EDC
A Slightly Less Invisible Cyber Fan These Days
Obviously people like "Private Landords Supporting Dulwich Hamlet" for sub-letting.
Hadley's reveal new stadium design
- Thread starter Fingers
- Start date
Obviously people like "Private Landords Supporting Dulwich Hamlet" for sub-letting.
editor
hiraethified
Its stinking developer-speak bullshit. Affordable my fucking arse. In my world any developer (or indeed council) trying to big themselves up with their 'generous' provision of (non) affordable housing should be subjected to a minimum one hour of wet kippering.
That being the case. There is a ground. There is some space. A little bit of space is given up. We get a new ground that hopefully suits out needs a bit better. The developer get some money. People have some more places to live if they can afford it.
There are more open spaces than non-league football clubs in london. If people want to wank off about it being untended then im sure the council wouldnt mind giving up the money spent on maintaining a bit of park to let it grow wild.
There are more open spaces than non-league football clubs in london. If people want to wank off about it being untended then im sure the council wouldnt mind giving up the money spent on maintaining a bit of park to let it grow wild.
editor
hiraethified
Call my Cindy McCynical if you like, but I think it's more likely to pan out as: The developer trousers tens of millions by cunningly wriggling out of their social obligations, while there's another field day for foreign investors who hungrily gobble up the flats, either as buy to let earners, or as nest egg investments (no need to even bother letting them out). Actual benefit to the local community and those desperately looking for actual affordable housing = zero.
Oh, and my prediction is that this offshore bunch would drop the new ground quicker than a molten lava stone straight out of a volcano if they could, so I really hope there's a credible Plan B somewhere. Anyone putting all their faith in the promises of developers with 'direct access to discretionary investment capital' must have a considerably rosier view on the property business world than me.
Council has all the power so they can enfore or not what they like. So they are to blame or praise.
Bugpowder Dust
Well-Known Member
Quick solution - build 25 flats on the car park. Cost to build £2.5m sell for £500k each, profit £10m, Hadley get their money back and a nice profit, we keep the ground...
scousedom
Well-Known Member
Aside: Am I massively missing the point here?
I always assumed "Private Landlords Supporting Dulwich Hamlet" was an enormous piss-take of the KFH sponsorship. Is it not?
Or is it, and there's a subtle acknowledgement of this in the above that I'm not getting?
Or is it genuinely a group of Private Landlords who support Dulwich Hamlet?
If it is the last one, I don't know whether I'm more outraged by that in itself, or by that company name getting through the editing procedure while my own one (video) didn't.
I always assumed "Private Landlords Supporting Dulwich Hamlet" was an enormous piss-take of the KFH sponsorship. Is it not?
Or is it, and there's a subtle acknowledgement of this in the above that I'm not getting?
Or is it genuinely a group of Private Landlords who support Dulwich Hamlet?
If it is the last one, I don't know whether I'm more outraged by that in itself, or by that company name getting through the editing procedure while my own one (video) didn't.
I believe it was NOT a piss-take, but a genuine offer of sponsorship from a lifelong Dulwich Hamlet fan, who happens to be a private landlord. Not all Hamlet fans are against private landlords.
Not even myself, I rent a room privately, and have nothing but good to say about my landlord. But yes, there are a lot of shysters out there.
In an ideal housing utopia there would be council housing for all who want them, but thanks to successive governments from Thatcher to Blair & onwards...those days are sadly long gone.
Not even myself, I rent a room privately, and have nothing but good to say about my landlord. But yes, there are a lot of shysters out there.
In an ideal housing utopia there would be council housing for all who want them, but thanks to successive governments from Thatcher to Blair & onwards...those days are sadly long gone.
willie local
New Member
Just thought I'd pipe up and chuck in a few straighteners. I'm a local resident, a hamlet fan and a member of both Friends of Greendale and Friends of DKHwood. I'm amazed by your slow realisation of the shit that's coming on and sorry to hear you all turning on your neighbours who don't agree with you.
First, both friends groups have always been very clear they support the Hamlet and value it. This is a genuine support for a neighbour and because many of the members are Hamlet fans. They are however wildlife groups that were set up to support the open green spaces and so, naturally they object to a development plan that builds on Metropolitan Open Land and sticks a massive housing development next door, particularly when it's the same block of MOL that they both sit within. It's clearly something to do with them. It is true, they are not thinking Hamlet first though.
