Barrow Afc

[joe142]

I see their owner Mr Casson has stepped down and Paul Hornby has replaced him with immediate effect. I hope this can further increase our relations with the football and explore the possibility of a ground share because, like it or not its the only way forward for both clubs. 

[Penno]

Not something that I would want to see the rugby playing second fiddle to the football, my understanding is that where a football club shares a ground with a club of another sport that the football club MUST have priority over fixtures.

Each to their own I guess but not for me.

[TMF]

If you go back a few months Penno you'll see I started a thread on this very subject. In my view it is becoming even more inevitable unless the soccer can find  new sugar daddy. But I don't understand your statement about the rugby playing second fiddle, or about the football MUST have priority? Can you prove this? Does Wigan AFC have priority over Wigan RFC? I don't know, maybe. If you're right then it's not for us. I think this subject will crop up more in the future. Till then, COYR.

[Bearman]

I understand it depends on the level they are playing at. Certainly in the football league teams have to have first choice over shared grounds. Wigan soccer have that over Wigan RLFC. The Pies are definitely the lesser partner.

Coventry United a midland lesgue team play at Cov RFC and do not have first dibs over the fixtures 

[TMF]

Thanks Bearman, I didn't know that and find it very surprising as it leaves lot's of questions. I'll give you one. If Barrow AFC won promotion to the Football League, then it would leave them as our 'masters' as it were? I'm still not convinced on this point. I mean, Barrow RFC own the stadium do they not?

[TMF]

Further to my above post, I have searched the internet about clubs ground sharing. I know, get a life but this is important. I have found no reference over any club, from any code, having preference over anybody else. The only concerns are over fixture clashes and the state of pitches after one team, usually rugby, has played a game just before the football are due to play. No club has priority over another. That's why it's called SHARING. Top Football clubs share with Rugby clubs, both codes, no problem, so lets forget the scaremongering.

[red square]

The F.A. will not alter fixtures because another sport plays on the same ground. They play home and away at 3 pm on alternate Saturdays unless television rights intervene. They will not back down on this - even with local amateur clubs the changing of  fixtures is problematic.

Hence rugby league will always play second fiddle. No doubt this what causes some of the problems with the RFL unable to sort out a reasonable home/away fixture list.

[Raider94]

It can't be that hard. Theres plenty of rugby league clubs that share a ground with football and manage it easy enough and i doubt tv games would be a problem at BAFC. Workington have plans for a new shared stadium and given where we as a club want to be its definitely something we should be looking at, I'd imagine the football would aswell. 

[Shipbuilder]

I think The Pies play in Cherry and White but they play at a ground that's mostly blue and white.

 

[scrumhalf]

how much did he sell afc for

[TMF]

2 hours ago, red square said:

The F.A. will not alter fixtures because another sport plays on the same ground. They play home and away at 3 pm on alternate Saturdays unless television rights intervene. They will not back down on this - even with local amateur clubs the changing of  fixtures is problematic.

Hence rugby league will always play second fiddle. No doubt this what causes some of the problems with the RFL unable to sort out a reasonable home/away fixture list.

No red square, RL will NOT always play second fiddle. Please stop worrying people. You keep missing the point of the word SHARE. Both clubs have boards of sensible, experienced people. They will take into account anything the FA says and plan accordingly. It's simple. I reiterate, top clubs have shared grounds with both codes of rugby for years without a problem. Yes, accommodation's will have to be made, and that will be up to the experienced and sensible people but the pros far out way the cons for clubs in our position. As for sorting out a reasonable home/away fixture list by the RFL, that has nothing to do with ground sharing, more their incompetence. We have had years of it, sometimes going 2 months without a home fixture without ground sharing.

[joe142]

36 minutes ago, scrumhalf said:

how much did he sell afc for

No idea it just says Hornby has taken over as chairman and that Casson has stepped down as "owner" 

[scrumhalf]

something smells fishy

[TMF]

2 minutes ago, scrumhalf said:

something smells fishy

This is Raiders site. Why are you bothered unless you think it could impact on the rugby?

[scrumhalf]

this is a raiders site why are you bothered unless you think it could impact on the rugby

[Penno]

17 hours ago, TMF said:

If you go back a few months Penno you'll see I started a thread on this very subject. In my view it is becoming even more inevitable unless the soccer can find  new sugar daddy. But I don't understand your statement about the rugby playing second fiddle, or about the football MUST have priority? Can you prove this? Does Wigan AFC have priority over Wigan RFC? I don't know, maybe. If you're right then it's not for us. I think this subject will crop up more in the future. Till then, COYR.

