# Champion Hill: Proposed Ground Redevelopment



## Fingers (Aug 26, 2015)

Hi all. Plans for the vote on our new ground have been published.

http://dhst.org.uk/trust-poll-plans/

If you want a say in the future of Dulwich Hamlet FC, please join the Supporters Trust before the 3rd September.

http://dhst.org.uk/join/

We will compile a FAQ if people email in their questions and publish it before voting takes place.


----------



## editor (Aug 26, 2015)

I'm not sure if my membership is still valid - I didn't get a reminder to renew. Can anyone check, please?


----------



## Fingers (Aug 26, 2015)

I will check for you now mate. Give me five mins


----------



## Fingers (Aug 26, 2015)

.


----------



## sankara (Aug 26, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Hi all. Plans for the vote on our new ground have been published.



Sorry if I'm missing the point here - are you saying that just the plans for the actual vote itself have been published, or should there be plans for the actual ground redevelopment too?


----------



## Fingers (Aug 26, 2015)

sankara said:


> Sorry if I'm missing the point here - are you saying that just the plans for the actual vote itself have been published, or should there be plans for the actual ground redevelopment too?



Sorry, to be clear, these are plans for a vote on whether we accept the new ground.


----------



## sankara (Aug 26, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Sorry, to be clear, these are plans for a vote on whether we accept the new ground.


Thanks


----------



## Fingers (Aug 26, 2015)

editor You are still valid until Jan 2016.  Could you possibly sticky this post until the vote is over please

Thanks


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 26, 2015)

Has planning permission gone in for this yet?


----------



## AndyDHFC (Aug 26, 2015)

Thanks for posting.

I take it that some additional info will be provided with the vote?

I look forward to seeing the Board's recommendation.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 26, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Sorry, to be clear, these are plans for a vote on whether we accept the new ground.



As a general principal or have more detailed plans been published? If we're effectively voting on the previous presentation that seems a bit premature to me.


----------



## liamdhfc (Aug 26, 2015)

I would hope it will be on the general principle of a new stadium being something that should be supported to make the club sustainable at its current level of football rather than a vote on whether we like the design, length of lease, rental terms or anything specific


----------



## Champion_hill (Aug 26, 2015)

Hi all,

If people have questions would they mind emailing the trust in order for us to compile a FAQ piece on the poll process rather than us responding directly on urban. If there are elements we need to respond to individually by email then of course we will.

Thank you


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Aug 27, 2015)

Who are you please?

And why can't there be responses directly on Urban?


----------



## mick mccartney (Aug 27, 2015)

are other supporters going to be polled ? Or only Trust members


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 27, 2015)

Champion_hill said:


> Hi all,
> 
> If people have questions would they mind emailing the trust in order for us to compile a FAQ piece on the poll process rather than us responding directly on urban. If there are elements we need to respond to individually by email then of course we will.
> 
> Thank you


I'm with Mishi, why can't we have a discussion here then put the answers in?


----------



## Champion_hill (Aug 27, 2015)

Sorry, I should have been clearer when replying, it's Jack B.

Firstly it's important we're clear that we can only answer questions on the trust polling process rather than the ground development. The latter is an area that Hadleys are better placed to provide answers on.

We're more than happy to post the FAQ on urban but as a group of volunteers, we don't have the time/resources to respond to every individual query immediately. Of course the questions which are left on urban can feed into any FAQ.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 27, 2015)

mick mccartney said:


> are other supporters going to be polled ? Or only Trust members



If you pay three quid and pass the vetting process...

Seriously it will be trust members only I assume.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Aug 27, 2015)

Yes, it's a poll for Trust members, as I understand it, to ask members if they as a body, want the Trust to back the proposals. I hope that's right.


----------



## EDC (Aug 27, 2015)

Champion_hill said:


> Sorry, I should have been clearer when replying, it's Jack B.



Do I know you?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Aug 27, 2015)

He means Jack Bagnall....the spokesperson for the Trust Board: http://dhst.org.uk/about/the-board/board/


----------



## Paula_G (Aug 27, 2015)

Still a trifle confused here so can it just be clarified as to whether the poll would be put to those relevant members based on a concrete proposal for development when that happens? Somehow I see a vote for general backing for a new stadium as rather pointless given the possibility for change afterwards.


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 29, 2015)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> Still a trifle confused here so can it just be clarified as to whether the poll would be put to those relevant members based on a concrete proposal for development when that happens? Somehow I see a vote for general backing for a new stadium as rather pointless given the possibility for change afterwards.


 what about non members poll ?


----------



## Fingers (Aug 29, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> what about non members poll ?



What would a non members poll achieve? And how would you go about setting that up?


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 29, 2015)

Fingers said:


> What would a non members poll achieve? And how would you go about setting that up?


 don't know ?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Aug 29, 2015)

I think he might mean a general canvass of all fans, to affirm they might support the new ground plans.

But this poll is about the Trust Board asking for a mandate from their members to see if they, as an organisation, can go forward and support them.

Though I can see where Gareth is coming from, as the Trust membership is probably no more than a quarter of our total fanbase.

But this poll is specifically for Trust members & formulating Trust policy, as I understand it.

So, if you're in the Trust, please use your vote when the ballot papers are issued.


----------



## StephenMac (Aug 29, 2015)

And if you're not a trust member, become one.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 29, 2015)

I think the whole point of any Trust is ultimately that it represents its members - obviously DHST aspires to represent the fans as well as possible but if people want an input into exactly what form that takes then they need to join. A non-members poll isn't going to work as far as I can see - would you just wander round the ground asking people at random?

I don't think a tenner is unreasonable.


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 29, 2015)

StephenMac said:


> And if you're not a trust member, become one.


 even from north wales ?


----------



## Al Crane (Aug 29, 2015)

Yes, even from North Wales. It's simple. If you want to be a part of the vote on the future of the Club/Ground you need to be a member of the Trust.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Aug 30, 2015)

No, I don't think a non-members poll would work..as this is a poll for members of the Supporters Trust to decide if they want their organisation to support the development or not.

It is fair to say, though, that not all fans are members of the Trust, by a long chalk. A membership of just over three hundred-and growing all the time, which is excellent-but therefore only representative of about a quarter or so of Hamlet fans. And by the very nature of a Trust a number of those will not go to games for a variety of reasons, or not even be Hamlet fans per se.

This is not a vote on the development, or whether it goes ahead, as I understand as it is a vote by the members of the Trust to see if they want their body to back it or not.


----------



## AndyDHFC (Aug 31, 2015)

So will the Trust Board be making a recommendation when sending out the ballot? A comment elsewhere gave me the impression not.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Aug 31, 2015)

The answer to that would be....no.


----------



## AndyDHFC (Sep 1, 2015)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> The answer to that would be....no.



Oh. How odd. In the absence of that, I look forward to lots of detail about the ground!


----------



## Paula_G (Sep 3, 2015)

Don't forget if you want to have your say in this you have to be a member of the Trust at the close of play today.
Dulwich Hamlet New Stadium. Don’t Let Your Voice Go Unheard. - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club


----------



## Jimbob73 (Sep 7, 2015)

Hi all, any idea when we might see the latest plans and when the Trust is going to poll the members (oh err missus) on them?


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 4, 2015)

Good on Hamlet regular Maxwell 
@SimonHughes no offence Simon, but it was idiotic of you to go down to Champion Hill and campaign against the proposed development




*Maxwell* ‏@Maxw_ll 
@SimonHughes I say this as a fellow Lib Dem btw. You achieved nothing. Just perpetuated further people's disillusionment with our party.


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 5, 2015)

PartisanDulwich said:


> Good on Hamlet regular Maxwell
> @SimonHughes no offence Simon, but it was idiotic of you to go down to Champion Hill and campaign against the proposed development
> 
> 
> ...



They're claiming to be against the new ground because it will be "smaller". What actually is the planned capacity for the new ground? The Champion Hill development website doesn't seem to mention that anywhere.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Oct 5, 2015)

The new ground has a proposed LARGER capacity, but a smaller overall footprint, I believe. The leaflet stated that many of our fans are against the new ground. Funny that...because I think I'll have spoken to far more fans than the Lib Dem candidate & Simon Hughes will and that is NOT the feedback I have got. 
And it's ironic that Hughes wants us to stay at Champion Hill...for back when the current ground was planned, he TOTALLY OPPOSED that...if he had his way back then there would be no current ground and NO DULWICH HAMLET FOOTBALL CLUB TODAY.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Oct 5, 2015)

I was at the game Saturday and didn't see any leaflets, has anyone got one they could post here or message me with it?


----------



## GregDHFC (Oct 5, 2015)

Jimbob73 said:


> I was at the game Saturday and didn't see any leaflets, has anyone got one they could post here or message me with it?



I'm sorry, I threw mine away in disgust.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Oct 5, 2015)

The headline was:

Ben Maitland says:
Keep the Pink & Blues winning here

Then a mugshot of him with someone else holding a scarf above their heads in front of the main entrance.

The flyer started off with (the bit that is relevant to us):

Like many supporters of Dulwich Hamlet FC, Ben is concerned about plans to build on its pitch and move it to a smaller alternative nearby.
Green Dale, a five-acre plus patch of much-loved open space, is under threat. "Our community needs affordable homes, but property developers and the council must work with residents to find solutions rather than imposing them on us.
What about listening to suggestion of building homes above Sainsbury, for example? Green space and our local football club is too precious to sell out," said Ben Maitland.

I won't comment, as a member of the Trust Board, we must wait until after the poll of our members to do so.


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 5, 2015)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> The headline was:
> 
> Ben Maitland says:
> Keep the Pink & Blues winning here
> ...



Does anyone else find this really weird? I don't get what his point is. Why would a supporter of the club not want the club to move to a better stadium with better facilities?

I asked him on Twitter what his reasoning was and he said "we want the club to be able to grow – not shunted onto smaller ground that wouldn’t be suitable for current crowds". I've asked him where he's heard that the capacity will be smaller but he hasn't responded.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Oct 5, 2015)

Um, probably because he hasn't checked his facts...I wonder if he even spoke to the owners?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 5, 2015)

blueheaven said:


> Does anyone else find this really weird? I don't get what his point is. Why would a supporter of the club not want the club to move to a better stadium with better facilities?
> 
> I asked him on Twitter what his reasoning was and he said "we want the club to be able to grow – not shunted onto smaller ground that wouldn’t be suitable for current crowds". I've asked him where he's heard that the capacity will be smaller but he hasn't responded.