Second, neither group have been "spreading misinformation". In fact, if these groups had not found the latest planning application and told everyone about it, none of you would have known about the latest application to remove the covenants and it would have gone through without comment. I bet those of you who've been keeping up with all the developments probably actually use the FODKHW website, as it has a fantastic and easy to navigate collection of documents and links pertaining to the case. Take a look if you haven't. Do you not put a bit of spin on things yourselves? The Greendale is clearly well loved locally but you all keep slagging it as a dog shit scrap of derelict land.
So where are we now as fans? The MOU, which incidentally has virtually no legal merit, is signed by a made up wing of Hadley who have since handed over the whole project to a more aggressive and I'm assuming ironically named 'Meadows' development, who's first job was to sneak a planning application in making it possible to build on the pitch without blinking an eye. These people are property developers. They are interested in profit, not green spaces, not community and not the Hamlet. Yes, they bailed us out when we needed them but football clubs at our level do tend to run on empty most of the time as I see it, and just maybe they had ulterior motives?
I notice Mishi, you haven't written in supporting the latest application. They are all objections so far, even the DHST one. ..."100% behind it. I've supported this club man and boy, forty years of my life and I'm willing to risk the lot on some developer promises, 'cause they said we could have a new stadium." Well, as I see it, you're risking the whole bloody club for a new but smaller stadium with tiny terraces and no room behind the goals. Yes, we want fan ownership, but I think this can be achieved through a proper conversation with the council that explores the options rather than getting in bed with the devil. Who's the rimmer now?
First, both friends groups have always been very clear they support the Hamlet and value it. This is a genuine support for a neighbour and because many of the members are Hamlet fans. They are however wildlife groups that were set up to support the open green spaces and so, naturally they object to a development plan that builds on Metropolitan Open Land and sticks a massive housing development next door, particularly when it's the same block of MOL that they both sit within. It's clearly something to do with them. It is true, they are not thinking Hamlet first though.
Second, neither group have been "spreading misinformation". In fact, if these groups had not found the latest planning application and told everyone about it, none of you would have known about the latest application to remove the covenants and it would have gone through without comment. I bet those of you who've been keeping up with all the developments probably actually use the FODKHW website, as it has a fantastic and easy to navigate collection of documents and links pertaining to the case. Take a look if you haven't. Do you not put a bit of spin on things yourselves? The Greendale is clearly well loved locally but you all keep slagging it as a dog shit scrap of derelict land.
So where are we now as fans? The MOU, which incidentally has virtually no legal merit, is signed by a made up wing of Hadley who have since handed over the whole project to a more aggressive and I'm assuming ironically named 'Meadows' development, who's first job was to sneak a planning application in making it possible to build on the pitch without blinking an eye. These people are property developers. They are interested in profit, not green spaces, not community and not the Hamlet. Yes, they bailed us out when we needed them but football clubs at our level do tend to run on empty most of the time as I see it, and just maybe they had ulterior motives?
I notice Mishi, you haven't written in supporting the latest application. They are all objections so far, even the DHST one. ..."100% behind it. I've supported this club man and boy, forty years of my life and I'm willing to risk the lot on some developer promises, 'cause they said we could have a new stadium." Well, as I see it, you're risking the whole bloody club for a new but smaller stadium with tiny terraces and no room behind the goals. Yes, we want fan ownership, but I think this can be achieved through a proper conversation with the council that explores the options rather than getting in bed with the devil. Who's the rimmer now?
What are you going to do if DHFC goes out of business if you are wrong and it can't survive without a new stadium?
Can we have greendales then to build on?
willie local
New Member
Didn't Kevin Rye tell us all "Football clubs are un-killable really"?
I hope you can offer more than that!
1. Perhaps you could explain a little how fan ownership can be obtained through a "proper" conversation with the council? Approving a form of planning ownership acceptable to someone with the ability to give the club to the fans is surely the only influence they can wield. Perhaps you know of another way?
2. Perhaps you can also explain if its just greendale you want preserved or if its ok to build on the five aside pitches?
3. And lastly if a majority of fans voted for a plan that gave us a stadium with a smaller land space, why its so unimaginable to give up a bit of greendale to guarantee DHFC a future? Possibly its our only chance to have an independent future with a long lease.