2.3.1 A Club’s Ground may be shared with another Club or any other club (including a club
engaged in another sport) providing, where sharing with a football club the Club or club
playing in the most senior competition has priority of fixtures at all times and, where
sharing with a club engaged in another sport, the Club has priority of fixtures [unless agreed
otherwise by the Competition at its sole discretion, applicable only to that Competition,
and valid only for one season at a time but open to annual renewal]. A Club will not be
permitted to ground share to gain promotion or to avoid relegation. Ground sharing may
not be permitted when one of the sharers retains the use of another ground unless that
club can show by means of a refused planning permission or similar that it cannot meet the
requirements of the Criteria Document at that ground. Any Club wishing to share a Ground
or intending to move to a new Ground must obtain the written consent of the Board. Any
Ground sharing for a period exceeding thirteen (13) weeks must be in writing and a written
agreement must first be approved by the Board before being entered into and (except in an
emergency) must be completed by 31 March in any year to be effective for the following
Playing Season. A copy of the completed signed and dated agreement must be received by
the Competition within fourteen days of the approval being sent to the Club.

Happy to be wrong, but this states that where two football clubs share a ground that the higher league has priority and where sharing with another sport the football club must have priority............ unless I read it wrong.

 

Regards Penno

[Penno]

Moving away from who has the most say in the ground, how much would a new ground cost and do the clubs have that sort of money to buy and suitable site and build a stadium?

How much capital would each club be left with if they sold their current grounds after paying any debts they owe on their current pitches?

Genuine questions as I haven't got a clue.

[dhuggybear]

22 hours ago, Penno said:

Not something that I would want to see the rugby playing second fiddle to the football, my understanding is that where a football club shares a ground with a club of another sport that the football club MUST have priority over fixtures.

Each to their own I guess but not for me.

Let them have priority they can play on the Saturday we will play Sunday. On same thread what would be the preferred ground Holker or Craven for development and future, or a new ground/location?

[Penno]

My preferred option would be for Barrow Rugby to still play at Craven Park, have full control of its own ground and keep the bar & food receipts.

[TMF]

6 hours ago, Penno said:

2.3.1 A Club’s Ground may be shared with another Club or any other club (including a club
engaged in another sport) providing, where sharing with a football club the Club or club
playing in the most senior competition has priority of fixtures at all times and, where
sharing with a club engaged in another sport, the Club has priority of fixtures [unless agreed
otherwise by the Competition at its sole discretion, applicable only to that Competition,
and valid only for one season at a time but open to annual renewal]. A Club will not be
permitted to ground share to gain promotion or to avoid relegation. Ground sharing may
not be permitted when one of the sharers retains the use of another ground unless that
club can show by means of a refused planning permission or similar that it cannot meet the
requirements of the Criteria Document at that ground. Any Club wishing to share a Ground
or intending to move to a new Ground must obtain the written consent of the Board. Any
Ground sharing for a period exceeding thirteen (13) weeks must be in writing and a written
agreement must first be approved by the Board before being entered into and (except in an
emergency) must be completed by 31 March in any year to be effective for the following
Playing Season. A copy of the completed signed and dated agreement must be received by
the Competition within fourteen days of the approval being sent to the Club.

Happy to be wrong, but this states that where two football clubs share a ground that the higher league has priority and where sharing with another sport the football club must have priority............ unless I read it wrong.

 

Regards Penno

Wow, thanks Penno, a lot of work gone into that and I appreciate it but again, open to much interpretation. Lets go back to options. Mine would be for the soccer to sell the ground and assets and agree to 50% of the sum into developing Craven Park with help from the rugby. I understand grants are available for improvements to stadia but I may be wrong. The Grandstand could be extended, a modern roof to cover the Duke St. end. The Hindpool end tidied up even maybe with seating and the popular side modernised. I'm sure others would have their own ideas. The clubs to share changing of the pitch for both codes and of course, both clubs to keep all receipts for their own games. One thing though, no segregation of fans for RL. That's what makes our sport special. I really think pooling resources for a modern stadium in a small town is the only way forward for both codes to give great facilities for both sets of hardy fans.

As for priority, I'm sure two boards of sensible people can easily work that one out.

[NWDuk]

There's no incentive for either club to ground share. The rugby currently have a ground which is perfectly adequate for the championship. We own it. That's a big deal. We keep all the gate money as well as money across the bar. Recent events have shown that it can be marketed for other uses too.

Two options with a ground share. 1) Both teams move to a purpose built new ground. 2) One club becomes a tenant of the other.

Option 1 is bad news for both clubs. Any new development would require external investment. In recent cases Leigh / York etc this has been from the council. The club lose all control. Selling the family silver and negotiating your rent every other isn't somewhere that we want to be. If Leigh are still in the Sports Village in 2 years, I'll be impressed.

Option 2... You're kidding yourself if you think one club is going to sell up and then invest half that money in the development of the other. There's no incentive. Football games will always be more difficult to re-arrange so will take precedence. It's ok saying that fixtures don't currently clash, they might in the future. One club will end up either paying rent or giving up a % of their match day takings.

