near the current value of which would come in the range of housing projects cost !.

Frank, this is FINE, as I said in an earlier post, it is surely better to ask the question and get politely knocked back rather than making assumptions that it is a no go. One knock back might open another door somewhere else. The condescending nature Of some of the posts on here are unnecessary.

 

[Kit]

Kit, you will recall we had the discussions on here at the time about relocating to WA, and you will recall there were deep divisions on that idea too. But ultimately, what you seem to be saying here is that it would have been ok for us to renege on our agreement with Winsford (even though we had criticised Barnton's previous tenants for doing exactly this at Townfield) to move to WA and that we should have possibly gone down the route of buying success on the field (again, something we have criticised in others and which we are seeing locally at the moment).

On the former, I believe even tentative negotiations showed that a move would not have been financially sustainable (there are attendance expectations build into the budget, and these need to be realistic rather than just hopeful, and we are already raising huge amounts for a club our size from other revenue streams). On the latter, wanting players to come to us and actually securing their services are two different things - even at this level, players see success and raise their demands (Greg Hall as an example), and again an overriding factor for this club is financial sustainability. In addition, such 'mercenary' players often do not fit in with the club ethos.

I would counsel against measuring ourselves against the standards of club management (on the widest level) witnessed elsewhere in the area. The simple fact is that when we formed we were fortunate in bringing with us those people with the brains, brawn, aspiration, acumen and commitment to make a success of the club behind the scenes. Elsewhere, the momentum is paper thin and has little by way of solid, long-term foundations, and the ethos remains at best opaque. As you rightly observe, it will all come crashing down sooner or later. I do not want to emulate them, or see them held up as a model to aspire to.

I agree with many of your points in this eloquent post, Alan.

 

[Andy]

With a good publicity push over the summer about the move to Barnton along with the great improvements made at Townfield in recent years, I don’t see any reason the club can’t step up a gear next year, and be at the 300 mark on a regular basis

 

[Kit]

With a good publicity push over the summer about the move to Barnton along with the great improvements made at Townfield in recent years, I don’t see any reason the club can’t step up a gear next year, and be at the 300 mark on a regular basis

£1 entrance fee for the first game at home? I’d be happy to make up some of the short fall in income in others would, if it gets a few extra bodies through the gate and benefits the club.

 

[Frank Fallows]

£1 entrance fee for the first game at home? I’d be happy to make up some of the short fall in income in others would, if it gets a few extra bodies through the gate and benefits the club.

So would I.

 

[Stanm17]

With a good publicity push over the summer about the move to Barnton along with the great improvements made at Townfield in recent years, I don’t see any reason the club can’t step up a gear next year, and be at the 300 mark on a regular basis

Performances on the pitch need to be a priority in hand with this though as so many times we have held "bring a friend" days or "non league" days where we have seen bumper crowds and the performances have been absolutely woeful - this doesn't encourage new fans to return

 

[Dave James]

I think in all fairness that the bring a friend days and non league days where this happened were all pretty much under the previous manager and not whilst Paul and Wayne have been in charge.

 

[Tony Fallows]

There is interesting reading on the Witton forum and an admission that they cannot survive without the rent from NVFC and they own their ground. Personally I would be delighted to play at Knights Grange irrespective of the postcode.

 

[Alan Riding]

Having listened to Stuart from Cheshire FA on Radio Northwich on Tuesday morning it seems they are talking to two other clubs.

Winsford issued a statement last night and I assume Vics are the other one.

He stated that he wanted as many teams as possible to use the stadium but would have to be mindful of the upkeep of the pitch.

Are we to share with not only Everton Ladies but with one of the others also? Time will tell I suppose.

The Interview is still on replay on the Radio Northwich website.

 

[Chubbs]

Having listened to Stuart from Cheshire FA on Radio Northwich on Tuesday morning it seems they are talking to two other clubs.

Winsford issued a statement last night and I assume Vics are the other one.

He stated that he wanted as many teams as possible to use the stadium but would have to be mindful of the upkeep of the pitch.

Are we to share with not only Everton Ladies but with one of the others also? Time will tell I suppose.

The Interview is still on replay on the Radio Northwich website.

All I can say on this is that I hope and trust that CFA do their due diligence as professionally as they did with us, on any other propective club (I'm sure they will!)

 

[Nicki]

Slowly catching up with this thread. Have I read it correctly that one or two people have got a little hot under the collar because 74 are keeping their options open with regards to playing at what will be the premier ground in Mid-Cheshire and one that all local rival clubs including that which they’ve scuttled off to support will be bending over backwards to play at? Or have I got it wrong?

 

[Nicki]

I don’t think 74 should worry about who will or won’t play at KG. We’ve just got to worry about what’s right for us in the short-, mid- and long-term. I can’t think that the announcement by CFA did anything to detrimentally affect our development on any of those timescales. Short-term - no impact. Mid-term - what an opportunity. Long-term - well it gives us security whilst we sort that out. Something we don’t have now.

 

[toddyb]

And all that from a fan of a club who can't afford to finance their own ground.

 

[Tez]

I think you have got it wrong Nikki - as I think will 1874 if they go to KG. And before anyone says so - yes I know its got sweet FA to do with me - or any other non 1874 fan!

That said there are some positives but some major negatives.

You would be playing on a training complex in the middle of nowhere with no local transport services for those who don't drive
Its not yours. Its Sunday League plus plus (i,e as per Norway plus with Brexit). You pay, no say
You are just tenants like everyone else there - aka Rudheath leisure centre - there's no difference
Your not the reason the complex will be built. You won't have a say in how its developed, even though you contribute towards costs. Your part of the funding model, not the strategic design
It will never be a proper football ground with an atmosphere to compare with (say) the Drill Field
You don't matter, other than to provide income for Cheshire FA, your just a customer, For example its like thinking you own the swimming baths when you go for a dip in the pool - but you don't. Its not your home. Its just a place to be for an hour or so on a day when the weather's uncomfortable
Your just a nuisance value to Cheshire FA to be managed. You have no seat at the top table.
And above all. its not in Northwich

Feel free to cast yourselves into oblivion, but I thought you guys were better than that.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Knutsfordian. Personally i’m happy to put my faith in the 1874 Board, who am sure have considered most, if not all the points you put forward. I’d also add, the decision, any decision is not set in stone and still won’t stillbe set in stone if we do indeed move in and then at a later date elsewhere, should any other option present itself (obviously hypothetically speaking).

Of course there are two other clubs reportedly (according to the CFA) also interested in the KG proposal. I think we could both take an educated guess who one of them might be? Perhaps you should focus your advice on them, after all they seem to be a key factor in WAFC’s current business plan?

 

[Nicki]

Knutsfordian... go and have a Snickers. You seem a little tetchy these days.

 

[Alan M]

Knutsfordian: Replace Cheshire FA with WAFC in your post, change 'training complex' to 'ground', and you might recognise the parallels. Indeed, the same applies essentially to any club who don't have their own ground.