Again economical with facts. It is no secret bar income goes to a separate company but that does not mean it isn't used for football purposes. As you state it pays bills for utilities which include the electricity for floodlights etc and also water which is used on the pitch.
Hadley's reveal new stadium design
- Thread starter Fingers
- Start date
willie local
New Member
An ACV is not the whole answer but it does offer some protection. Why have we got so far into this quagmire without getting it?
No, you don't have to listen to me, but I'm suggesting approaches from a genuine desire to save my local club, in an absence of any suggestions from either the ST or the committee.
The conversation has not been had with the council so we don't know what they say or are able to do.We do know they have rejected he last application in support of the club. -Decision notice- "Clause 7(3) and 7(4) - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club is still in existence, has a licence to use the Dulwich Hamlet Football Ground and still uses it."
The astroturf is MOL and makes up about a quarter of the Greendale. The proposed development is one third not on the astroturf. It's not an option.
No, you don't have to listen to me, but I'm suggesting approaches from a genuine desire to save my local club, in an absence of any suggestions from either the ST or the committee.
The conversation has not been had with the council so we don't know what they say or are able to do.We do know they have rejected he last application in support of the club. -Decision notice- "Clause 7(3) and 7(4) - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club is still in existence, has a licence to use the Dulwich Hamlet Football Ground and still uses it."
The astroturf is MOL and makes up about a quarter of the Greendale. The proposed development is one third not on the astroturf. It's not an option.
To the majority of Dulwich fans building on the land is an option. Its fair enough if you want to try and convince them otherwise.
Perhaps by answering some of the tougher questions. But its hard because it weakens a position that all the friends groups hold. Their argument that the future of the club is not immediately under threat is wrong.
willie local
New Member
It's only prime land with planning permission. Without it and with assurances it can only be the Hamlet stadium it is less attractive to a housing developer and so less valuable. Yes, times are tough currently and there's an argument against the council borrowing money to prop up a club, but saving a valued community asset from developers is a good news story and councils can easily borrow money at incredible rates and would be securing an income from it on a long lease to the Hamlet. Do you want to explore alternatives by the way, or just piss on suggestions as they come up? Good luck with the game this afternoon Hamlet. Wasn't Winchester looking to install a 3G pitch and housing on green field recently?
There has been a bit of a planning issue in Winchester recently but it involved a superstore not the football club. The council were actually to the forefront in saving the club a few seasons ago.
Suspect you may be thinking of Basingstoke where the chairman / benefactor has announced he is off at the end of the season, probably due to the council rejecting a planned development.
Suspect you may be thinking of Basingstoke where the chairman / benefactor has announced he is off at the end of the season, probably due to the council rejecting a planned development.
Still no answer on where the hundreds of thousands comes from to bring the stadium up to standard, how to make money out of badly designed buildings and then there's the issue of a lease. There is nothing in the S106 to stop a developer putting down a 3g surface and selling to Power League etc if they want, they is certainly no direct protection for DHFC.
willie local
New Member
Yes there was an answer. Bit vague maybe but the new 3G surface and reworking of the stadium could be funded by a PP enterprise. Might be even better to fund raise for it and not have any private finance in it. £600,000 isn't an impossible figure to raise but it would take some work.
I find it unlikely a properly run 3G pitch and gym in Dulwich would not make considerable revenue.
Let's not forget the reason the buildings are rubbish is because they were shoddily put up on the cheap by developers as a sweetner deal so they could build a massive profitable enterprise next door. Sound familiar?
Shall we play one beardy craft ale drinking fan suggesting answers and everyone else sneering and shouting them down, or is anyone going to actually add to, improve or suggest alternatives? It's no good throwing our hands up and saying we'll get what we're given.
Why, after three years of developer ownership, have the Committee or the S.T. still not picked the low hanging fruit of ACV protection. (Don't get me wrong, I think both are doing good work in general) We should be looking for alternatives and seeing if we can't push some possible doors open.
What came out of the meeting with Meadow whatever their name is? Are they going to honour the old Hadley promises?
I find it unlikely a properly run 3G pitch and gym in Dulwich would not make considerable revenue.