Ask him if it turns out the plans are that the ground will be bigger will he change his stance. He'll probably dodge the question but it can't hurt to ask.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 5, 2015)

its all about a Council by-election to be held this month in Camberwell. The LibDems think by winding up the local resident nibbies to oppose building on Green Dale and while spinning it to Hamlet fans as supporting the club because they think somehow we don't want the redevelopment because it would fit their spin (did they ask anyone ?)

In my experience Dulwich Hamlet fans understand only to well the complex issues surrounding the redevelopment the pros cons and wont be taken in by opportunist of a LibDem candidate and an ex MP who haven't every asked fans views and have not shown any interest in the club previously (and after this by-election wont again)

The candidate and ex MP for Bermondsey  would have done well to speak to LibDem members who actually come to games, they I note have already taken issue in the strongest terms


such as this tweet regarding the leaflet

@SimonHughes I say this as a fellow Lib Dem btw. You achieved nothing. Just perpetuated further people's disillusionment with our party.

As Mishi has stated Simon Hughes showed no interest in Champion Hill in the really bad days when it looked like the club would close without the Sainsbury's deal - once again he is on the wrong side of history

Stop the spinning now - could even start with an apology - now that would be nice !


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 6, 2015)

Good little video from Sian Berry of the Greens - Unlike the LibDems no hidden agenda, no spin


----------



## festa (Oct 6, 2015)

PartisanDulwich said:


> Good little video from Sian Berry of the Greens - Unlike the LibDems no hidden agenda, no spin




REALLY?

Exactly the same. The green candidate has said on twitter she is opposed to the new redevelopment.



That video piggybacks on the success of the work the fans, committee and trust have done to say, these people are great we like them so please like us.

Also if they think it is so great that we should take it into fan ownership from a big company, then by opposing the development could potentially stop that from happening.

it's complete spin, just a lot better done that that shit liar dem twat leaflet.

I wonder if any of these people have actually contacted hadley, the trust, committee or club to actually talk properly about it.

I have voted green in the past but this has put me right off.


----------



## Ludo (Oct 6, 2015)




----------



## Scutta (Oct 6, 2015)

Ludo said:


>



More political toss


----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 6, 2015)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> The new ground has a proposed LARGER capacity, but a smaller overall footprint, I believe. The leaflet stated that many of our fans are against the new ground. Funny that...because I think I'll have spoken to far more fans than the Lib Dem candidate & Simon Hughes will and that is NOT the feedback I have got.
> And it's ironic that Hughes wants us to stay at Champion Hill...for back when the current ground was planned, he TOTALLY OPPOSED that...if he had his way back then there would be no current ground and NO DULWICH HAMLET FOOTBALL CLUB TODAY.


Suerly a larger capacity and smaller footprint is more efficient and more environmentally friendly?  Saying that "many of our fans are against the new ground" is a bit like saying "millions of people voted Lib Dem at the last General Election".  It's irrelevant if the vast majority want something else.

I usually voted Lib Dem until 2010, but I'm so pissed off with their role in propping up the last Tory government, with all it's austerity measures, that I now want a proper left wing socialist government and I'm never likely to vote Lib Dem again.  They've become an irrelevance for me now.  

With situations like ours the more left wing parties seem susceptible to pressure to oppose any sort of development on environmental grounds, and the more right wing parties are susceptible to pressure from reactionary nimbys wanting to preserve the status quo, drive up the value of their own houses, and prevent the development of potentially busy ameneties that attract outsiders to use them.



Dulwich Mishi said:


> The headline was:
> 
> Ben Maitland says:
> Keep the Pink & Blues winning here
> ...


Is he actually a Hamlet supporter?  Has he been to our matches on a reasonably regular basis?  Did he actually watch Saturday's game, which he could have done so for free had he wished?

Greendale isn't a "much loved open space",  it's an inaccessable wilderness that can only be entered through a gap in a broken fence, where anyone who has an accident could easily lie unnoticed for days without being found.  And as far as I can see Hadley *is* working with the council and local community to find the best solutions.


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 6, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Ask him if it turns out the plans are that the ground will be bigger will he change his stance. He'll probably dodge the question but it can't hurt to ask.



I asked him this and his response was: "Need to make sure that we have a solution that works for whole community - protects long term future of club and MOL."

...so apparently it's now not about the size of the ground at all?


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 6, 2015)

Festa - I take on board your knowledge of previous tweets

Blueheaven - The LibDem leaflet was always about local "nimbi's" and getting them upset before the by election this month

If not, the LibDems could have issued a leaflet on the future of the club at anytime (better still spoken to those LibDem supporters who actually go to games)

Pure political opportunism of the worst kind and not a good one for Simon Hughes to make his return after a thumping defeat

If LibDems want to back those local residents who oppose all development on Green Dale - they should simply state so


----------



## Shadsy (Oct 6, 2015)

I've been responsible for some of this tweeting to the candidates, as I live in the ward. And have had the chance to speak to the Tory and LD (who I don't actually believe is a "supporter", just someone who has lived nearby. He certainly didn't claim to have ever actually gone before.)

In summary, it looks like the Tory is the only one prepared to straightforwardly support the club's current plans. I told him he ought to make something of that as it could undoubtedly win him some votes from people who'd never normally consider it.

It's a shame we don't have these DHST poll results (has it happened yet?) as, whilst I believe the majority of fans support the proposal, we only have anecdotal evidence to back that up. In fact, had I known about this by-election in advance, I might have suggested we put up a candidate. Not that I think there would be any chance of winning (Labour are near certainties) but it would have helped raise the issue.

Anyway, there's a hustings at the Albrighton centre on Thursday evening, so I'll go and try to bring it up. If anyone else here lives in the ward and can make it, that would all help.


----------



## festa (Oct 6, 2015)

PartisanDulwich said:


> Pure political opportunism of the worst kind and not a good one for Simon Hughes to make his return after a thumping defeat
> 
> If LibDems want to back those local residents who oppose all development on Green Dale - they should simply state so



As should the greens!



Shadsy said:


> I've been responsible for some of this tweeting to the candidates, as I live in the ward. And have had the chance to speak to the Tory and LD (who I don't actually believe is a "supporter", just someone who has lived nearby. He certainly didn't claim to have ever actually gone before.)
> 
> In summary, it looks like the Tory is the only one prepared to straightforwardly support the club's current plans. I told him he ought to make something of that as it could undoubtedly win him some votes from people who'd never normally consider it.
> 
> ...



Just to make it worse the Tories support the proposal's, I feel like the Tories are just trolling me.


----------



## 3010 (Oct 6, 2015)

Some more from the Lib Dems on their "support" for DHFC: Local Lib Dems proud to support Dulwich Hamlet FC


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 6, 2015)

LibDems accuse Hadley (from above link)

*James Barber, Liberal Democrat councillor for East Dulwich said:*

_"It is tragic that the developer who bought the club and ground speculatively is now blackmailing our community over the future of Dulwich Hamlet"

and

"Liberal Democrat candidate for South Camberwell Ben Maitland joins Sir Simon Hughes at DHFC's recent fundraising match"



FUNDRAISING MATCH  !!!!!


OBVIOUS LIBDEMS DON'T CARE OR UNDERSTAND ABOUT NON-LEAGUE FOOTBALL OR OUR CLUB_


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 6, 2015)

Lib Dem Councillor wants to give us a lecture on his parties views
Dulwich hamlet fans "need to understand"
FXXK RIGHT OFF

Think we are all aware of the issues and hurdles we have to cross - but LibDems are really spinning this one and worse trying to lecture us...as if we don't know anything and just naive fools

all to try and gain a hand full of votes in a by election

*James Barber* ‏@CllrJamesBarber LibDem
@DulwichHamletFC No. The fans need to understand building on MOL as proposed is an extraordinary ask.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 7, 2015)

PartisanDulwich said:


> all to try and gain a hand full of votes in a by election



To be fair if he could gain a handful of votes that would make him one of the most popular Lib Dems around. He could have a shot at being leader.


----------



## EDC (Oct 7, 2015)

Maybe something to do with fact James Barbers house overlooks Greendale.


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 7, 2015)

I'm still going back and forward with the guy on Twitter. I told him that the club has confirmed the new ground will have a bigger capacity, and asked if he will acknowledge that it's misleading to say otherwise. He responded by saying that plans for the ground haven't been submitted so nobody can make any guarantees. I asked him how, in that case, he can make the claim that the capacity will be smaller. He completely avoided the question and said he'd be "happy to meet and discuss our concerns". Just going round and round in circles. If anyone else would like to wade in and question him on this please do.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 7, 2015)

*James Barber* ‏@*CllrJamesBarber* LibDem
@*DulwichHamletFC* but I have met and spoken with owners.

*James Barber* ‏@*CllrJamesBarber* LibDem
suporters to formally decide whn plan app submitted real concern at direction now


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 7, 2015)

First LibDems issue a leaflet without talking to anyone,
Then they lecture us (and by implication suggest we are very naive
now suggesting in tweets we (the supporters) will vote against any planning application because of "real concern about the direction now"

Getting really, really hacked off at being told what we do or do not think by LibDem politician's whos only concern is a by-election and making political mischief, not helping build consensus or cross party approach or cross community for that matter.

Need the supporters Trust (good statement yesterday) to keep ahead of this or they will try and divide us for the same petty self interest and short-term gain


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 7, 2015)

Tory scum.


----------



## EDC (Oct 7, 2015)

This needs posting on the East Dulwich Forum.  James Barber pretty much runs the bloody thing.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 7, 2015)

Now Cllr Barber is claiming he met the Supporters Trust at the Community Council
thus he know what they think

he has been asked on twitter, if he met people from the Trust, then he knows where we stand, so how could he and the LibDems have produced a leaflet suggesting strongly we opposed redevelopment / move to Green Dale


----------



## EDC (Oct 7, 2015)

Cllr. Barber has a history of taking the credit for other people's ideas once popular opinion supports them, The East Dulwich Picturehouse and the proposed new east Dulwich School to name two examples.

He is also a bullshitter.

Saturday's article in the programme Hadley's Matt Rimmer stated that the documents for the proposals go live this week for the upcoming poll.  I'm not sure if the local election falls before or after the Trust's poll results but there are a lot of untruths being spouted at present by one major party and the sooner these are corrected the better.

