Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Champion Hill: Proposed Ground Redevelopment

Scolly

Well-Known Member
2: it's open use, so if you have a mate and a ball you may wish to have a kick about ... at your risk

3: FoG know that the upgrade is never going to be possible, the ground is beyond that and they seemingly are choosing to ignore this. A couple of supporters (who I believe to be members of FoG) brought this up at the last club meeting with fans,. The club, Trust and volunteers who work at the ground daily gave them many valid reason's why this could never happen ............ yet FoG still choose to actively promote this as the option. This is the frustrating aspect to much of this, they seemingly wish to kill the club and a huge part of the community to retain a run down astro that I believe Southwark will use eventually*

It would cost over ten million to re-build the ground on the current site, not forgetting we don't own the land and so that would cost us 10's millions to buy out Meadow and that's if they would sell.

*Southwark will never do a CPO, but are more likely to sell Greendale themselves to a developer within the next decade - funding will continue to be cut and councils struggle to fund services.
 

Taper

Mark McGann
The AstroTurf has lifted in many areas and is covered in a mossy slime. There’s a sign saying you play on it at your own risk. Pretty much unusable other than for dog walking
 

Pink Panther

Well-Known Member
On point 3: Who are CPRE asking to "investigate" upgrading the current stadium? We can all investigate it all we like, but only Meadow have the power to actually allow that development to happen and clearly they won't do that. If it was the case that we could just upgrade the current ground, none of these discussions would be happening in the first place - surely they understand that.
I suspect the CPRE neither know nor care about any details. Glibly overlooking the ownership of the freehold by Meadow is an insult to everyone's intelligence. I'd rather they were honest and just said the preservation of MOL is more important than the preservation of DHFC.

it's already been an artificial fully enclosed pitch with floodlights for a number of years. It's also essentially a brownfield site having accommodated a fully enclosed earlier DHFC ground with stands and terraces and attendances of up to 10,000 between 1912-1931, a fact one prominent opponent of the redevelopment insisted was untrue a while ago.
 
Last edited:

teuchter

je suis teuchter
Quite right, if all you like is sophistry....

The club needs a new stadium to survive, it's a straight choice between adherence to the arbitrary conventions re: MOL or the club.
It's quite right that if it's inappropriate development on MOL, because it will be enclosed, then it's inappropriate, and the reason why it needs to be enclosed is irrelevant. The FA's rules don't change what is or isn't appropriate.

The MOL conventions aren't arbitrary, they are there for a purpose (which you may or may not agree with).

The choice is between adherence to MOL rules and letting a developer get away with circumventing them by using the football club as their human shield.
 

Latahs

Well-Known Member
It's quite right that if it's inappropriate development on MOL, because it will be enclosed, then it's inappropriate, and the reason why it needs to be enclosed is irrelevant. The FA's rules don't change what is or isn't appropriate.

The MOL conventions aren't arbitrary, they are there for a purpose (which you may or may not agree with).

The choice is between adherence to MOL rules and letting a developer get away with circumventing them by using the football club as their human shield.
Arbitrary.
 
Top