Now being reported by the Beeb. Interesting that it specifically mentions Little Heath, the site of the old academy before moving to Chadwell Heath.
It seems the plan is for us to rent some land from the local authority and sell off Little heath for housing....where have we heard this story before? This doesn't look like Sully is gearing up to leave - this is classic Sully in selling off club land to developers again let's see if the land changes hands on the day of sale again....
Does anyone know what Little Heath is used for at the moment?
Now being reported by the Beeb. Interesting that it specifically mentions Little Heath, the site of the old academy before moving to Chadwell Heath.
It seems the plan is for us to rent some land from the local authority and sell off Little heath for housing....where have we heard this story before? This doesn't look like Sully is gearing up to leave - this is classic Sully in selling off club land to developers again let's see if the land changes hands on the day of sale again....
Does anyone know what Little Heath is used for at the moment?
Little Heath is still used for academy matches and for younger players training.
Just my thoughts. From reading stuff, and seeing the size of the site, I suspect that this isn't for the first team. Before we go screaming and shouting at the board for something they have not done yet, see how it pans out? If it's just a replacement for Little Heath, then the local team probably don't need to be booted out.
It's a headline grabber though, isn't it? Big bad PL team coming along and it's all about money.
I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen with the current occupants, because for all of the clubs faults, they still do a lot for the community and that reputation would be shattered if we shat all over grass-roots.
If I'm wrong and this comes back to bite me in the arse, then so be it.
-DL- wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 8:58 am
I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen with the current occupants, because for all of the clubs faults, they still do a lot for the community and that reputation would be shattered if we shat all over grass-roots.
If so then its possibly only on a minimum scale.
If it was anything substantial then the club would be stating it now surely, as it would help them secure the site, plus would be great PR.
-DL- wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 9:49 am
I don't think in the world of commercial sensitivity, that it would be the best idea for the club to play all of their cards now.
This has only just come out, let's just wait and see what the intentions are.
From what I can tell, the only obstacle stopping us from getting this site is the uproar being caused by those local community clubs. Surely the club could deal with this obstacle now by stating that "the plan would be to in some way incorporate those clubs into our plans".
But we've said nothing. I think a cold hard business strategy is at play here.
-DL- wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 12:25 pm
Has anyone actually read the report?
It seems this other club, has no legal basis in being there in the first place.
I mentioned this yesterday DL. Belonians are basically squatting and have been since 2020 when they moved in to the site and then spent £100,000 refurbishing the Jack carter pavilion
West Ham legend Sir Trevor Brooking has said that he is “really pleased” that houses will not be built on Oakfield Playing Fields.
Redbridge Council had wanted to build 850 homes on the 21 football pitches and nine cricket squares in Fencepiece Road, Barkingside.
“More than anything it’s the council people not understanding the needs of the area.
“They flit in and out of an area, and you want more houses and whatever but you can’t have more houses when people haven’t got anything to do, and you need physical activity.
“I think the way it happens with playing fields these days, they try to ring fence little areas to take little pockets of a bigger playing field away in order to justify building on it but when we’re talking about health and trying to encourage everyone to be fitter and all that.”
Supporting a campaign to stop people building 850 houses on playing pitches
Then we want to buy the playing pitches for our training ground
And then we sell off some the old training ground to build 1300 houses
A popular grassroots football club based at Oakfield Playing Fields may have to find a new home to make space for a West Ham training ground.
More than 30 youth and adult teams are associated with Bealonians Football Club, which has leased part of the council-owned fields since 2004.
The club’s lease to occupy the Barkingside pitches is running out after negotiations to occupy the pitches on a long-term basis reached a dead-end eighteen months ago.
According to campaign group Save Oakfield Society (SoS), Redbridge Council is in negotiations that could see part of the field used as West Ham’s training grounds.
Neither Redbridge nor West Ham have denied that they are in negotiations, with the football club only responding that the matter is “confidential”.