I doubt Cllr. Barber is even aware of the plans, I doubt he even saw the intials proposal displays in the clubhouse last season, I doubt he even attends Dulwich Hamlet matches unless there's a photo opportunity, the Maidstone match prior to the general election for example.  I doubt he even knows about community football pitches being part of the development, pitches which will almost back right onto the new East Dulwich Charter School which he now champions (despite wanting Haberdashers by choice).  Charter School North Dulwich has a single bog of a pitch at the back of Greendale, both schools would be able to use it.  St.Anthony's hardly has a playground left after their recent development.

Finally, Southwark Council recently proposed plans to turn Greendale into a nice looking park, admittedly a new Football ground wasn't part of them but what better opportunity to turn the ugly wasteland into something safe and decent as well as a new community Stadium.

Cllr. Barber can then say it was all his idea.


----------



## festa (Oct 7, 2015)

Supporting our Southwark by-election candidate at Dulwich Hamlet FC - Sian Berry

Greens still getting in on the act....


----------



## festa (Oct 7, 2015)

Will they be supporting us if the Trust members vote to accept hadleys proposals? Will we be a great little community club then?

This opportunism from the Lib dems and greens has really wound me up. It's so transparent. Problem is that many people probably believe they do get involved in the club seeing them campaign of our backs, as many of the fans are new themselves.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 7, 2015)

I think the LibDems will opt to back the *NIMBY's as they did with the Sainsbury's deal 25 years ago

what we need or should demand is cross party support for OUR plans*

no party or politician get unique access or represents us
They should support our plans on our terms or not at all

Presently, I have Greens and Labour awaiting plans and LibDems opposing building on Greendale and Tory candidate supporting (However not sure if thats the Tory Group line, certainly wouldn't be in Dulwich village ward - by previous sports facilitates like the Herne Hill cycling track)


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 7, 2015)

*Another lecture from Cllr Barber - Thinks were so naive*
*------------------------------*

*James Barber* ‏@*CllrJamesBarber*

@*Ben_V_Harrison* @*HadleyProperty* Do you think they bought *DHFC* for £5.8M for the love of their football or for the ground?


----------



## 3010 (Oct 8, 2015)

A Southwark News article on the LibDems leaflet: By-election candidate "scores own goal" after Dulwich Hamlet leaflet campaign - Southwark News


----------



## EDC (Oct 8, 2015)

3010 said:


> A Southwark News article on the LibDems leaflet: By-election candidate "scores own goal" after Dulwich Hamlet leaflet campaign - Southwark News


Excellent.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 8, 2015)

Official statement from the Trust

Official DHST statement following recent political speculation on the proposed redevelopment of Champion Hill «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


----------



## Scutta (Oct 8, 2015)

.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Oct 8, 2015)

I think what supporters will be asking now, as they already have been, is when the Trust will be issuing ballot papers for the poll.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 8, 2015)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> I think what supporters will be asking now, as they already have been, is when the Trust will be issuing ballot papers for the poll.



When are we going to see the detail on the proposal we'll be voting on is the first question.


----------



## Shadsy (Oct 8, 2015)

As it happens, I work for Ladbrokes, producing their election odds, so we've put some prices out for this by-election:







Obviously, the Labour candidate is pretty much a certainty.


----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 8, 2015)

[QUOTE="PartisanDulwich, post: 14150735, member: 60766]@*Ben_V_Harrison* @*HadleyProperty* Do you think they bought *DHFC* for £5.8M for the love of their football or for the ground?[/QUOTE]

He can't seem to differentiate between the club and the ground.  They bought the ground first and could have just let the club fold under the debts incurred by the McCormack ownership, but then they bought the club and paid off its debts and are working to secure a new ground for DHFC.  Even if the plans don't ultimately come to fruition, at least they appear to be making a genuine effort which must be costing a considerable amount of their time, money and resources.

With the amount of hot air Messrs Barber & Maitland are producing, we could probably harness enough green energy to sell back to the National Grid and pay off all those utility bills incurred under the McCormack regime.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 8, 2015)

*James Barber* ‏@*CllrJamesBarber*  1h1 hour ago

@*tomsearle* @*mrjamesportland* @*Ben_V_Harrison* so do you agree people should be allowed to build on open spaces?

---------------------
so from this tweet we can see LibDems oppose in principle building on Greendale (FULLSTOP)


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 8, 2015)

Excellent article

Any good community politicians would be seeking "cross party" support not trying to divide people 

Insulting our intelligence


----------



## Shadsy (Oct 8, 2015)

Just got back from the by-election hustings. Got to ask a question about the club, didn't really discover anything new. The greens and the (eccentric) independent are not likely to support any development.
The rather unimpressive Labour candidate (who will still almost certainly win) fudged it; no evidence that she has any prior interest in the club. The LD we all know about. The Tory would be in favour of the plans.

Aside from that issue, the Green was clearly the best informed and convincing of the candidates on most other topics, although I won't be voting for her due to her understandable position on the club's plans.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 8, 2015)

* *



*James Barber* ‏@*CllrJamesBarber*  16m16 minutes ago
@*tomsearle* @*LondonNurse2015* @*mrjamesportland* @*Ben_V_Harrison* I'm baffled why you hate the current ground so much you want it destroyed?

 * View conversation * 
0 retweets	0 favorites




*James Barber* ‏@*CllrJamesBarber*  17m17 minutes ago
@*tomsearle* @*LondonNurse2015* @*mrjamesportland* @*Ben_V_Harrison* proposal to build on our open space which will stop it being accessible to resi

 





*James Barber* ‏@*CllrJamesBarber*  53m53 minutes ago
@*tomsearle*@*mrjamesportland* @*Ben_V_Harrison* do you live nr grd? Will you suffer consequences ea. day or just home matches?


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 8, 2015)

Councillor Barber LibDem (East Dulwich) now stating why do Dulwich Hamlet fans hate the ground (see tweet above)

East Dulwich Strongly suggest the Supporters Trust meets councillors of all relevant parties together
at the same time (and after the by-election)
so not played off
and agreed statement afterwards


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 8, 2015)

Tweet to Cllr Barber

@*CllrJamesBarber* @*tomsearle* @*mrjamesportland* @*Ben_V_Harrison* if you meet will all options including reconfig on Greendale be on the table ?

oh now Cllr Barber (LibDem) has just tweeted calling us Stalinist, because fans on twitter said meetings with DHFC fans should be via the Supporters Trust


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 9, 2015)

Do these guys understand that the club needs to move to a new home in order to grow - which is exactly what they'd previously claimed they wanted for the club?

I think it would be helpful if there was an explanation provided of exactly what the problems are with the current ground and why a new ground is desirable (aside from the fact that Hadley eventually want to build on it).


----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 9, 2015)

PartisanDulwich said:


> *James Barber* ‏@*CllrJamesBarber*  1h1 hour ago
> 
> @*tomsearle* @*mrjamesportland* @*Ben_V_Harrison* so do you agree people should be allowed to build on open spaces?


It's clearly a waste of time attemting to reason with this bloke.  If no one was ever allowed to build on open space we'd never have had a ground on the current site.  Or the one on the proposed 'new' site that existed from 1912-1931.  If Cllr Barber lives 'overlooking Greendale' as suggested by someone earlier in the thread, DHFC's residence in the vicinity must predate the building of his own home, on what was presumably open space at the time of its construction.

He seems like stereotypical politician who simply ignores any argument, however factual, that doesn't tally with his won preferences.



PartisanDulwich said:


> *View attachment 77849 *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The open space isn't bloody accessible to residents.  They can only get onto it through a gap in the broken fence.  Does Cllr Barber only ever use amenities or attend events within a stone's throw of his home?  I live opposite Crystal Palace Park - there are countless events there - athletics meetings, concerts, and next week a bloody great fireworks display that bring traffic, noise and congestion to the area.  Although they sometimes irritate or inconvenience me I don't want them stopped, because people like attending them and enjoy them, and they have to take place somewhere.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 9, 2015)

The guy seems like a complete dick (I know, what do you expect from a Lib Dem councilor etc). FWIW I agree with the article PartisanDulwich posted above - opposing the development is a perfectly reasonable position as much as we might not like it. But they can fuck off with the attempt to make out they're supporting the club.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 30, 2015)

dont expect any real support from this slippery evasive bastard,


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 9, 2016)

We'll need a 3k ground at this rate.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 9, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> We'll need a 3k ground at this rate.



It's 3k now and I think that's the proposed size of the new ground already. Maybe it should be much more.

It's not out of the question that people are going to start being turned away if it carries on as it is. Madness.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 10, 2016)

I understood that the capacity of the new ground would be larger than the current one. Around the 4,000 capacity mark. Though I'm not involved in ground matters, so perhaps someone from the Supporters' Trust Ground Development sub-committee type thing, which is monitoring everything could confirm?


----------



## Al Crane (Jan 10, 2016)

New ground has a proposed capacity of 4000.


----------



## YTC (Jan 10, 2016)

Are there any early concept drawings/designs for the new ground?


----------



## 3010 (Jan 10, 2016)

YTC said:


> Are there any early concept drawings/designs for the new ground?


Not sure if you've seen this already but there is a bit of info and some sketches in the original proposals shown here: Our Proposals | Champion Hill Stadium

However according to the DHST update in December the proposals will potentially change after discussions with Southwark: Update on poll on ground redevelopment «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


----------



## YTC (Jan 11, 2016)

Thats fantastic, thanks! I did read the update from December, but if it continues in that vein it's very exciting.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jan 22, 2016)

Hadley article in Time Out


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jan 27, 2016)




----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 28, 2016)

PartisanDulwich said:


> View attachment 82479
> Hadley article in Time Out


This was posted last week on the official Club website, as well.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jan 28, 2016)

>


----------



## alsoknownas (Jan 28, 2016)

Pic of you lots' old ground from scene from The Sweeney, apparently:


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 28, 2016)

no 'apparently' about it. That was the Greendale end. The block behind the pillar at the end of the covered terrace is Leconfield House, the block of flats I grew up in...when council estates WERE council estates. NOT rebranded as social housing & everyone had the council as their landlord, no right to buys, and property, generally, for everyone who needed them... I will never, ever understand this so-called obsession with buying & owning your own property. Good luck to those who do...but it's not the 'holy grail' for me, or many people.