Let's not forget the reason the buildings are rubbish is because they were shoddily put up on the cheap by developers as a sweetner deal so they could build a massive profitable enterprise next door. Sound familiar?
Shall we play one beardy craft ale drinking fan suggesting answers and everyone else sneering and shouting them down, or is anyone going to actually add to, improve or suggest alternatives? It's no good throwing our hands up and saying we'll get what we're given.
Why, after three years of developer ownership, have the Committee or the S.T. still not picked the low hanging fruit of ACV protection. (Don't get me wrong, I think both are doing good work in general) We should be looking for alternatives and seeing if we can't push some possible doors open.
What came out of the meeting with Meadow whatever their name is? Are they going to honour the old Hadley promises?
BrandNewGuy
Well-Known Member
I believe the ACV application didn't come to fruition last time because of solvency issues. That shouldn't be the case now.
It's all very well the club asking people on a forum to come up with solutions, but many people (including me) have said all along that there should be a Plan B in the event of the Hadley/Meadow plans not happening. And we were told, both by the club and DHST, that there is only one plan, Plan A, and all efforts were being put into that. Maybe that strategy wasn't wise.
It's all very well the club asking people on a forum to come up with solutions, but many people (including me) have said all along that there should be a Plan B in the event of the Hadley/Meadow plans not happening. And we were told, both by the club and DHST, that there is only one plan, Plan A, and all efforts were being put into that. Maybe that strategy wasn't wise.
willie local
New Member
It's not the club asking the forum to come up with suggestions, it's an attempt to use the forum as a platform to explore alternative solutions by fans.
We are where we are. Let's move forward.
We are where we are. Let's move forward.
willie local
New Member
Isn't the main argument of both friends groups that they object to any building on MOL and one of the responses by them to the planning application is that the financial position of the club has never been transparent and all anyone has are claims made by the developers that it's not sustainable, despite large and increasing attendance figures? Both groups know the future of the club is immediately under threat.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
What is ACV going to achieve? It only gives the community first refusal - where is the 6 million odd to buy the freehold going to come from?
AN ACV does nothing, in my opinion. It just delays the building of anything for six months, I simply cannot see the point of it; and I, personally, didn't agree when the Trust had it listed, thankfully incorrectly, last time.
The current position of both the Football Club Committee AND the Supporters' Trust is to SUPPORT the development as it stands. That is why you will find other things are not discussed. Both have their policy of support.
This may change in future, but the current aim is to get the new stadium built on the all-weather pitch.
I do not think it would make sense to discuss 'other options', until this current plan is approved or fails.
With regard to the £600,000 figure to bring the current stadium up to standard, that is NOT to improve it, and does NOT factor in the cost of installing a modern all-weather surface, which would bring the figure up to over a million pounds, if it did.
The suggestion though, as someone who is employed by Southwark Council, as lots of our fans are in various departments, that thinking the Council will buy out the current leaseholders, namely Meadows, is ludicrous, and to even suggest it, may I suggest, is living in cloud cuckoo land, with regard to the swathe of wide ranging cuts that local government suffers from, due to both current Tory & the previous LibDem/Tory policies of central government!
But that's enough from me...my views are clear, I'm getting tired of having to repeat things as clearly anti-people, whether they purport to be Hamlet fans or not, have their own agenda...thinking the Club will survive long term, if we are stuck at the current ground. The Club will continue for a while, but will certainly plummet down the pyramid, and when it does eventually fold...'we told you so' from us fans and 'oh dear'...as an excuse from them will not cut it for me.
The current position of both the Football Club Committee AND the Supporters' Trust is to SUPPORT the development as it stands. That is why you will find other things are not discussed. Both have their policy of support.
This may change in future, but the current aim is to get the new stadium built on the all-weather pitch.
I do not think it would make sense to discuss 'other options', until this current plan is approved or fails.
With regard to the £600,000 figure to bring the current stadium up to standard, that is NOT to improve it, and does NOT factor in the cost of installing a modern all-weather surface, which would bring the figure up to over a million pounds, if it did.