BrandNewGuy
Well-Known Member
We've been here before with "the Club will die if we don't accept the developers' scheme". Here's the Southwark News, Sept 23rd 1999 in response to the failed Homebase plan:
Did we get a long lease out the development? If not, whose fault was it? Was it Liam's and Mishi's! If it was say so, otherwise those letters of support aren't really relevant are they? Be honest with yourself.
Can anyone guarantee that the owner of DHFC will not put us out of business at anytime? Can anyone guarantee that we will be offered a new lease?
If the answer is no. What makes you think that the future is not extremely precarious. Is it because it doesnt suit your narrative??
If the application for a new stadium is not locked down. What makes you think we will survive?
BrandNewGuy
Well-Known Member
"What makes you think that the future is not extremely precarious. Is it because it doesnt suit your narrative??"
No, because the whole financial side of the club since the Hadley takeover has been entirely opaque. I appreciate that there's probably an amount of commercial confidentiality, but I'm not just taking a developer's word for the rest of it.
No, because the whole financial side of the club since the Hadley takeover has been entirely opaque. I appreciate that there's probably an amount of commercial confidentiality, but I'm not just taking a developer's word for the rest of it.
Who cares about the financials when there is no guarantee of a new lease?
BrandNewGuy
Well-Known Member
Because the financials are crucial to the long-term sustainability of the club. There's no need for a new lease if the club stays where it is – on land that is currently protected by covenants.
So you are saying we can continue to play where we are without a lease?
Taper
Mark McGann
Friends of Greendale were set up directly as a result of the Hadley application weren't they? The sheer antagonism and unpleasantness of a prominent member of both groups, and his apparent desire for the club to leave the area, have created bad feeling between a lot of fans and the two Friends groups.
BrandNewGuy
Well-Known Member
Hadley own the land that the stadium is on, but have a lease on Green Dale (in fact, the lease has expired but Southwark Council haven't moved to take it back).
Can we continue to play where we are if we are not granted a new lease??
If not, the lease is surely more relevant to the future than the financials?
BrandNewGuy
Well-Known Member
The club doesn't need a new lease because it's not on Green Dale!
Is our lease from Hadley? I think it is. When it expires if they do not renew it, can we continue to play?
If the answer is no, then its not very honest to claim our future is safe if the development does not go ahead?
BrandNewGuy
Well-Known Member
Did I claim that "our future is safe if the development does not go ahead"? No.
To clear up the details of ownership of the ground, Hadley own the freehold of the ground through Greendale Property Co Ltd (based in the Isle of Man). Champion Hill Stadium and Dulwich Hamlet FC Ltd (DHFC Ltd) are separate legal entities. Greendale Property Co Limited owns the freehold of the Champion Hill Stadium and surrounding locale, and has an exclusive option, through its associated company Hadley Property Group, to purchase the majority holding of the issued shares in DHFC Ltd (the legal entity that runs the football club) from the Football Club’s current owner, Nick McCormack. If HPG obtains planning permission for its proposed new development of the site, then they have committed to exercise this option in full and purchase DHFC Ltd, with the ultimate aim of transferring ownership to the Supporters’ Trust. HPG currently has an expired lease for Green Dale, which does *not* include the ground and its immediate locale.
To clear up the details of ownership of the ground, Hadley own the freehold of the ground through Greendale Property Co Ltd (based in the Isle of Man). Champion Hill Stadium and Dulwich Hamlet FC Ltd (DHFC Ltd) are separate legal entities. Greendale Property Co Limited owns the freehold of the Champion Hill Stadium and surrounding locale, and has an exclusive option, through its associated company Hadley Property Group, to purchase the majority holding of the issued shares in DHFC Ltd (the legal entity that runs the football club) from the Football Club’s current owner, Nick McCormack. If HPG obtains planning permission for its proposed new development of the site, then they have committed to exercise this option in full and purchase DHFC Ltd, with the ultimate aim of transferring ownership to the Supporters’ Trust. HPG currently has an expired lease for Green Dale, which does *not* include the ground and its immediate locale.
So the best route to securing our future is for southwark council to grant the planning application and include requirements that DHFC receives a new stadium prior to building houses.
Seems fairly clear cut to me.
You have a better plan?
Seems I misunderstood your posting of the newspaper clip above. Easily done.
BrandNewGuy
Well-Known Member
No, for the reason that the financials are entirely opaque. Simple question: why can't the club stay where it is? And you're not allowed to answer, "Because the developer says it can't."
Because we don't have anything other than a short term lease?
Similar threads