Chris Nutt, secretary of SoS, said other clubs using the fields, including cricket clubs and the Parkonians football and cricket clubs, are now struggling to obtain funding because they do not have a lease beyond 2024.
He added: “You’ve got this club of umpteen members providing excellent sports facilities – at no cost to the council at all.
“You need a ten year lease to get grants and loans from sports bodies and national bodies.
“We’ve been within a few strokes of a pen to agreeing to a long-term lease until 2050 for the past eighteen months. What is happening?"
The playing fields, which are on green belt land, survived a battle with Redbridge Council in 2017, after it was earmarked for a 850-home development.
SoS say they successfully appealed to the planning inspector to have the site removed from the local plan due to its important role as a sporting facility for the community.
At the full council meeting on January 20, SoS member Tom Barton and Conservative deputy leader Howard Berlin, who plays cricket on the grounds, both asked Redbridge’s leadership whether the grounds could be preserved for future generations by giving them Fields in Trust status.
Labour deputy leader Kam Rai promised the grounds will continue to be used as for “leisure and sporting facilities” but said Fields in Trust status would add “bureaucracy”.
Negotiations over new leases for the clubs are “commercially sensitive,” he added.
When pressed, Jas Athwal said fears over losing Oakfield were “conspiracy theories”.
Last edited by officeboy on Thu Oct 12, 2023 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-DL- wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 12:25 pm
Has anyone actually read the report?
It seems this other club, has no legal basis in being there in the first place.
No legal basis, but they have been there since 2004, and since 2020, at the councils request, have acted as caretakers and custodians albeit without a lease.
It's not a small club it's has 600 members runs 10 adult teams, 8 on a Saturday, including boys, youth and women's they run 29 teams, plus its home a number of cricket clubs
Amongst those 600 members are a large no. of West Ham supporters
Big George wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 2:09 pm
Bealonians is club of community value, they have built a fantastic club, Redbridge are stripping that out. West Ham are on the wrong side of this.
West Ham will always be on the wrong side of whatever they do for the most part. This forum over the years is littered with posts of complaint, how we piss money away, we make poor commercial decisions - and when - to me at least - on the face of it, the club are seeking to improve facilities for our academy, bring some money in for the sale of existing and, it's a 'yeah, but...' even though it' appears to be a good deal.
Land in London especially, is hard to come by, and we've grabbed an opportunity.
Now, there will always be a loser in this, and it's indicative of this societies NIMBYism, like when everyone moans about a housing shortage, yet when there are going to be houses built near them, they try and stop it. People want stuff done, but not if it affects them. This is no different.
paulhs1 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 2:53 pm
I think you might have this wrong mate. The council are building 1300 properties next to Little heath was the story I think.
The land at that training ground would be an addition to the 1300 being built next door I think
Oh I see, sorry - but still the overall effect of the new plan is pretty much the same as if houses were built 6 years ago
The community football pitches are getting lost and some houses are getting built - the only difference is that West Ham swap location
old fart wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 2:59 pm
What's nimbyism got to do with it? Bealonians we're about to sign a fresh long term lease which was pulled, when another interest beckoned.
I should however confess to being an Old Bealonian so may be biased
Yet according to the council report, contrary to what the fella from the club has said, they've never leased it - yet the article says they have leased it. So which one is it?
If that local rag is anything like Kent/Medway Messenger, then that may explain it, but from what I take from that article, is that they have been ready to sign a lease - but the lease was put out to tender - which I believe is fairly normal in these circumstances, and I suspect, legally required as it's council land.
I genuinely cannot see the club not allowing the piches to be used for community purposes, including Bealonians - it wouldn't be in their interests not to.
old fart wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 1:59 pm
No legal basis, but they have been there since 2004, and since 2020, at the councils request, have acted as caretakers and custodians albeit without a lease.
According to that report linked, the council had no idea they were in control of the property at all. In their proposal, they have no concrete plans for paying the lease other than hoping they can get some grants
let's see if the land changes hands on the day of sale again....