Stability is a difficult thing to come by these days in RL. Our ground maybe ropey in places but it's about right for where we want to be. Not having to worry about the rent could see us have a long future. It's unlikely that we'll ever need a 10k stadium. A little investment will go a long way at Craven Park. There are cost effective ways of making the match day experience more inviting.

[TMF]

2 hours ago, NWDuk said:

There's no incentive for either club to ground share. The rugby currently have a ground which is perfectly adequate for the championship. We own it. That's a big deal. We keep all the gate money as well as money across the bar. Recent events have shown that it can be marketed for other uses too.

Two options with a ground share. 1) Both teams move to a purpose built new ground. 2) One club becomes a tenant of the other.

Option 1 is bad news for both clubs. Any new development would require external investment. In recent cases Leigh / York etc this has been from the council. The club lose all control. Selling the family silver and negotiating your rent every other isn't somewhere that we want to be. If Leigh are still in the Sports Village in 2 years, I'll be impressed.

Option 2... You're kidding yourself if you think one club is going to sell up and then invest half that money in the development of the other. There's no incentive. Football games will always be more difficult to re-arrange so will take precedence. It's ok saying that fixtures don't currently clash, they might in the future. One club will end up either paying rent or giving up a % of their match day takings.

Stability is a difficult thing to come by these days in RL. Our ground maybe ropey in places but it's about right for where we want to be. Not having to worry about the rent could see us have a long future. It's unlikely that we'll ever need a 10k stadium. A little investment will go a long way at Craven Park. There are cost effective ways of making the match day experience more inviting.

I'm afraid I disagree with most of what you say. I agree owning our ground is a big deal but it doesn't come for nothing. We still have to pay Council rates, VAT and business tax. You are wrong on only having two options. Why do we have to move to a purpose built ground when we own Craven Park? Why would one club become a tenant of the other? That's the point about sharing. That's also why external investment would have to come from the soccer if they so chose to do so. What has Leigh and York got to do with anything, although I agree with you they are on sticky grounds (excuse the pun) with paying rent to the council and I don't think it will end well for them in the future.

But were I really disagree with you is when you say about our ground 'it's about right for where we want to be'. Not for me, the board and I would think the majority of our supporters. It's not where I want to be. I want to go forward, not stay here and the board have shown this week that is their vision also. And why is it unlikely we'll ever need a 10k stadium? Especially if we are sharing with the soccer? I'm afraid your idea of being happy to stay where we are does not jell with mine. I want to progress and reach for the stars, not stand still and be happy to be also rans.

I remember when DJ took over and he was asked if he would be happy to stay in the Championship after we won promotion. His reply was 'Stay, we're going to win it'. What happened? That's the kind of vision I want from the board and the fans. It can happen. Stand still in sport, any sport, and you go backwards. Rant over NWDuk, but I think I have more faith in this club and the future than you have. Keep the faith mate.

[tec]

According to a few members on the Barrow Afc forum we are getting a new investor -Marwan Koukash !

[NWDuk]

12 hours ago, TMF said:

Why do we have to move to a purpose built ground when we own Craven Park? Why would one club become a tenant of the other? That's the point about sharing.

Ok, so AFC become a tenant at Craven Park. You can't just say "we'll share", it becomes financial. One becomes reliant on the other. If either club lets the other move in for free (or on promises that they'll invest) they're fools. Same goes, if either club hands over any share of ownership for little more.

But more than that, I don't see any desire by either club to give up their home. 

12 hours ago, TMF said:

I remember when DJ took over 

The epitome of boom and bust.

I'm as hopeful and positive as about our future as anyone (probably more than most on this forum in fact). I see a bright future for us developing in and amongst our community. I'd much rather see us building support in the club and the wider game around the town. Good things happening with the raiders promotes youth and amatuer clubs that have been so strong in Barrow. That in turn, makes us a world class rugby town. 

I'd much rather see that than an inorganic rush for glory. It can be a double edge sword, only the teams that can survive the inevitable come down from it survive long term.

All the outward facing media and promotion I've seen from the club in the last couple of months has been worlds apart from the past few years. It's great that there's a real focus on it. That will attract a more youthful market. I'm no expert in marketing but announcing to the world that both clubs are in such a bad way that they're going to have to bunk up together, doesn't send the positive image you think it does.

[The Vet]

14 hours ago, TMF said:

 

I remember when DJ took over and he was asked if he would be happy to stay in the Championship after we won promotion. His reply was 'Stay, we're going to win it'. What happened? That's the kind of vision I want from the board and the fans. 

I certainly wouldn’t like to see a repeat of the same ‘vision’ from this BOD.