DHFC on Sunday Politics London

[B.I.G]

Off topic slightly, thank you B.I.G for turning up out of the blue and rescuing me from train hell earlier!

Talk about killing a rep

 

[Pink Panther]

Sure, apart from the fact he lives in New York, or has until VERY recently. I'd be thrilled if he'd moved over here to 'sort this out' and that ended in *that* interview.

It doesn't really matter whether he's a born and bred Londoner, whether he's lived here for 20 years, or whether he commutes from New York. All that really matters is whether his influence is going to be helpful to our club or threaten its future wellbeing.

Possibly, probably...but I can't see a better way of our Club having 'one last Champion Hill throw of the dice' to safeguard our future for future generations than a decent private/affordable/social housing mix on our current site, with ourselves having a new ground next door, and the rest of the wasteland that is laughably called 'Green Dale' or even 'Green Dale Meadows'[the name only split from Greendale to give it a more cuddly green name] turned into a proper protected and maintained open space.

I agree that building a new ground on the site of the 1912-1931 ground would have no discernable negative impact on the lives of anyone in the local community, especially if the rest of Greendales was smartened up and made suitable for public recreation.

The failed Homebase development proposals, first revealed in 1999 and finally turned down in 2002, came only seven years after the current ground opened. I personally went along with that at the time, but to be honest I felt it was a bit embarrassing trying to argue that we really needed another new ground after such a short space of time. With hindsight I don't feel it's a great loss to anyone that there isn't a massive Homebase store next to the large Sainsbury's, and I can see why non-Hamlet supporters may be sceptical about any further proposals in the light of that.

 

[YTC]

It doesn't really matter whether he's a born and bred Londoner, whether he's lived here for 20 years, or whether he commutes from New York. All that really matters is whether his influence is going to be helpful to our club or threaten its future wellbeing.

Well, clearly the fucking later.

 

[teuchter]

Yes. I think so.

The football stadium is supposed to move onto a bit of land where there is already a five a side football pitch.

Ok, so, the thing is that looking at the situation from the outside - which is what I'm doing because I have no interest in football - it seems the basic problem is to do with the ownership of the existing stadium. It's not to do with land or a stadium being available or not - there's a stadium that is apparently is fit for purpose and on land which is designated, in town planning terms, specifically for that purpose.

And what the "wider community" is being asked to accept, is a solution to this problem that involves giving up public space *and* giving the developer what they want - a profitable housing development. So, basically the developer wins at the game they are trying to play - which is one of bullying. And like I say, looking at that from the outside, that seems a very bad deal. To me it seems that what needs to happen is to sort out all the mess of the ownership of the land and the landlord/owner/club relationship.

That's why I fully support the council calling the developer's bluff. I can see of course that this process makes life very difficult for the club. But I'd actually rather see public money going into supporting the club, maybe even buying it out, than see public space being given up to appease a developer playing games. Actually, it feels like the site should just be CPO'd to protect the long term future of the club, which I'm happy to accept as a valuable community asset even though I have no interest in it. Of course, there are probably all sorts of legal reasons that's not a viable solution. But this is the way the situation looks to me, anyway.

 

[B.I.G]

Ok, so, the thing is that looking at the situation from the outside - which is what I'm doing because I have no interest in football - it seems the basic problem is to do with the ownership of the existing stadium. It's not to do with land or a stadium being available or not - there's a stadium that is apparently is fit for purpose and on land which is designated, in town planning terms, specifically for that purpose.

And what the "wider community" is being asked to accept, is a solution to this problem that involves giving up public space *and* giving the developer what they want - a profitable housing development. So, basically the developer wins at the game they are trying to play - which is one of bullying. And like I say, looking at that from the outside, that seems a very bad deal. To me it seems that what needs to happen is to sort out all the mess of the ownership of the land and the landlord/owner/club relationship.

That's why I fully support the council calling the developer's bluff. I can see of course that this process makes life very difficult for the club. But I'd actually rather see public money going into supporting the club, maybe even buying it out, than see public space being given up to appease a developer playing games. Actually, it feels like the site should just be CPO'd to protect the long term future of the club, which I'm happy to accept as a valuable community asset even though I have no interest in it. Of course, there are probably all sorts of legal reasons that's not a viable solution. But this is the way the situation looks to me, anyway.

You are very right, and if Southwark council have any powers to fix these issues they should definitely do them, instead of waffling on about protecting the club while the club might go out of business.

 

[PartisanDulwich]

To CPO (Compulsory Purchase Order) the Council need strong legal grounds - and also to have been able to shown they have exhausted all other avenues
you don't rush in and you don't advertise it (that could be seen as prejudicial at a future hearing)
worse still it can be overridden by the Government Minister -

CPO is the last card to play and has to be played very carefully or you end up with wealthy lawyers and no progress

Thats why we need Councillors from all parties to back the Council motion

 

[Taper]

MOL isn't necessarily "public space." And as far as I can tell, Greendale has not traditionally been open to the public until recently. You can tell that from the lack of a formal gate to the property, other than the lockable vehicle access one near the south side of the stadium. Southwark, who now have the lease back, propose to keep it public accessible i think, so this is a narrow point. You're right though that the ownership of the current stadium is the problem. It's a cash-drain from what I understand as it stands. But with capital investment and divestment of aspects of it, it would i'm sure be sustainable, particularly with the current crowds.

 

[blueheaven]

Ok, so, the thing is that looking at the situation from the outside - which is what I'm doing because I have no interest in football - it seems the basic problem is to do with the ownership of the existing stadium. It's not to do with land or a stadium being available or not - there's a stadium that is apparently is fit for purpose and on land which is designated, in town planning terms, specifically for that purpose.

And what the "wider community" is being asked to accept, is a solution to this problem that involves giving up public space *and* giving the developer what they want - a profitable housing development. So, basically the developer wins at the game they are trying to play - which is one of bullying. And like I say, looking at that from the outside, that seems a very bad deal. To me it seems that what needs to happen is to sort out all the mess of the ownership of the land and the landlord/owner/club relationship.

That's why I fully support the council calling the developer's bluff. I can see of course that this process makes life very difficult for the club. But I'd actually rather see public money going into supporting the club, maybe even buying it out, than see public space being given up to appease a developer playing games. Actually, it feels like the site should just be CPO'd to protect the long term future of the club, which I'm happy to accept as a valuable community asset even though I have no interest in it. Of course, there are probably all sorts of legal reasons that's not a viable solution. But this is the way the situation looks to me, anyway.

Even though as a trust member I voted in favour of the development plans, I completely agree with you - and, in hindsight, I wish I hadn't voted that way. Bullies is exactly what Meadow are.

 

[editor]

Even though as a trust member I voted in favour of the development plans, I completely agree with you - and, in hindsight, I wish I hadn't voted that way. Bullies is exactly what Meadow are.

I couldn't support their shitty application.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk