Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

DHFC on Sunday Politics London

Dulwich Mishi

Old Skool Terrace Dinosaur-embracing the new-veau!
R.I.P.
I can't watch this at the moment, am in Canada Water Library, but no headphones. Won't see it til tomorrow. Any chance of anyone posting a brief summary?
With regard to Peter John...he COULD say nothing, or that it's nothing to do with him, even if his words might seem shallow to some/many, they ARE vital!
 

B.I.G

Well-Known Member
No one else thinks that its the Council playing politics with the future of the club? Meadow may have be threatening our future. But when do the council ever present a credible alternative?

At the moment, Meadow want to build a new stadium over the top of the MOL where a pitch already exists. They want to build houses to sell to rich people.

What do the council want to do? At the moment, nothing coherent.

If the council let Meadow build their houses and the stadium it safeguards the future of the club.

What are the council doing? Except playing the with the future of the club?
 

dcdulwich

Well-Known Member
Can't help but feel that 'we'll do whatever is necessary to keep the club going' from John is going to be a millstone round his neck if this goes badly over the next few months.
‘Do whatever is necessary’ is basically plain English for the more technical, and tested by legal precedent, ‘best endeavours’ that appears twice on the motion that will go to Southwark Council Assembly on 29th November.

Pretty sure he knew precisely what he was saying, and the wider implication of those words.
 

PartisanDulwich

Well-Known Member
If he was running away from a commitment to the Club (he posted the Councils support in his earlier tweet) Peter John would not have appeared on the programme

I think the Council recognise that the future of the Club is an important community issue, because we have made it so through the Clubs community work

now to ensure all Councillors back the the Council motion
 

Attachments

Last edited:

B.I.G

Well-Known Member
If he was running away from a commitment to the Club (he posted the Councils support in his earlier tweet) Peter John would not have appeared on the programme

I think recognition that the future of the Club is an important community issue, because we have made it so through the Clubs community work (even more so with elections in May)

now to ensure all Councillors back the the Council motion

View attachment 120864
I must have missed the fans giving their money to the club, while the council keep going with this so far mythical future commitment.
 

editor

hiraethified
No one else thinks that its the Council playing politics with the future of the club? Meadow may have be threatening our future. But when do the council ever present a credible alternative?

At the moment, Meadow want to build a new stadium over the top of the MOL where a pitch already exists. They want to build houses to sell to rich people.

What do the council want to do? At the moment, nothing coherent.

If the council let Meadow build their houses and the stadium it safeguards the future of the club.

What are the council doing? Except playing the with the future of the club?
The basic problem was that Meadow just assumed they'd be able to wave their wad about and build their fugly, overscale, social-housing-free development for the rich on pubic land. And they were wrong.
 

B.I.G

Well-Known Member
The basic problem was that Meadow just assumed they'd be able to wave their wad about and build their fugly, overscale, social-housing-free development for the rich on pubic land. And they were wrong.
They aren't wrong about the club being unsustainable while we dont't have a long lease or own the land though.

I don't give a fuck if its 100 percent council houses or 0 percent.

Its not public land. Only greendale is owned by the council. Seems a good place to build a stadium.
 

editor

hiraethified
They aren't wrong about the club being unsustainable while we dont't have a long lease or own the land though.

I don't give a fuck if its 100 percent council houses or 0 percent.

Its not public land. Only greendale is owned by the council. Seems a good place to build a stadium.
And right there is we'll have to agree to disagree. I very much care about the provision of truly affordable housing.
 

B.I.G

Well-Known Member
And right there is we'll have to agree to disagree. I very much care about the provision of truly affordable housing.
Well you shouldn't. The provision of the football club is more important.

Plus rent controls and landlord regulation would do far more than building affordable housing no matter in what numbers.
 

dcdulwich

Well-Known Member
I can't watch this at the moment, am in Canada Water Library, but no headphones. Won't see it til tomorrow. Any chance of anyone posting a brief summary
Mishi, if you watch via the link on YouTube posted above, you should see a little speech bubble like thing with lines in it in the bottom right corner where you can activate subtitles. It works, I’ve checked. There’s quite a bit to summarise tbh but if you click on JackPittBrook‘s twitter thread below he gave what was an excellent real-time commentary on the piece.

I thought that was a really good segment - it's worth checking out. I did a tweet thread on it here
 

darryl

this wasn't supposed to happen
Can't help but feel that 'we'll do whatever is necessary to keep the club going' from John is going to be a millstone round his neck if this goes badly over the next few months.
Agreed. I think the presenter, Norman Smith, was right to allude to Southwark's poor reputation for its dealings with developers. But credit to Peter John for putting his head over the parapet. I guess he may have no choice as it's in his ward, but then other councils/councillors have form for running away when challenging people with money. When Charlton fans approached Greenwich leader Denise Hyland to intervene over Roland Duchatelet's running of Charlton - just writing him a letter or inviting him for a chat - she declined, and still happily appears in PR pictures with the Duchatelet regime. So John deserves a lot of credit for going on the box to go head to head with Meadow.

