Discussion in 'Dulwich Hamlet FC' started by Fingers, Aug 26, 2015.
Slippery, offshore tax avoiding bastards. Shame on them.
The land is only worth anything like that amount IF you can sick a shot load of flats on it.
Hope we can get the ground back somehow - any chance of a CPO from Sowthwark?
this october 2014 sale is , i assume , from the time when we were going broke for unpaid electricity bills , etc . so the only way Nick MaCormack could raise money for that was to sell the whole ground ? £5.7M to cover the bills ?
Doubt it, *unless* Southwark have a development partner and a plan of their own up their sleeves, but even then I'm sure they'd rather see Meadow just go quietly.
Nick McCormack didn't own the ground. The previous owners/landlords went into administration, and that's how Hadley got involved.
Think they'd rather see Dulwich Hamlet go quietly, the local council will do nothing for us, we're just a problem that they would like to disappear without causing them too much aggravation.
According to this old post from Dulwich Mishi - Tony's Non-League Forum: Non-League Football Discussion: General Discussion: Champion Hill targetted by developers? - the ground was owned by DHPD Ltd, which collapsed into administration. The final administrators' report (under "filing history" here: DHPD LIMITED - Overview (free company information from Companies House)) refers to the ground being sold as part of that process.
I categorically don’t think this is true (re the Council) and I’m certainly in a better position to judge.
I hope you're right but my experiences with local govt don't fill me with much confidence, and all we've had so far is a few empty words and then silence.
So who received the £5.75m in 2014?
Simply not true. We’ve had very strong support from the Leader of the Council with specific words on which he can (if necessary) be judged.
I don’t think you should or can infer from their lack of contemporary comment that Southwark “will do nothing for us” or “would like [us] to disappear”.
Think we're going to need stronger support than one sentence on twitter. Bottom line is they can't really do anything and should probably admit it. If Meadows go for the scorched earth policy the councillors will just reclassify the derelict land in a few years (probs after a mystery fire on the premises), take a massive bung, and live happily ever after. That's how big property deals kind of work, and Southwark's recent track record concerning large property developments hardly inspires confidence does it.
Actually its recent record on big property deals is that they are seeking 50% affordable and are getting well above 40%.
And (ffs) I’m really not talking about “one sentence on twitter”.
Mate, I’m a very patient person normally but you’re talking shite from a position of close to zero knowledge and I don’t understand to what end.
How do you know that, really how do you? And I take it you are referring to big property deals such as the Heygate development? My point is that, in my opinion, there is absolutely no chance of Southwark Council charging in on a white horse and saving the day, and to think that this is going to happen is really naive. The club has to pursue avenues that aren't reliant on blind faith based on tweets and East Dulwich Forum posts from local councillors. You seem to have some kind of special insight into this so could you give me a bit more detail into what exactly the council are planning to do, then I might defer to your superior intellect and shut up. Promise.
You were the one who first mentioned “big property deals” and no, I’m not talking about the Heygate development. The contract for that was signed about 8 weeks after Labour was returned to power in Southwark after eight years in opposition. That’s more than seven years ago, so hardly recent.
Believe me, as many others will attest, I don’t have a superior intellect. I am however, in a position to call you and your muck-spreading out, based on a better knowledge of the situation. That’s all.
Ok, call me out then and then tell me exactly what Southwark could do to rectify the situation for the club.
That's an awful lot for a football ground that doesn't make any money. They must be stupid.
We're all passionate about saving the Club, I am sure everyone is reaching out to any contacts in a positions of power and influence, from the Committee, Supporters Trust, Gavin etc and I know individuals are doing likewise, (unfortunately my contacts are very limited) unlike dcdulwich who I am sure will be busy in the background lobbying for the club, no one person has a wand, but can assure you dcdulwich is equally as passionate and committed and knows what he’s talking about.
Do I personally think Southwark Council will on this occasion step up to the plate - yes I do (for various political and community reasons) - do I think that will resolve our substantial issues with Meadow's - No
What are you hoping Southwark Council will do, PartisanDulwich?
Certainly don't see Southwark Council wanting to take over the Club - fingers burnt with Save Fisher campaign in the 80's
But believe they can be strong with Meadow re what the future holds for planning etc
The problem is with our foes monitoring this site, probably unwise to have a full debate on options available
Get thee to t'other forum!
Thanks PartisanDulwich. I just think it’s best to leave off kicking the Council until they’ve actually let us down or stood by and done nothing. My view is that they won’t and that is not just based on naive optimism - although as a Hamlet fan I do have a natural tendency in that direction of course.
What is your explanation for the council opposing this development then?
Surely that's down to the Dulwich Estate being a law unto themselves though?
Up to a point. It still had to go through the Council.
I wish I knew
So you've got no real basis for your coments, just your own personal supposition?
That’s quite a serious accusation you appear to be making regarding a particular Planning Committee decision.
If you are suggesting that the Labour Councillors were whipped into voting for a particular decision on a quasi-judicial body - which you appear to be - that would be illegal.
If you’re not suggesting that, you might care to adjust your phrasing to make it absolutely clear.
Separate names with a comma.