----------



## takkforalt (Jan 28, 2016)

alsoknownas said:


> Pic of you lots' old ground from scene from The Sweeney, apparently:


My flat was used in the Sweeney pilot episode.

John Sweeney in my flat saying 'get your trousers on - you're nicked'


----------



## Pink Panther (Jan 29, 2016)

takkforalt said:


> My flat was used in the Sweeney pilot episode.
> 
> John Sweeney in my flat saying 'get your trousers on - you're nicked'


I love the scene right at the end when the main villain, played by Brian Blessed, punched Regan in the stomach, leaving him in a crumpled heap on the floor, jumps into his Jag and starts the engine, then Regan pulls himself up and sticks his revolver through the drivers window and bellow "Turn off the engine or they'll be collecting yer head in a pillowcase!"  Apparently it was the first time a British Police officer had ever been portrayed drawing a gun in anger on television.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jan 31, 2016)

Worth a quick look at the AFC Wimbledon new stadium Manifesto (good layout for a prospectus)

see link below

New Stadium


"To build (in stages) a high-quality 20,000-seat stadium suitable for Championship level football. The initial stadium will
open with a capacity of approximately 11,000 at a build cost of £16m."


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 1, 2016)

Why is it worth a quick look? Their ground is for progressing up the Football League divisions, with five times an eventual proposed capacity of ours?


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 2, 2016)

Anyway Sweeney and the Wombles aside, any news on how the plans are going and when we might see something?


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Feb 14, 2016)

ex Councillor causing mischief
he is also worth googling


----------



## Fingers (Feb 14, 2016)

Prefer the sound of bulldozers to that of gun shots


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Feb 14, 2016)




----------



## PartisanDulwich (Feb 15, 2016)

Slightly worried that those opposed to all building on Dulwich hamlet present site and Greendale are trying to confuse a number of issues - which need challenging #constructively by the Club


----------



## 3010 (Feb 17, 2016)

Surprised there is no mention of it on the main Hamlet site, but apparently there is an exhibition regarding the new stadium/site development next week:
Thursday 25 Feb 4pm – 8pm.
Saturday 27 Feb 11am – 2pm.
Found the info on the EDF: The East Dulwich Forum


----------



## jnrknight (Feb 17, 2016)

Yes, I got the attached through my door on Saturday.


----------



## Jamie Wyatt (Feb 17, 2016)

jnrknight said:


> Yes, I got the attached through my door on Saturday.
> 
> View attachment 83557



Isn't this exactly the sort of thing the Supporters Trust should be keeping people up to date with?


----------



## JTee (Feb 17, 2016)

How finalised are the stadium plans on that website? Are they planning to show revised plans at the next exhibition?

Quite the topic at the moment, but there is no cover proposed on 3 sides of the ground, so a reduction in sheltered area. I understand there is an effort to reduce the visual impact on the fields, but less shelter for a higher capacity doesn't seem ideal. 

The bar appears similar, if not smaller, sized than current situation. This is a major issue at the moment, and I see no real available space for provision of a second bar unless by the turnstiles ( or additional food outlets? Although I see a kitchen so maybe that sorts that)

The toilets are located in almost exactly the same relative areas as current. Again, I think there are some current location/capacity issues which could be addressed with a new stadium. 

The only real difference I can see between this and our current stadium is increased raised terraced area & increased capacity for what appear to be similar or reduced facilities. It's basically the same stadium rotated 90degrees (obviously with the improved community facilities and behind the scenes). 

I'm sure these points have been raised and explained already, I just think it would be a shame to replicate the issues with the current stadium in the new. 

Am I right in that there's a game on that Saturday, so I will look forward to having a chance to look through the, hopefully progressed, boards then.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 17, 2016)

JTee said:


> How finalised are the stadium plans on that website? Are they planning to show revised plans at the next exhibition?



Those are the old ones - I think there will be new ones yes. 

I think that one was looking at the general principal really so I wouldn't read too much into them in terms of the sort of detail you're talking about. Will be interesting to see where they have got to now but that's the sort of thing I'm hoping will be made clearer. 

Any of the more connected people know if what we'll be seeing will be more or less what they're proposing as final plans?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 18, 2016)

No idea..for starters I'm 'not connected'!

But the more of our fans who go along, and tell our owners what they think of these revised plans the better...I look forward to seeing them next Thursday.

I am sure they will be an improvement on the original 'first draft' ones.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Feb 18, 2016)

the drawings that are appearing seem to show seats down one side but no coverings behind goals ?

Is the design of the stadium a later edition, after planning permission


----------



## JTee (Feb 18, 2016)

PartisanDulwich said:


> the drawings that are appearing seem to show seats down one side but no coverings behind goals ?
> 
> Is the design of the stadium a later edition, after planning permission


Unless they are applying for an outline planning permission first, which I don't think is the case, details like covering of terracing would have to be included within the planning application. 

But hopefully, as the two replies above have said, the plans may be revised for the upcoming consultation and will include some progression on some of the design details.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Feb 21, 2016)

surely we have had input into the design of the stadium


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 21, 2016)

Why has it taken so long?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 22, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why has it taken so long?



Has it? I've no idea how long you'd expect something like this to take tbh. It doesn't seem too bad to me though.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 22, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Has it? I've no idea how long you'd expect something like this to take tbh. It doesn't seem too bad to me though.


Well it's been a couple of years and they're still doing consultations.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 22, 2016)

The new ground has to have... more covered capacity, more raised standing areas, bigger or more bar facilities, more toilets otherwise there is no benifit to the fans attending games.
I'm looking forward to seeing details on Saturday.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 22, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> The new ground has to have... more covered capacity, more raised standing areas, bigger or more bar facilities, more toilets otherwise there is no benifit to the fans attending games.
> I'm looking forward to seeing details on Saturday.



I'd definitely hope to see all that sort of stuff, but the main benefit would be securing the club's future.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 23, 2016)

If the future is in a ground with worse facilities than what we have at the mommet then the supporters (and Trust hopefuly) will have to find a plan B and fight against the proposals - really hope it doesn't come to that! but I'm not willing to accept just anything Hadley offer us if it's not right.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 23, 2016)

...and if it doesn't resemble this they can f right off! ;-)


----------



## darryl (Feb 24, 2016)

This may be relevant/useful - Greenwich Borough FC want to build a new ground on the old Gaelic Athletic Association pitches on the Eltham/Sidcup borders; their current owners think they can make it into Conference National in five years or so. (They're currently playing at Dartford after being booted out of Harrow Meadow, on the other side of Eltham, a few years back.)

Greenwich Council's planners are recommending councillors approve the plans next week. It's item 5 here: Agenda for Planning Board on Tuesday, 1st March, 2016, 6.30 pm - Greenwich Council.

I'd expect this shows some of the challenges the new DHFC ground would face.


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 24, 2016)

darryl said:


> This may be relevant/useful - Greenwich Borough FC want to build a new ground on the old Gaelic Athletic Association pitches on the Eltham/Sidcup borders; their current owners think they can make it into Conference National in five years or so. (They're currently playing at Dartford after being booted out of Harrow Meadow, on the other side of Eltham, a few years back.)


So basically four promotions in five seasons, for a club that pulled almost no support when they played at Harrow Meadow in the past.  This is typical of the sort of tosh you regularly hear from deluded owners of lower league clubs.

I'm sure I read recently that they wanted to take over the Cray Valley Paper Mills ground just south of the Yorkshire Grey junction on the South Circular?


----------



## darryl (Feb 24, 2016)

Pink Panther said:


> So basically four promotions in five seasons, for a club that pulled almost no support when they played at Harrow Meadow in the past.  This is typical of the sort of tosh you regularly hear from deluded owners of lower league clubs.
> 
> I'm sure I read recently that they wanted to take over the Cray Valley Paper Mills ground just south of the Yorkshire Grey junction on the South Circular?



Aye, it's bonkers, especially when they have no fanbase and they'd be just down the road from Welling, who struggle to get crowds in the Conference. There's some small-p politics in this - neighbours have objected earlier plans to stick housing on the site - but hopefully the planning doc shows some of the hoops a new Champion Hill would face.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 24, 2016)

It is similar in some ways.. I expect the main opposition to be around the metropolitan open land thing though (greendales is already becoming more of a leafy paradise loved by all by the day).


----------



## Jamie Wyatt (Feb 24, 2016)

Pink Panther said:


> So basically four promotions in five seasons, for a club that pulled almost no support when they played at Harrow Meadow in the past.  This is typical of the sort of tosh you regularly hear from deluded owners of lower league clubs.
> 
> I'm sure I read recently that they wanted to take over the Cray Valley Paper Mills ground just south of the Yorkshire Grey junction on the South Circular?



I think they have just agreed to ground share there instead of Dartford for the next 3 years, they are getting massive support from the local area for there new ground simply because the neighbours think a small football ground would be better on that site than 150 new homes/flats!


----------



## twistyb (Feb 25, 2016)

Couple of pictures of the proposals in Southwark News.

EXCLUSIVE: First glimpse of Dulwich Hamlet's proposed new stadium - Southwark News


----------



## JTee (Feb 25, 2016)

Unsurprisingly those images don't really give a lot away. Trees and grass. 

Hard to tell but it doesn't look like anymore covered terrace is proposed than just the main stand. 

If anyone is going today and can get some pictures of the plans that would be appreciated! If not I'll wait until seeing the boards on Saturday before commenting.


----------



## StephenMac (Feb 25, 2016)

JTee said:


> Unsurprisingly those images don't really give a lot away. Trees and grass.
> 
> Hard to tell but it doesn't look like anymore covered terrace is proposed than just the main stand.
> 
> If anyone is going today and can get some pictures of the plans that would be appreciated! If not I'll wait until seeing the boards on Saturday before commenting.


But excitingly it seems to suggest that Xav will be returning in some kind of libero role.


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Feb 25, 2016)

Ooh pretty images.

If it does become anything like the actual "planned" works then it'll be nice. Cant see if the ends have covers but that will definitely be useful. Trees look nice though.


----------



## Scutta (Feb 25, 2016)

Just looks like coloured in pictures from the last one?


----------



## ForwardHamlet (Feb 26, 2016)

Went along to the exhibition last night. Safe to say it's still bloody hard to envisage what the ground would actually look like due to draft draft draft drawings and conflicting messages from Hadley re stadium specifics.

