editor
hiraethified
Except it seems that what I suggested IS being considered as an option. And that's a bloody good thing.
Exclusive: New stadium key to Hamlet progress - chairman gives more details - Southwark News
Champion Hill: Proposed Ground Redevelopment
- Thread starter Fingers
- Start date
scousedom
Well-Known Member
Fantastic. I was (quite clearly) never against extra resources for fans. I was only against people going “this isn’t good enough”, “this is an embarrassment“ etc without acknowledging the wider context and the potential need for compromise.
editor
hiraethified
Except that's not what happened at all - you were being totally dismissive of any suggestion of any kind of temporary cover being erected, as anyone who cares to look back at this thread can see.
Oh well. Onwards.
scousedom
Well-Known Member
No. I was being dismissive of an attitude of saying “XYZ has to be done” without any acknowledgement of potential practical (financial, planning etc) limitations. Show me once where I said cover in itself was a bad idea. I didn’t. I only said it might not be possible given planning or financial restrictions and that if so, and it was a choice between no cover and ground or no ground, then no cover and ground had to win.
editor
hiraethified
Except I never ever said that, "XYZ HAS to be done" as this thread amply proves.
scousedom
Well-Known Member
Saying it would be embarrassing if it wasn’t amounts to the same thing?
scousedom
Well-Known Member
“Pretty fundamental requirement”... “has to be done”...?
YTC
Human Man
Let's focus on this bit!
editor
hiraethified
I really can't be arsed to engage with this frankly bizarre attempt to misrepresent what was said. If anyone's remotely interested (and I doubt anyone is) they can read the thread and see exactly what was said and meant.
blueheaven
Well-Known Member
That article mentions that if we get promoted to the National League while at Champion Hill we won't be allowed to go up - I wasn't aware of that. Does anyone know what the National League requirements are that Champion Hill isn't currently meeting?
One of the directors will know the answer to that, they will be the ones to ask.
cg__
Active Member
Having a read of some of the opposition comments on the development application is both hilarious and incredibly depressing. The amount of NIMBY-ism on display from some is astounding.
Some of my lowlights are: one bloke complaining about the 'football shouting' that disturbs him in his garden; someone claiming that London needs more green spaces not housing (some of us don't already have houses ffs); and someone complaining about children having to go to school near a building site (how would anything get built in London if this was a valid complaint?).
I have also never seen a group of people wax so lyrical about a scruffy piece of astroturf. You wouldn't have thought the beautiful Dulwich and Ruskin Parks were just around the corner.
Some of my lowlights are: one bloke complaining about the 'football shouting' that disturbs him in his garden; someone claiming that London needs more green spaces not housing (some of us don't already have houses ffs); and someone complaining about children having to go to school near a building site (how would anything get built in London if this was a valid complaint?).
I have also never seen a group of people wax so lyrical about a scruffy piece of astroturf. You wouldn't have thought the beautiful Dulwich and Ruskin Parks were just around the corner.
Jimbob73
The Wanley Road Massive
cg__
Active Member
It's just like Tusany you know!
Forget Tuscany, sounds like in the last couple of weeks since I've walked past it it's become the Garden of Eden!
editor
hiraethified
It often doesn't make a tot in difference in my experience. Hundreds of objections can be waved away with a stroke if the developer is waving about a big enough wad/is pals with the council etc.
(*not that I'm trying to discourage anyone from commenting)
Cat Daisy
Well-Known Member
Good to see that Ben Clasper has written to S/T holders this afternoon. Did someone say there were 600 S/T holders this season. While some of them will presumably be juniors etc, it will presumably look better if we can point to a number of supporters of the application that at least mirrors the number of supporters that turn up at matches.
Scottfield
Active Member
Damage already done Al Crane, if that's even your real name! No one reads corrections!
pompeydunc
Well-Known Member
Said an upsidedown cat with a cloak of anonymity.
YTC
Human Man
Really vital that everyone comments as there's a lot of accounts popping up online objecting that we've never seen of or heard of before spouting some rather questionable boll...information.
One I find remarkable, and one that constantly gets dodged, is that if we don't 'enclose and upgrade' the Astro Turf, The council will anyway.A lot of people moaning about us 'enclosing the space' - if we don't do it, the council does, and we cease to exist!
It's right here, on their website: Green Dale Fields - download the plan here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6048/Interim-Management-Plan-Draft.pdf
cg__
Active Member
The most recent one that has cropped up today quite clearly has a very limited understanding of the whole situation as well, asking questions about why Dulwich aren't just opposing the housing development or why Southwark council can't just CPO the site and expand Champion Hill. Quite harmful misinformed views
YTC
Human Man
It's inevitable I guess, but it's quite hard to tell the story of the last 2 years again, especially after living it. Saw someone bring up Rio a few days ago to. That ship has sailed guys, things have changed, we've moved on!
Incredibly harmful views, and back to binary arguments with no end. This is why it's vital we all pile in and make sure we're making our voices heard on the planning portal.
I’ve seen lots of comments which focus on the loss of public amenity space and regardless of opinions on the quality of the current AstroTurf the message about increased, quality provision isn’t coming across clearly enough at present.
I assume Meadow pay a PR consultant to deal with this sort of thing. Why don’t Meadow / Club just respond and set out that very clearly what’s available for public amenity?
The point about losing the AstroTurf pitch as “public amenity” has always been that a higher quality MUGA will be installed alongside a full size 3G pitch that would be available for public hire - therefore the facilities will be better overall. Many objectors focusing on the size of AstroTurf vs size of MUGA which is never going to stack up because its not offset that way.
blueheaven
Well-Known Member
After giving it a lot of thought I've commented in support of the development because I support the club and I don't want it to die, and supporting this proposal seems like it's the only viable option - but to be honest it doesn't sit at all well with me that the club finds itself in a position where its survival depends on partially taking over a protected area that is valuable to wildlife and (going by many of the comments) is clearly of some community value. I praise the job that the club is doing in getting people on side, explaining the situation as best it can and generally putting a positive spin on things... but personally I find it hard to push to the back of my mind the fact that this is basically only happening because we've been backed into a corner by Meadow. And as much as Meadow have apparently changed and are willing to work with the club on this now, the bottom line for me is that they are still very much the bad guys in all of this and the local community - on either side of the argument - should be united in being bloody furious at them.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Yes this is pretty much how I feel about it. As a supporter it does look like supporting the development is the only way forward, although it's hard to support Meadow's plans tbh. And I have to say the work done by those now involved with the club has been fantastic. I do think though that after everything that's happened we shouldn't be back to trying to portray any objection at all as totally unreasonable NIMBYism (for all that some might be). There are genuine and reasonable objections to this (that a lot of us would probably sympathise with in a different development) and I think we should be engaging with those not trying to dismiss them.
Similar threads
