Newest article: Re: Those were the days ...... by ArthurToday 08:09Today at 08:09:15view thread
Oldest article: ''ships in the night ''
by Andrew6726/2/2014 10:25Wed Feb 26 10:25:34 2014
3 peopleview thread
Next thread: First game of a new era at Wheatsheaf Park by allen b24/10/2023 16:46Tue Oct 24 16:46:12 2023view thread
Tonight’s council meeting
Views: 1490
Just watched the last 45 mins of tonight’s council meeting on the Spelthorne borough You Tube page to debate the removal of the covenant (section 106) proposed by the Thames club in their aim to remove Staines Town Football club from the deeds. It was quite a hard watch with around 15 councillors in attendance who had very limited knowledge in anything football related, so from what I can make out was to get a show of hands for the proposal to be recommended or refused. They needed to know if Staines Town FC still actually existed in some capacity and incredibly no one could find anything concrete to prove that we did still exist albeit under a different name. The only link to Staines Town FC they could find was Steve Parsons who was not in attendance at that point and it was therefore recommended that he be contacted to shed some light on this issue. A show of hands was given at the end with 5 in favour, 6 against and 3 abstaining. I believe the majority didn’t want to see the end of a Staines football club in the Town after such a long history. The chair then advised that the Thames club can now make a formal application to get section 106 removed.
All in all a hard watch with a large majority of councillors not fully understanding the situation and a lot of grey areas. Would appear everything is still up in the air. From what I can gather because of what’s written in the deeds it appears that Staines Town Football Club will need to prove its existence and the name of Staines (and Lammas) may go some way to proving that perhaps by reverting back to Staines Town football club (if that is actually possible)
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Tonight’s council meeting
Views: 1413
I was at the meeting, along with a number of others. Steve Parsons did us proud. Essentially the meeting means that section 106 is still currently in place. This again means the agreement between the Thames Club and Brentford "brass the rules." No agreement should have been reached without the permission of Staines Town Football Club. I think, legally, Brentford have acted in good faith. I think that The Thames Club are in breach of the conditions. I am only a supporter, but the question is that should we monetise our asset left us by Alan Boon with the 106 agreement. Should we be receiving money from the Thames Club to help us in our return to Wheatsheaf Park.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Tonight’s council meeti
Views: 1251
Many thanks Steve for your hard work and for representing the club st the recent planning meeting
If Spelthorne wish to have a club representing the town now is the time for them to vote accordingly.
SadlySTFc has been on borrowed time since the Freehold was thrown in to complete the rebuilding of the ground 20 years ago.The concept was great but the financial model was totally flawed.
This I guess this was quickly acknowledged by Alan who used his own assets to support the club.We cannot live in the past and must support the endeavours of those working so hard to build a new future for two long established clubs representing Staines
Edited by Norm at 22:46:39 on 23rd September 2023
Edited by Norm at 22:49:14 on 23rd September 2023
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Tonight’s council meeti
Views: 1241
Joe Dixon was the cruelest, most evil man in football for what he did to Staines Town football club but it now appears that the Thames Club/Downing LLP are in fact not too far behind. When Alan Boon sold the freehold back in 2001 we were told that the Thames club would be working in partnership with STFC, paying for ground maintenance, providing reduced membership for club members and even a percentage of income directly to the football club based on how many members the health club has. This of course was not honoured and Alan Boon again to an extent held the club up from his own pocket and eventually it was clear that the arrangement was totally flawed.
Brentford FC are now discovering this themselves after again (like ourselves) being totally misinformed and are only now finding out the complexities of the situation. Whoever is making the decisions within Downing LLP/The Thames Club, only one thing is on the agenda and that is PROFIT. They went back on their word about letting us renew the lease when Brentford made an enquiry (with bundles of cash to help tidy things up to their liking) perhaps it should be the Thames club keeping their premises looking smart instead of an outside entity! They didn’t even take into consideration that the historical covenant may cause an issue so now everyone has been completely messed around and misinformed!
Now it’s the time for Spelthorne council to step in and clean this mess up once and for all. The money grabbers need to be put in their place and solid rules put in place so to avoid this total farce ever happening again
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Tonight’s council meeti
Views: 1288
I understand the Thames Club is a fairly good gym, as gym's go. However, financially it has been a disaster from the outset and has hardly ever turned in a profit.. It has continually required incresed funding. Its main asset is the freehold of Wheatsheaf Park. For a time it was envisaged selling the freehold for residential or commercial development. Commercial development would be a "red rag" to local residents and not feasible. Residential development is not acceptable because of the already overloaded Victorian sewerage system. An opportunity seems to have arisen in the shape of Brentford. The removal of the section 106 clause, insisted on by Alan Boon, would leave a path open to sell the freehold to Brentford.
The independent council officials who are supposed to advise councillors clearly wanted the repeal of 106 to go through. They argued that Staines Town Football Club and the Limited company are one and the same. They are not. The limited Company was formed in 2008, well after the agreement. The alternative council view was that the football club no longer exist. This is ironic as, I am told, there was a meeting between the football club and the council one week before the planning meeting. At the end of the meeting officers informed the Thames Club they could appeal the decision to the Minister. This is worrying as the council is in dispute with the Minister with regards to planning for new homes in the Borough.
the football club wantt to play football at their spiritual home. They are caught up in local politics and corporate greed. Some people cannot accept that in business you can make bad deals which cost you money.
Hey ho, Happy days. I was in the paper shop the other day. A lady said to me "Are those thick lens glasses you are wearing?" "No" I said, they're mine!"
reply to this article | return to the front page
Previous thread: Staines Town AFC (Phoenix Club) by GrahamBee31/7/2023 21:47Mon Jul 31 21:47:29 2023view thread