Most interesting thing was to bend an ear to the different conversations being had in the room - a big question from local residents was how on earth the traffic light junction onto DKH is going to cope with increased traffic from 155 new homes. I'd suggest that most of those homes would probably not be with vehicle, but there you go.

Most impressive thing I saw was Mishi keeping his cool with a very animated gentleman who took umbridge to the very existence of Dulwich Hamlet. Calm.

PLEASE go and PLEASE complete a feedback form.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 26, 2016)

who went last night? what was your first impressions?
I'll go along Saturday morning to cast my eye


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 26, 2016)

I went last night, and will be there tomorrow as well. Feel free to ask me what my views are, but I think most will guess..


----------



## chris gil (Feb 26, 2016)

there was a  bloke with a big scary walking stick who was very insistent  that the ground would not  encroach on  to the wilderness of greendales , he also brought up the increase in traffic on edgar kail way ,which another couple of elderly ladies also commented on .
I then spoke to scary walking stick man later on and he didn't really have a clue about the club so I layed on thick the the community work and how the new ground would benefit the local people and he seemed quite  impressed .


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 26, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> I went last night, and will be there tomorrow as well. Feel free to ask me what my views are, but I think most will guess..



Ooh I love guessing games... Ok, are you against the plans unless they include a Poetry corner?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 26, 2016)

No, but as a Supporters Trust Board member there is a policy of the Board not publically supporting or being against the development until the polls of members has taken place, so I am bound by Trust Board decisions.


----------



## Taper (Feb 26, 2016)

I see the Friends of DKH  Woods are playing the "3G pitches cause cancer" card on Twitter.  I know supporting the Hamlet can cause arseache, but this is going a little far


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 26, 2016)

ForwardHamlet said:


> Most interesting thing was to bend an ear to the different conversations being had in the room - a big question from local residents was how on earth the traffic light junction onto DKH is going to cope with increased traffic from 155 new homes. I'd suggest that most of those homes would probably not be with vehicle, but there you go.


It can't be that difficult to alter the sequencing of the traffic lights at the junction of Edgar Kail Way to cope with a bit of extra traffic.  How many cars are these prospective new residents going to be making anyway?  Are Jeremy Clarkson, James May & Richard Hammond expecting to move in there?


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Feb 26, 2016)

words fail me 

Dulwich hamlet Cancer scare !!! #ffs

Daily Mail and David Icke school of science and lizards


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 26, 2016)

Shame on them! They are going 'Cameron-ish'! Resorting to weird personal abuse against the Football Club, when they know they have no rational arguments. Let them come out with crap like this and simply laugh at it.
For it has no legal standing when it comes to planning applications.
An organisation is only as strong as its membership.
Why not join?

Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood -   Contact


----------



## Taper (Feb 26, 2016)

It rather destroys their credibility on this issue.  The current astroturf pitch can cause carpet burn though.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Feb 26, 2016)

Yes the local A&E more concerned about doggy rabbit warren, uneven grass pitches than AstroTurf


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Feb 26, 2016)

They are not even suggesting its an allegation risk

thus the legend hashtag

#cancer

Remember those opposed to mobile phone masts said that mobile phone waves would fry our brains


----------



## Scutta (Feb 26, 2016)

PartisanDulwich said:


> Remember those opposed to mobile phone masts said that mobile phone waves would fry our brains


I grew up next to one and Im fine.


----------



## Fingers (Feb 26, 2016)

From the Greens

Questions, questions


----------



## clog (Feb 26, 2016)

I missed this at the time: Forward the Hamlet, says Sian, Green Mayoral candidate


----------



## B.I.G (Feb 26, 2016)

Fingers said:


> From the Greens
> 
> Questions, questions



Well the national league is between the isthmian and the football league. So good knowledge from the Green party. If you are going to analyse, why don't they base it on facts.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 26, 2016)

I won't even bother tearing apart her post. Why? Because there is no way the Green Party would support the development in any form. They do not hold any power in politics, and I do not expect them to have any real influence on this.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Mar 9, 2016)




----------



## Fingers (Mar 9, 2016)

PartisanDulwich said:


>




Joy!


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Mar 9, 2016)

To be fair...I wouldn't expect them to support. But if the plans go through they'll more than take the development investment. And if it doesn't go through...it will remain the eyesore that it is.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Mar 9, 2016)

I see someone asked on twitter where they were meeting, no response, seems rather self selecting bunch


----------



## blueheaven (Mar 10, 2016)

This may be a stupid question, but, given that the new stadium would predominantly take up the land currently occupied by the astroturf pitch - what is this group's actual problem with the plan?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Mar 10, 2016)

I have no idea...you would have to ask them...


----------



## Taper (Mar 10, 2016)

blueheaven said:


> This may be a stupid question, but, given that the new stadium would predominantly take up the land currently occupied by the astroturf pitch - what is this group's actual problem with the plan?



See here for arguments, for and against.

The East Dulwich Forum


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 10, 2016)

blueheaven said:


> This may be a stupid question, but, given that the new stadium would predominantly take up the land currently occupied by the astroturf pitch - what is this group's actual problem with the plan?



Realistically you're not fitting a stadium on the space occupied by the pitches, even if a lot of it is - I think it's fair to say the initial plans fudged that element quite a bit. It is going to require some building on the undeveloped space.

I think we should try and avoid assuming that there aren't any valid arguments against and that everyone objecting is a Barber-type NIMBY.


----------



## GregDHFC (Mar 10, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I think we should try and avoid assuming that there aren't any valid arguments against and that everyone objecting is a Barber-type NIMBY.



I agree.  In fact, the more plans I see, the more worried I'm getting about them.  When I saw the preliminary sketches, I thought they looked great - much better than the current set-up.  As far as I can tell, though, not much work has been done in months on the actual details - they all seem to be left until "later" - and what has been done seems to suggest a much smaller stadium with fewer facilities. I've worked on projects where the details are left until "later" before, and in my experience, it tends to mean the final design doesn't go much beyond the preliminary sketches, and I think that would be very bad news in this case.


----------



## EDC (Mar 10, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Realistically you're not fitting a stadium on the space occupied by the pitches, even if a lot of it is - I think it's fair to say the initial plans fudged that element quite a bit. It is going to require some building on the undeveloped space.
> 
> I think we should try and avoid assuming that there aren't any valid arguments against and that everyone objecting is a Barber-type NIMBY.



I quite agree, I think most of the EDF contributors have been quite sensible in their posts.  It also appears Hadley's haven't covered themselves in glory in their presentation or ability to answer peoples' concerns.  Also didn't the initial proposal have two plastic pitches for community use?


----------



## Jimbob73 (Mar 10, 2016)

I'm must admit I am bit worried, the first plans spoke of a Dartford style ground, in my oppinion one of the best new grounds in and around our level with cover all round, but the new plans are a vague sketch of less than what we have now plus a 3G pitch - hope there is more to the stadium than that.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Mar 10, 2016)

EDC said:


> I quite agree, I think most of the EDF contributors have been quite sensible in their posts.  It also appears Hadley's haven't covered themselves in glory in their presentation or ability to answer peoples' concerns.  Also didn't the initial proposal have two plastic pitches for community use?



Yes I'm sure the first plan had two 5-a-side pitches too that have disapeared in the latest version. We really ned to see some proper Stadium plans soon if Hadley want us to support the project?


----------



## blueheaven (Mar 11, 2016)

Some news coverage: Green campaigners slam proposals for new Dulwich Hamlet stadium - Southwark News


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Mar 11, 2016)

oh


----------



## JoeyJourno (Mar 11, 2016)

I wrote that story - it is a different Simon Hughes! Just a local resident with the same name.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Mar 11, 2016)

Thanks Joey for pointing out
#pitchforkdown


----------



## JoeyJourno (Mar 11, 2016)

No prob... had a feeling it might cause some confusion!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 14, 2016)

Friends of Dog Kennel Wood are against it, not sure how it would set a precedent for building on that. It's depressing that they don't see a bit of wasteland and astroturf being put to better use, there's no reason why it couldn't be both a park and a stadium.

Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood -   Green Dale


----------



## EDC (Mar 14, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Friends of Dog Kennel Wood are against it, not sure how it would set a precedent for building on that. It's depressing that they don't see a bit of wasteland and astroturf being put to better use, there's no reason why it couldn't be both a park and a stadium.
> 
> Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood -   Green Dale



The problem is they can't see what's wrong with the current stadium and that it's already big enough for the club's needs without having to move and build on MOL.  In their eyes it's a property developer trying to make a profit.

The more I read the more I think it's unlikely that the council will ever grant planning permission for a stadium move.  I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 14, 2016)

EDC said:


> The problem is they can't see what's wrong with the current stadium and that it's already big enough for the club's needs without having to move and build on MOL.  In their eyes it's a property developer trying to make a profit.
> 
> The more I read the more I think it's unlikely that the council will ever grant planning permission for a stadium move.  I hope I'm wrong.


The other problem is that it was too big and uneconomical a few years ago when we were getting a a hundred or so but it's tough to make that argument now.

What is the solution in their eyes?.


----------



## EDC (Mar 14, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The other problem is that it was too big and uneconomical a few years ago when we were getting a a hundred or so but it's tough to make that argument now.
> 
> What is the solution in their eyes?.



The million dollar question.  Leave as is I'd have thought.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 14, 2016)

EDC said:


> The million dollar question.  Leave as is I'd have thought.



And what happens to Hadley?


----------



## darryl (Mar 14, 2016)

I went to the exhibition and am still none the wiser. There was so little about the new stadium, I can see why neighbours and conservation groups are worried. Never underestimate peoples' attachment to "disused" playing fields, a similar case happened near my home last year when the Catholic church - which had sat on a disused playing field in Charlton for 20+ years - applied to rebuild a school there. The school was badly needed (and was approved in a sanctimonious fashion) but locals had got used to having that bit of land to themselves.

My big worry is less the stadium itself, but its ability to provide the "sustainable fan-run" DHFC in the future. Before I start, I've got to confess my ignorance of both history and how the current set-up of DHFC/ bar/ health club works (and who owns what) - perhaps some of this thinking went into the 1992 Champion Hill. I'm also not all that familiar with Green Dale and the area to the west of the ground, but I can see why people have such strong feelings about it. (Was there such a row when the new-looking flats to the north of Green Dale got approval?)