The suggestion though, as someone who is employed by Southwark Council, as lots of our fans are in various departments, that thinking the Council will buy out the current leaseholders, namely Meadows, is ludicrous, and to even suggest it, may I suggest, is living in cloud cuckoo land, with regard to the swathe of wide ranging cuts that local government suffers from, due to both current Tory & the previous LibDem/Tory policies of central government!
But that's enough from me...my views are clear, I'm getting tired of having to repeat things as clearly anti-people, whether they purport to be Hamlet fans or not, have their own agenda...thinking the Club will survive long term, if we are stuck at the current ground. The Club will continue for a while, but will certainly plummet down the pyramid, and when it does eventually fold...'we told you so' from us fans and 'oh dear'...as an excuse from them will not cut it for me.
willie local
New Member
No. An ACV (I think) can give the grounds protection as home to DHFC. It would prevent anyone forcing the club off the site or stopping the club using the grounds. It would also give the fans a say in future use and, as you say, the right to buy the club. Lastly it gives the council the right to buy the grounds (compulsory purchase) in the event of a danger that owners are running the site down or looking shifty. (Probably slight better worded than that, but that's the gist.)
As suggested before, my 'lefty' favourite option for new owners for the club is Southwark council. They are able to borrow money at very low interest rates and there are also grants available from Sports England to secure ownership of sports grounds and also to improve facilities. The land would also generate an income for the council through rent from DHFC and whatever other gyms, clubs, resurants, events and businesses that operate from it.
I'm sure it's a lot more complex than I'm making it sound, but it beats putting all our faith in a newly formed "aggressive" property developer with "direct access to discretionary investment capitol" (hedge fund money), using the club as a pawn to get a load of luxury flats through planning and building on what is equivalent to Greenbelt next door.
As suggested before, my 'lefty' favourite option for new owners for the club is Southwark council. They are able to borrow money at very low interest rates and there are also grants available from Sports England to secure ownership of sports grounds and also to improve facilities. The land would also generate an income for the council through rent from DHFC and whatever other gyms, clubs, resurants, events and businesses that operate from it.
I'm sure it's a lot more complex than I'm making it sound, but it beats putting all our faith in a newly formed "aggressive" property developer with "direct access to discretionary investment capitol" (hedge fund money), using the club as a pawn to get a load of luxury flats through planning and building on what is equivalent to Greenbelt next door.
willie local
New Member
Sorry Mishi. It took me so long to type that last message yours popped up after I pressed post.
I realise both the committee and the trust have supported the development as it stood, but the grounds are shifting fast and it's crazy not even discussing alternatives. Still not heard what Meadow are saying by the way. Did they cancel?
If not for the long term future of the club, why would I be wasting my time trying to persuade a bunch of objectionable ....people... to consider alternatives? I'm not hiding my membership of both friends groups but I'm not and have never been committee on either of them. Supporting the Hamlet does not mean blind submission to developers from me.
Tied? Yeah, it's a river of shit we're swimming in.
I realise both the committee and the trust have supported the development as it stood, but the grounds are shifting fast and it's crazy not even discussing alternatives. Still not heard what Meadow are saying by the way. Did they cancel?
If not for the long term future of the club, why would I be wasting my time trying to persuade a bunch of objectionable ....people... to consider alternatives? I'm not hiding my membership of both friends groups but I'm not and have never been committee on either of them. Supporting the Hamlet does not mean blind submission to developers from me.
Tied? Yeah, it's a river of shit we're swimming in.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
As it's been said before, property developers own the ground and the club - so who is proposing these alternatives, what traction do they have?. If it's a not a realistic scenario it just looks like troublemaking.
willie local
New Member
Developers own the ground and have an option to buy the club if they get planning. If the don't get planning the site is not worth much to them or to any other developer. If there was a ACV on the ground as home to DH then it would be possible to buy the grounds back, even compulsory purchase if needed.
Troublemaking or just sounding out alternatives to the nasty capitalists who have their vice like grip on that sacred little bit of tuscany? I don't see them as saviours. They look more like scum bags, smiling and undoing their suit trousers.
Ok. I'm done.
