Jump to content

Recommended Posts

errr puzzled...I think you'll find I'd be the last person to banish football from the park given I coach a ladies footy group there every Sunday. Two years ago there was no pitch on this section of grass. There may have been the year before but when I started playing there, there wasn't. The reason being the cracking up of the ground makes sense though. Having said that, these are pitches that cost ?50 an hour to hire and can't be used by anyone who doesn't pay to do so.


Encroachment would be what happened last season when two junior pitches were painted onto the section of grass along the East Side just outside the park, a section that has never been used for hire of pitches. So it has happened before.

djetc

fyi, the junior football club alongside the east field hve always played five a side for the teenies alongside the main pitches. a couple of years ago the council merely painted a few lines for them. I am sure the club pays or the privilege.


if you are a football person you must agree that five side is preferable to many other things young people get up to in the park and elsewhere.


incidentally, do you really run a LADIES football (never footie) group? are the participants really all women of title? if so, they should pay double

What lol? Yes I really do coach ladies football...have run a group for 18 months and it is FREE for those that attend.....


You are confusing the five a side pitches that are part of the main sports field with the pitches they painted outside of the fence of the park last year. Those pitches have never been there in all the 20 years I have lived alongside the park FYI ;)


But no, I would never argue for removing football for young and old alike, but can also understand the concerns of those that don't want to see other areas used for football apart from those normally designated for such use.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'm certainly not surly - it's Friday, so I'm in a delightful mood.  As Earl Aelfheah said, the money has to come from somewhere. But Labour new that hiking fuel as well as employee NIC in would be a step too far - for businesses and consumers. It was the right decision for this moment in time. Suggesting that someone who's against fuel duty increase on this occasion is against and fuel duty full stop is quite a leap. Why do you demonise everyone who doesn't think that owning a car is a cardinal sin?  I'm not sure using Clarkson as an example of your average farmer holds much weight as an argument, but you know that already, Mal. 
    • Hope it's making others smile too! I don't know the background or how long it's been there 😊
    • If you are against the increase in fuel duty then you are surly against fuel duty full stop.  It has not kept up with inflation, I'm talking about getting it back on track.  Ultimately road user charging is the solution. Labour will probably compromise on agricultural land inheritance by raising the cap so it generally catches the Clarksons of the world who are not bothered about profits from land beyond, in his case, income from a highly successful TV series and the great publicity for the farm shop and pub
    • Were things much simpler in the 80/90s? I remember both my girls belonging to a 6th Form Consortium which covered Sydenham Girls, Forest Hill Boys and Sedgehill off Bromley Road. A level classes were spread across the 3 schools - i remember Forest Hill boys coming to Sydenham Girls for one subject (think it was sociology or psychology ) A mini bus was provided to transport pupils to different sites, But I guess with less schools being 'managed' by the local authority, providers such as Harris etc have different priorities. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...