A sustainable club will have football as just part of a range of activities. But all I can see Hadleys offering is the same, albeit rotated, together with increased fees from pitch hires, and apparently encroaching onto open land people cherish. I don't think that's sustainable. What happens when/if the bubble pops and the crowds drop down to 500-600 (or less?). Where's the income? (And, of course, where's the room to expand, should a wiser Gavin Rose romp to promotion in 2017?)

Has any work gone into thinking how, say, the DHFC of 2021 would sustain itself? I'm not asking for the world, but a clubhouse that doubled as a bar/community facility for local residents; rooms that people could hire for conferences, events and weddings; a new gym; maybe some small business space for rent; plus pitch hires. A new stadium should be part of the community, not an imposition on it - and should be part of a business model that can sustain the Hamlet whether there are crowds of 130, 300 or 3,000 in the years to come. At the moment, Hadley's process seems to be pitting DHFC against the community (one that's going to be naturally wary of the new flats, no matter how irrational that may be), and that's not a good thing.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 14, 2016)

Excellent post darryl. Those are important questions. As far as sustainability goes I think while additional income streams can certainly help (although they can become a liability if you're not careful - as I understand it some of the problems with the existing ground are related to exactly that through things like the gym) the key is still the ownership basis and arrangement on the ground. If you're paying nothing/very little on the ground then you can get by on small crowds as you can be very responsive to changes in income - most players are on short term contracts anyway, if your income goes down you just get cheaper players. I think this is how most non-league teams manage to keep going. If you end up with a substantial rent or lease cost then you're extremely exposed to falls in income. 

I'm not clear how it would work at the moment but I'd expect to hear something in some detail before I'd take a view on any proposal.


----------



## EDC (Mar 14, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> And what happens to Hadley?



And there lies another problem.  If they can't get permission to built flats on the current stadium either then what's the point in them hanging around?  I doubt they want to move into permanent club ownership even if it is making money so I suppose they'd sell everything on but who would buy it?  However the way property developers and local councils work together is unpredictable, you scratch my back.  There are a few developments in ED going on at present, the M&S/Iceland site being one which have upset local residents in the way things have been pushed through (flats disguised as offices in the plans to avoid the requirement to supply social housing in the development).


----------



## blueheaven (Mar 15, 2016)

EDC said:


> The problem is they can't see what's wrong with the current stadium and that it's already big enough for the club's needs without having to move and build on MOL.  In their eyes it's a property developer trying to make a profit.
> 
> The more I read the more I think it's unlikely that the council will ever grant planning permission for a stadium move.  I hope I'm wrong.



What actually _is_ wrong with the current stadium? I don't think I've ever seen a specific explanation of this.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 15, 2016)

blueheaven said:


> What actually _is_ wrong with the current stadium? I don't think I've ever seen a specific explanation of this.



What I've heard (and to be clear I don't have any inside knowledge or anything so this is hearsay really) is that there's a couple of things. That the layout of the ground apparently attracts very high business rates, and that some of the additional areas such as the gym are loss makers. 

Like sleaterkinney points out above though it might be less plausible to argue these are insurmountable obstacles now there are 1500+ people coming in regularly.


----------



## GregDHFC (Mar 15, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> What I've heard (and to be clear I don't have any inside knowledge or anything so this is hearsay really) is that there's a couple of things. That the layout of the ground apparently attracts very high business rates, and that some of the additional areas such as the gym are loss makers.
> 
> Like sleaterkinney points out above though it might be less plausible to argue these are insurmountable obstacles now there are 1500+ people coming in regularly.



If we were committed to staying at the current ground, couldn't we fix some of the issues though?  I read someone's suggestion (possibly on the EDF) that we could rent out the gym space to a company like Virgin or Pure Gym - surely that would bring a profit rather than a loss?  High business rates are more of a problem, but is there a reason why an ownership properly committed to running the current ground well couldn't work?


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2016)

blueheaven said:


> What actually _is_ wrong with the current stadium? I don't think I've ever seen a specific explanation of this.


Can't wedge in enough new housing, I imagine.


----------



## Paula_G (Mar 15, 2016)

Another possibly Rio Ferdinand teams up with West Ham and Brighton stars for affordable housing scheme


----------



## Roger D (Mar 15, 2016)

If the ground wasn't owned by property developers, who realistically will want a commercial return on their investment, the Pure Gym etc route may have worked. However that sort of level of rent wouldn't even touch the sides of the sort of commercial return Hadley are likely to be looking for given the amount they spent on the land.

I hope my memory is wrong but in the Hambase development I have a feeling memory that the shop on the ground was accepted. It was the new ground that was rejected. It's to be hoped Hadley have  learnt the lessons from that application.


----------



## Paula_G (Mar 15, 2016)

Sure that was correct, though that was by the Inspector on appeal rather than the council.
Norm the Eclectic Rabbi: The NORM REPORT


----------



## Jimbob73 (Mar 29, 2016)

Any more news on this, when are we likely to see plans of an actual stadium? 
What with the Mayoral election and Brexit looming I've got my voting hat on and am ready to rumble.


----------



## Scolly (Mar 29, 2016)

So the local council leader is against the current plans


----------



## Scolly (Mar 29, 2016)

Any point in meeting them when trust members / fans have not been asked / polled for their views yet?


----------



## clog (Mar 29, 2016)

Absolutely hilarious that the leader of Southwark council is against the scheme on the basis of lack of affordable housing, given what they've done to estates like the Heygate and Aylesbury...


----------



## darryl (Mar 29, 2016)

clog said:


> Absolutely hilarious that the leader of Southwark council is against the scheme on the basis of lack of affordable housing, given what they've done to estates like the Heygate and Aylesbury...



Is Greendale in a marginal ward, by any chance?


----------



## clog (Mar 29, 2016)

darryl said:


> Is Greendale in a marginal ward, by any chance?



It appears to be currently in South Camberwell, which isn't marginal at all - it is safe Labour. Peter John is one of the councillors. Under the proposed boundary changes it will be in Champion Hill ward, which isn't a lot different to South Camberwell from what I can tell. Southwark London Borough | Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal


----------



## JoeyJourno (Mar 29, 2016)

The final planning application has been submitted by Hadley to Southwark Council. It will include _covered standing areas_ behind each goal, following consultation with fans.


----------



## darryl (Mar 29, 2016)

JoeyJourno said:


> The final planning application has been submitted by Hadley to Southwark Council. It will include _covered standing areas_ behind each goal, following consultation with fans.



Hmmm. So I take it that it'll be out to consultation in a few weeks?


----------



## JoeyJourno (Mar 29, 2016)

Southwark Council will begin its own consultation "shortly", with no start date specified. As ever, check the Southwark News for the latest!


----------



## EDC (Mar 31, 2016)

EDF latest:
The East Dulwich Forum


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 31, 2016)

EDC said:


> EDF latest:
> The East Dulwich Forum



For anyone who hasn't followed the link there's a copy of the application on there. It's huge so I haven't looked at it properly yet.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 1, 2016)

OK I've had a look and I have to say I'm seriously unimpressed. It looks like a) they're still trying to suggest the ground can more or less fully be fitted onto the current five a side pitches which I just don't think can be done and b) that the stands look to run along about two thirds of one side of the pitch with no space at all on the other three sides. 

Maybe I'm missing something and I'm interested to see what other people think. It looks bad to me at the moment though.


----------



## Scutta (Apr 1, 2016)

whole plan put together by a kind person on the EDF 

GPC-PlanningApplication.pdf

rather than in parts to DL fro the councils website.


----------



## EDC (Apr 1, 2016)

Scutta said:


> whole plan put together by a kind person on the EDF
> 
> GPC-PlanningApplication.pdf
> 
> rather than in parts to DL fro the councils website.


I'm finding it very hard to see anything about the stadium proposals which start on page 87 of the original document, what's on the EDF is a chopped version of the planning application concentrating on the flats and houses.  Maybe I'm wrong?


----------



## Al Crane (Apr 1, 2016)

EDC said:


> I'm finding it very hard to see anything about the stadium proposals which start on page 87 of the original document, what's on the EDF is a chopped version of the planning application concentrating on the flats and houses.  Maybe I'm wrong?



The whole application has not been uploaded to the planning website yet, hence the reason you're only seeing stuff on the residential part of the development.


----------



## EDC (Apr 1, 2016)

Is this because the trust haven't been consulted about the design yet?  Should I be feeling a bit uncomfortable about the way this is progressing or is this typical property developer procedure?  To be frank I'm unhappy the second community plastic pitch has been binned as to me thst was a selling point so what next?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 1, 2016)

Al Crane said:


> The whole application has not been uploaded to the planning website yet, hence the reason you're only seeing stuff on the residential part of the development.



I hadn't picked that up. The detailed stuff is going to need to be very different to the images that are in there though.


----------



## Al Crane (Apr 1, 2016)

EDC said:


> Is this because the trust haven't been consulted about the design yet?  Should I be feeling a bit uncomfortable about the way this is progressing or is this typical property developer procedure?  To be frank I'm unhappy the second community plastic pitch has been binned as to me thst was a selling point so what next?



No I suspect it's just because it's a large application and it's down to 1 person at the Council to upload it!


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 1, 2016)

Looked through that palning and on p33 it says more Football ground details in chapter 6 but it stops at 5?


----------



## takkforalt (Apr 1, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Looked through that palning and on p33 it says more Football ground details in chapter 6 but it stops at 5?



Whole thing isn't uploaded yet.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Apr 3, 2016)

takk for alt


----------



## pinknblue (Apr 4, 2016)

I've not seen the latest plans, but looking at the original plans, the bar looks to be about the size of my downstairs toilet!! Given the significant problems we already have with the bar, surely the new bar should be at least at big as the current one?


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 4, 2016)

anyone seen or got a link to the fully loaded plans yet? i.e. one with actual details of a football ground?


----------



## EDC (Apr 4, 2016)

Latest from the EDF.

*






Re: Planning application submitted for new DHFC stadium*
Posted by *BrandNewGuy* Today, 09:26AM

Well, the case officer has confirmed (see below) that the application is currently invalid as all the necessary documents have not yet been received. I'm surprised that a proposed development of this scale would drop the ball with regard to the basics. 

"Application 16/AP/1232 for the redevelopment of Dulwich Hamlet FC is currently invalid as we have not received all of the required documents from the applicant. Following receipt of these and validation we will be then be starting formal public consultation. Please no not rely on the current information on the Council’s website as due to the number and size of documents submitted it is taking our administration team a significant amount of time to upload them. I would recommend that you wait until formal consultation has begun."