Troublemaking or just sounding out alternatives to the nasty capitalists who have their vice like grip on that sacred little bit of tuscany? I don't see them as saviours. They look more like scum bags, smiling and undoing their suit trousers.
Ok. I'm done.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
That's all pie in the sky. It's not realistic that they will walk away and forget that amount of money or that the council will step in. These are not alternatives.
Nasty capitalists who stopped the club going bust and who have submitted plans which have us continuing at CH?
scousedom
Well-Known Member
The above sums it up in a nutshell for me.
1. Residential developers want to build houses.
2. They don't want to build things that aren't houses.
3. Football stadiums aren't houses.
4. Therefore, getting what we want out of this involves getting someone to do something they don't want to do.
5. People who have to do things they don't want to do will try to get out of doing those things.
6. This additional application removes the obligation for a residential developer to do something they don't want to do.
7. If it goes through, it will make it significantly more difficult if not outright impossible to make them do it.
8. If their tactic (as it clearly is) is to try to make themselves less obliged to do what they don't want to do, our tactic should be to try to make them more obliged to do what they don't want to do.
9. Rather than acquiescing in our own defeat, we should be objecting to the proposal, countering with an ACV, and otherwise stepping up measures to strengthen the obligations of current or future owners.
10. Though shalt not covet Ryan Moss.
Taper
Mark McGann
I think that makes a lot of sense.
The application was refused I understand. On the face of it, the way the application was handled represents a betrayal of trust on behalf of the developers. So perhaps DHST and all of us need to re-appraise the tack supporters have taken so far. I suspect a lot is happening behind the scenes, which can't be made public. But this application, and the way it was handled, has changed things.
The application was refused I understand. On the face of it, the way the application was handled represents a betrayal of trust on behalf of the developers. So perhaps DHST and all of us need to re-appraise the tack supporters have taken so far. I suspect a lot is happening behind the scenes, which can't be made public. But this application, and the way it was handled, has changed things.
ForwardHamlet
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid #10 is impossible given his choice of wedding attire at the weekend.
Taper
Mark McGann
YTC
Human Man
willie local - if your back up plan is 'pour loads of money into a astroturf pitch and set up a business to rent it out for £30 an hour', you're in la la land pal.
I have every faith there are back-up plans in place. What annoys me more than anything is the level of underhanded tactics by both friends groups to try and influence fans, who have made their own minds up (and could still change them).
A chap came to the sub committee meeting last week and openly admitted he'd never been to a DHFC game and 'didn't know football' and spun the same line about turning the astroturf into some kind of rental business. It's people like this that claim to be fans that undermine any kind of work you're doing.
Maybe have a word with the ex lib dem councillor and tell him to stop sending people to meetings to de-rail them.
I have every faith there are back-up plans in place. What annoys me more than anything is the level of underhanded tactics by both friends groups to try and influence fans, who have made their own minds up (and could still change them).
A chap came to the sub committee meeting last week and openly admitted he'd never been to a DHFC game and 'didn't know football' and spun the same line about turning the astroturf into some kind of rental business. It's people like this that claim to be fans that undermine any kind of work you're doing.
Maybe have a word with the ex lib dem councillor and tell him to stop sending people to meetings to de-rail them.
editor
hiraethified
For those who can't read PDFs on their devices, here's the introduction. I can't say I fully understand WTF is going on here, but those alarm bells keep on getting louder.
editor
hiraethified
I'll admit I'm having trouble making sense of it all, but if it is the case that the developers are already trying to wriggle out of their obligations to the club then fucking hell this doesn't look good.
Taper
Mark McGann
It's good news that Southwark have rejected. What makes one wince is that the developers did this. Does it represent a change of policy as ownership shifts from Hadley to Meadows? I thought Hadley did a decent job of trying to take fans with them (for entirely rational and selfish reasons). But this doesn't auger well for the immediate future.
editor
hiraethified
It's not just a slight shift from the developers. It's a colossal "fuck you, we don't give a flying fuck about the club and we will do everything we can so we don't have to give you anything at all".
Or at least that's how it's appearing to me from the information that's been given.
Similar threads