‘Do whatever is necessary’ is basically plain English for the more technical, and tested by legal precedent, ‘best endeavours’ that appears twice on the motion that will go to Southwark Council Assembly on 29th November.

Pretty sure he knew precisely what he was saying, and the wider implication of those words.
But we don't know what he's saying. I know this isn't your intention, dcdulwich, but this feels like the sort of patronising "we'll see you right" guff that councils across south London say when they actually don't have a plan, and are just playing for time when they work out what to do. We need transparency.

Has he got a plan? We don't know.

I don't think Southwark can fund the running of the club - that'd be state aid. And there are better things for them to spend their money on.

But the strength of John's comments, particularly about "we can build 50-60 council homes" - and the determination to take back the Greendale pitch - makes me wonder whether they're thinking of taking the very big step of putting a compulsory purchase order in. It's a very big ask, will cost a huge sum, and doesn't immediately solve the question of club ownership. But at least then DHFC has some protection, Southwark keeps Greendale and can build housing and a new leisure centre/school/whatever. At the moment, it seems an easier ask than expecting Meadow to compromise or Southwark to give up a bit of Greendale.
 

Roger D

Well-Known Member
I think Peter John is also likely to be mindful of the fact that the Mayor would probably call in any scheme involving building on MOL, and that Saddiq has both an electoral mandate to block building on MOL and has already rejected one football stadium planned be built on MOL.

Councils tend to be wary of the expense of planning appeals.

Where I live the council waived through a McDonald's after their attempt to block a KFC all but next door was thrown out by the planning inspectorate. (Correctly in terms of law. The local councillors kicked up a fuss about not being able to block the development however the reason they couldn't block it was because they'd taken no steps to prevent such development. A suitable Strategic Planning Document would have done the trick.) They may well have landed the local taxpayers with a large legal bill from KFC.
 

dcdulwich

Well-Known Member
But we don't know what he's saying. I know this isn't your intention, dcdulwich, but this feels like the sort of patronising "we'll see you right" guff that councils across south London say when they actually don't have a plan, and are just playing for time when they work out what to do. We need transparency.
Not sure how he could have been any clearer really:

Peter John: “As a Council we have said we are 100% behind the club. We want to see Dulwich Hamlet prosper on their current site.”

Norman Smith: “Could you step in and fund it?”

Peter John: “Well if need be. We’ll do whatever is necessary to keep the club going. We’ve made that clear.”

Also, I’m not sure if you’ve seen the text of the Council Assembly motion? It is clear what the intentions of it are even if it is, of necessity, wrapped up in legal wording.

The key resolutions are:
  • Council assembly resolves to call on the leader of the council to use best endeavours for the council to work with DHFC; to provide practical support for the remainder of this season if needed; allowing the club to plan for the longer term.
  • Council assembly resolves to call on the leader of the council to use best endeavours for the Council to work with DHFC to ensure that the fans can be at the heart of determining its future.
Putting funding in would certainly not be a first resort - nor should it be, as you say, with other competing demands. I would suggest however, particularly given the above, that if the Committee and Trust are able to show that the club faces an immediate existential threat, the Council could and would ‘provide practical support’ in the short-term to protect the club’s long-term future.
 
Last edited:

PartisanDulwich

Well-Known Member
Nobody, seriously believes an American Hedge fund is not trying to maximise its land speculation by refusing to meet commitments required for affordable housing on the site and holding the Club effectively "hostage"

fewer houses, more affordable housing and I am sure their plans would be accepted, admittedly they may only make £50m profit instead of £100m...but still not bad for £5m speculation

Oh and if Meadow claim they wont make anywhere near that amount of profit
lets open the books and share any profits beyond X
 
Last edited:

darryl

this wasn't supposed to happen
Not sure how he could have been any clearer really:

Also, I’m not sure if you’ve seen the text of the Council Assembly motion? It is clear what the intentions of it are even if it is, of necessity, wrapped up in legal wording.

The key resolutions are:
  • Council assembly resolves to call on the leader of the council to use best endeavours for the council to work with DHFC; to provide practical support for the reminder of this season if needed; allowing the club to plan for the longer term.
  • Council assembly resolves to call on the leader of the council to use best endeavours for the Council to work with DHFC to ensure that the fans can be at the heart of determining its future.
I have seen it. But a motion to council is just words. It's a very good motion because it puts an intention on the record. But just because those words are cloaked in legalese doesn't make them tinged with gold.

Until we see a plan from Southwark, it's appropriate for people to keep asking questions.
 
Top