----------



## darryl (Apr 4, 2016)

Perhaps they forgot to tell Southwark about the football ground too.

I had a look through the first 70-odd pages that were uploaded to the EDF and I'm a bit baffled. It says the 1992 redevelopment lumbered the club with loss-making squash courts and gym facilities, yet appears to be about to propose the same for the new ground. It seems to to reinforce my worry that too little thought is going into what kind of business will sustain DHFC in the future, and that Hadley seem to think that more of the same will do.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 4, 2016)

EDC said:


> I'm surprised that a proposed development of this scale would drop the ball with regard to the basics.


Happens all the time


----------



## Taper (Apr 5, 2016)

More details for the new stadium have appeared on the planning site.  Chapter 6 and its 5 subsections are most relevant
.

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/1232&system=DC


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 5, 2016)

Are there covered stands at the ends?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 5, 2016)

God council planning websites are just the worst


----------



## GregDHFC (Apr 5, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are there covered stands at the ends?



Hard to tell, but looks like there may be small covered sections.

It is hard to see how that stadium has a capacity of 1,000 more than the current one.  It looks like it might be down to better gradient of terracing, and perhaps more emergency exits, rather than any actual extra space around the ground.  From a first glance, it looks like that ground would be extremely hard to walk around when it is busy.

Generally underwhelmed by that plan.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 5, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are there covered stands at the ends?


Small ones, 12m wide, a little wider than the goal.
Overall capacity 3500 standing, 500 seated.

(The detailed drawings are in the Appendices btw)


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 5, 2016)

Crispy said:


> Small ones, 12m wide, a little wider than the goal.
> Overall capacity 3500 standing, 500 seated.
> 
> (The detailed drawings are in the Appendices btw)


How deep?.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 5, 2016)

Charter 6 is the football club section (in 5 parts) - can't say I'm blown away. Worried we just wont have the facilities to run a sustainable club. Don't want to end up at square one or worse.
I've downloaded all 5 parts and put them into one smaller PDF. PM me your email if you want me to send it to you


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 5, 2016)

Crispy said:


> (The detailed drawings are in the Appendices btw)



which ones? There are 22! Bloody ridiculous website, surely they can cut the size of the files down?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 5, 2016)

Trying to pick stuff out on a phone is a pain, but I'm still concerned about the amount of space on the three sides other than the main stand. Looks like the stadium is 13.5m longer than the pitch. Which would include the goals, pitchside walls and rear walls. So say 5m at each end. How does that compare to the current ground? At best I think it would be similar.


----------



## vornstyle76 (Apr 5, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> What I've heard (and to be clear I don't have any inside knowledge or anything so this is hearsay really) is that there's a couple of things. That the layout of the ground apparently attracts very high business rates, and that some of the additional areas such as the gym are loss makers.
> 
> Like sleaterkinney points out above though it might be less plausible to argue these are insurmountable obstacles now there are 1500+ people coming in regularly.


Does Dulwich Hamlet qualify as a small business*? Because if so the latest Budget rather torpedoes that logic.

* = Via google: "According to the UK's Companies Act 2006 a small company is defined as one that does not have a turnover of more than £6.5million, a balance sheet total of more than £3.26 million and not more than 50 employees."


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 5, 2016)

vornstyle76 said:


> Does Dulwich Hamlet qualify as a small business*? Because if so the latest Budget rather torpedoes that logic.
> 
> * = Via google: "According to the UK's Companies Act 2006 a small company is defined as one that does not have a turnover of more than £6.5million, a balance sheet total of more than £3.26 million and not more than 50 employees."



It would depend where Hadley (or whoever it turns out actually owns them) have recorded the ground as an asset I would guess.


----------



## JTee (Apr 5, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> which ones? There are 22! Bloody ridiculous website, surely they can cut the size of the files down?



Appendix 12 for overall site plan. 
Appendix 16 has detailed plans, with the main stand plans a few pages down. 
Appendix 17 has sections, including details through the terraces and the proposed cover. 

The terraces on the three other sides are 8 steps tall, the tallest level being 1360mm above pitch level.  The cover looks to cover front to back, but as mentioned earlier only covers a short stretch directly behind the goals.


----------



## EDC (Apr 5, 2016)

There doesn't appear to be a lot of room for a useless gazebo bar or a stoned ticket seller.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 5, 2016)

Tbf 8 steps would make a big difference.


----------



## darryl (Apr 5, 2016)

vornstyle76 said:


> Does Dulwich Hamlet qualify as a small business*? Because if so the latest Budget rather torpedoes that logic.
> 
> * = Via google: "According to the UK's Companies Act 2006 a small company is defined as one that does not have a turnover of more than £6.5million, a balance sheet total of more than £3.26 million and not more than 50 employees."



Depends on what business actually *is* Dulwich Hamlet at the moment: a little meander through the Companies House website and the planning application throws up...

Champion Hill Developments Ltd (which is taking the season ticket money), 
Champion Hill Investments Ltd (same personnel), 
Greendale Property Company (presumably the Hadley development vehicle, but isn't listed at Companies House), 
Dulwich Hamlet Football Club Ltd (Nick McCormack), 
Dulwich Hamlet Leisure Ltd (Hadley), 
Dulwich Hamlet FC Football In The Community Ltd (Gavin Rose - presumably this is ASPIRE).

Companies House service


----------



## EDC (Apr 5, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Tbf 8 steps would make a big difference.



Especially along nearly the whole length of one side of the ground. I'm sure the matter of the length of the covered area can be sorted out at a later date.

Edit.  Not a lot of fun in the rain though, hopefully a section of covered area along the side is a bare minimum necessity.


----------



## vornstyle76 (Apr 5, 2016)

darryl said:


> Champion Hill Developments Ltd (which is taking the season ticket money),
> Champion Hill Investments Ltd (same personnel),
> Greendale Property Company (presumably the Hadley development vehicle, but isn't listed at Companies House),
> Dulwich Hamlet Football Club Ltd (Nick McCormack),
> ...


....We're by far the greatest team the world has ever seen.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Apr 5, 2016)

We need to keep our own counsel, Hadleys have been true to their word to date (and more) but we will always need to be vigilant to every twist and turn and the bottom line is they are a property company with a plan to build houses

Of course I hope we get a wonderful new stadium, but we need to be ready for any eventuality


----------



## Fingers (Apr 5, 2016)

Here is a better place to see all of the PDFs

GPC-Planning Application - pt2.pdf


----------



## Crispy (Apr 5, 2016)

Some extracts from the drawings and my thoughts:

Steep terracing. Nobody will have to stand on tiptoe to see past the person in front. There are two small covered parts behind each goal, although there are no fundamental reasons why this cover couldn't be larger, or added in other locations.

The uphill end will have the best acoustics, with a full height retaining wall for bouncing the sound back onto the pitch:


The downhill end will not reverberate as well:


It looks like the only way to walk around the ground is at the high level behind the terraces. If you're on the bottom step, you have to make your way to the top in order to find a way out. The three terraces are separate and you have to go to the top to move between them. You can tell they've really tried to make it as narrow as possible to avoid encroaching on Greendale.

Note that in the grandstand, some of the very top-left seats won't get a view of the near-side goal line, which will be blocked by the Sainsbury's retaining wall.



There are two food/tea bars at pitch level, one on either end of the grandstand (orange).
The downhill one has large toilets (blue), also the club shop next door (green).
The uphill one is smaller and has smaller toilets.

Upstairs, the uphill-side gym takes up one entire half of the building. I count 87 exercise machines! There are toilets in the middle, then the bar and offices to the downhill-side. The actual bar room is bigger than the existing one by my reckoning and can be split in two with a folding wall. But the actual bar is far too small. Only 5m long, and crammed into one corner. And the access is inadequate. A narrow door at one end, and a circuitous route at the other. Fine for private events, but on match day this room needs to be a beer-serving machine with clearly defined entrance and exit. Go back to the drawing board, Farrells.



Overall, the clubhouse is ok. Steel frame with no internal columns, so the layout will be very easy to change in the future.

The home team get 6 showers in their changing room. The away team get 4. Hah!


----------



## EDC (Apr 5, 2016)

Good work.  I wondered what the gap was behind the covered ends.  I'm concerned that in the second picture two people are watching the match over the fence for free.  That's not on.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 6, 2016)

Those two people are stood at the higher level, inside the ground, under the floodlights, which is also reserved for wheelchairs. Now that I look at it, they should have ramped access at both ends of the terracing, rather than just the uphill side.

From outside the ground, the fence is always at least 6'


----------



## vornstyle76 (Apr 6, 2016)

Crispy said:


> Steep terracing. Nobody will have to stand on tiptoe to see past the person in front.


Well, since each step would be roughly 17cm I still reckon there'll be a fair amount of tiptoeing during busy games unless we all stand in order of height. But that aspect of the ground is still an improvement on the current crap.

Thanks for putting that together, Crispy.


----------



## ForwardHamlet (Apr 6, 2016)

Great effort, Crispy - thank you.


----------



## ForwardHamlet (Apr 6, 2016)

Unfortunately there appears to be no dragon pits for unlimited pyro.


----------



## vornstyle76 (Apr 6, 2016)

This is apparently what the walkway round the back will roughly look like (though, obviously, far less cover): http://www.constructionphotography....ces_Park_Dartford_FC_South_East_London_UK.jpg


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 6, 2016)

Is the Gym going to belong to the football club?, will we be able to run the bar, pitch, shop etc outside matchdays?. The most important thing in all of this is that we have a sustainable club for the future. Also as the footprint is very small, there is absolutely no room for ground improvements or expansion in the future, other than maybe adding on more cover around the terrace steps.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 6, 2016)

vornstyle76 said:


> This is apparently what the walkway round the back will roughly look like (though, obviously, far less cover): http://www.constructionphotography....ces_Park_Dartford_FC_South_East_London_UK.jpg



Why can't have cover all the way round like Dartford? We were originally alouded to that the ground would try to emulate Dartfords model. Is this just cost cutting excersize by Hadley? Any good reason why we are only getting two small bus shelters?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Apr 6, 2016)

Still a darn sight/site better than the current ground...


----------



## Crispy (Apr 6, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Why can't have cover all the way round like Dartford? We were originally alouded to that the ground would try to emulate Dartfords model. Is this just cost cutting excersize by Hadley? Any good reason why we are only getting two small bus shelters?


I imagine partly cost, but also to reduce visual impact from Greendale.

The only realistic expansion on this site would be additional seating in the grandstand, at the expense of the gym, and a complete reorganisation of the 1st floor. Would be prohibitively expensive.

EDIT: Particularly if the re-landscaped Greendale is a hit with locals. You think they're being protective about a bramble thicket? Just wait until it's a pretty park.


----------



## clog (Apr 6, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Why can't have cover all the way round like Dartford? We were originally alouded to that the ground would try to emulate Dartfords model. Is this just cost cutting excersize by Hadley? Any good reason why we are only getting two small bus shelters?


Dartford's ground is really nice, not a bus shelter in site. It's also aesthetically pleasing as well as giving cover all round.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 6, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Still a darn sight/site better than the current ground...



Yep definetely (althought that's not particularly hard), but we have to make sure it's usable and financially viable. If this doesn't work then it really is game over for football in East Dulwich. I'm just really nervous about excepting anything without really thinking it through long term.


----------



## darryl (Apr 6, 2016)

Dartford's ground is fantastic. They've had average crowds of 1,000+ since they moved back and Princes Park has a capacity of 4,100 - roughly same as what Hadley are planning for the new Champion Hill. 

What I don't understand: if the current gym is loss-making, why will the new gym be profitable?


----------



## B.I.G (Apr 6, 2016)

darryl said:


> Dartford's ground is fantastic. They've had average crowds of 1,000+ since they moved back and Princes Park has a capacity of 4,100 - roughly same as what Hadley are planning for the new Champion Hill.
> 
> What I don't understand: if the current gym is loss-making, why will the new gym be profitable?



I had assumed any gym would be for residents and not run by club anyway.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2016)

The gym will have to compete with all those new library/gyms too.


----------



## B.I.G (Apr 6, 2016)

editor said:


> The gym will have to compete with all those new library/gyms too.



And hospital / pubs too.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2016)

If there's a downturn in the economy, gym membership is often one of the very first things to go for the cash strapped.

#justsaying


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 6, 2016)

I assume there is a boardromm and some sort of offices? These plans are giving me a headache


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Still a darn sight/site better than the current ground...


True, but then when it comes to cover behind the goals we easily have one of the worst grounds in the league, so the bar is set just about as low as it can go.


----------



## liamdhfc (Apr 6, 2016)

Current plans are for the gym to be run by one of the big names in that industry (with associated income to the club at a fixed amount) and not for it to be a potential burden on the club like the current one


----------



## Crispy (Apr 6, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> I assume there is a boardromm and some sort of offices? These plans are giving me a headache



These plans in the "brochure" part of the planning app don't exactly match those in the detailed drawings (which is sloppy work) but the general layout is similar. I've labelled the important rooms.


----------



## clog (Apr 6, 2016)

editor said:


> If there's a downturn in the economy, gym membership is often one of the very first things to go for the cash strapped.
> 
> #justsaying


This is true but the gym at Downham library was absolutely heaving on Monday when I took the kids for their swimming lesson...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 6, 2016)

darryl said:


> What I don't understand: if the current gym is loss-making, why will the new gym be profitable?



Well there'll be a great big new development full of people who can afford expensive gym membership about 30 seconds walk away.

Also apparently the current gym is a bit of a shithole.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Well there'll be a great big new development full of people who can afford expensive gym membership about 30 seconds walk away.
> 
> Also apparently the current gym is a bit of a shithole.


A lot of those may well be doing their workouts at their interhub lifestyle connected workplaces, mind.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 6, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Why can't have cover all the way round like Dartford? We were originally alouded to that the ground would try to emulate Dartfords model. Is this just cost cutting excersize by Hadley? Any good reason why we are only getting two small bus shelters?



Well yes cost and planning as Crispy says. I think it's important to keep in mind that Hadley's aim here is to build the houses, and to make that as profitable as possible. To do that they need to offer a good enough ground - to convince the planning committee and they probably do need the fans on side given the number of objections there will be anyway - but it was never going to be a no-expenses spared top of class ground. 

On a related note, Crispy, how close do projects have to be to the plans? If it turned out the actual ground cut further corners compared to the plans is there any comeback?


----------



## vornstyle76 (Apr 6, 2016)

darryl said:


> What I don't understand: if the current gym is loss-making, why will the new gym be profitable?


My wife went to the current gym once and absolutely hated it, said it wasn't a friendly place for women.

Edit: Obviously this doesn't necessarily mean a different one on a nearby site would flourish.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 6, 2016)

Does anyone know if the DHST poll to members will ask if we should a) support or oppose the plan or B) are they just going to ask us to support the Trust boards desions on the proposals first, whatever way that might be?


----------



## EDC (Apr 6, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Also apparently the current gym is a bit of a shithole.



It used to be a great gym when Skip was running it.


----------



## StephenMac (Apr 6, 2016)

EDC said:


> It used to be a great gym when Skip was running it.


Used to be a great skip when Jim was running it.


----------



## EDC (Apr 6, 2016)

StephenMac said:


> Used to be a great skip when Jim was running it.


Used to be a great run when Jim was skipping it. 

Beat that.


----------



## Al Crane (Apr 6, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Does anyone know if the DHST poll to members will ask if we should a) support or oppose the plan or B) are they just going to ask us to support the Trust boards desions on the proposals first, whatever way that might be?



See article from DHST published last week. It is the intention that the Trust will poll their members on whether DHST should formally support the proposals.

Ground redevelopment planning application submitted «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


----------



## darryl (Apr 6, 2016)

Hadley press release: A New Home - Dulwich Hamlet Stadium Submitted to Planning | Hadley Property Group Ltd


----------



## Al Crane (Apr 6, 2016)

darryl said:


> Hadley press release: A New Home - Dulwich Hamlet Stadium Submitted to Planning | Hadley Property Group Ltd



I haven't looked in depth at the planning application yet but if the last image in that article showing Greendale with the stadium in the distance is included then I'm afraid the telecommunications mast which has been left on the site is going to seriously hurt Nyren Clunis* when he runs into it.

*Assuming Nyren has been stuck out on the left wing again.


----------



## clog (Apr 6, 2016)

editor said:


> A lot of those may well be doing their workouts at their interhub lifestyle connected workplaces, mind.


If the gym is run by GLL, for example, their membership will cover them for the gym at their workplace and at the Hamlet.


----------



## darryl (Apr 7, 2016)

not sure this tweet from the club account is helpful - it's entirely understandable neighbours will be concerned and that shouldn't be mocked (it's not as if they're saying it looks like Tuscany).


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Apr 7, 2016)

Actually, you're correct. When, at the turn of the century, one of the opponents to building on Greendale with a Homebase on our ground, who is also opposed to the current scheme,  John Beasley, spoke out against the Homebase/ground scheme, he 'only'' compared Greendale to the Peak District.

And, if you've seen the leaflet produced by Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood, opposed to our new ground, they're not adverse to using made up images either. Fighting fire with fire...


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 7, 2016)

Regarding the 3G pitch, does anyone know much about them? e.g. How long will one last? How high are maintenance costs? How much will it cost to replace each time? etc.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Apr 7, 2016)

Heard they cause cancer. #science


----------



## keith1 (Apr 7, 2016)

Cyclodunc said:


> Heard they cause cancer. #science


Old scaremongering rumour I'm afraid.  It is due to the use of crushed up old rubber tyres to form the rubber base in some pitches installed in the USA.  EU standards mean that they aren't allowed to use this as a base for a 3G pitch in Europe.

I've heard various costs for the installation - anything from £250k up to £900K.  Most at our level are probably a minimum of £500k.  Most clubs have been able to get FA grants for half the installation cost. The more you pay the better the quality and the longer they last.  They are reckoned to need replacing after about 10 years, but since none of the existing ones have been down that long it is hard to know how accurate that is, and technology is improving the standard of the pitches pretty quickly, so an older pitch may need to be replacing because it is obsolete before it gets the chance to wear out.

Having been on quite a few, I'd much rather have one like Sutton's than one like Whyteleafe.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2016)

3G pitches: great for training and community use, horrible as an arena for 'proper' football games.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Apr 7, 2016)

keith1 said:


> Old scaremongering rumour I'm afraid.



Ja, I know.


----------



## pinknblue (Apr 7, 2016)

Crispy said:


> Small ones, 12m wide, a little wider than the goal.
> Overall capacity 3500 standing, 500 seated.
> 
> (The detailed drawings are in the Appendices btw)



There are over 800 seats planned so will increase seating capacity


liamdhfc said:


> Current plans are for the gym to be run by one of the big names in that industry (with associated income to the club at a fixed amount) and not for it to be a potential burden on the club like the current one



That sounds very sensible, but has this already been broached with any gym companies? It would be a bit of a nightmare to have a gym that neither the club nor anyone else wanted to run!


----------



## Joe K (Apr 7, 2016)

editor said:


> 3G pitches: great for training and community use, horrible as an arena for 'proper' football games.



I used to think this was the case, but watching a game on the most up-to-date artificial surfaces is pretty similar to watching a game on a really good grass pitch. It's not Loftus Road 1984 stuff. Moreover, it would save clubs and fans an awful lot of wasted journeys/ empty Saturdays. Refs seem to be getting tighter and tighter on what consitutes a postponement now.


----------



## Joe K (Apr 7, 2016)

(I mean, I'm sure we can all think of one club in East Sussex who could really, really benefit from using a 3G pitch.)


----------



## pinknblue (Apr 7, 2016)

Some personal reflections having spent far too much time looking at the plans today!

Plus points
1/ Increased ground capacity and seating:
862 seats + 12 for press
10 wheelchair spaces
3137 standing
2/ Outside facade and front of club looks great!
3/ Stepped terracing on 3 sides will make watching the game a much more enjoyable experience for large crowds (and smaller ones!).

Concerns
1/ Very little covered terracing. I'd love to see the whole ground covered, like at Dartford, but if that's not possible I'd much rather have one 25m covered terrace behind one goal than two tiny shelters at each end. I think 2 small shelters will look rather silly and certainly won't be large enough to accommodate the Dulwich supporters when they are behind either goal. If we had one larger shelter we could add one of a similar size at the opposite end when finances allowed.
2/ Given the current problems with the bar, I think these will be much worse with the proposed design. The new bar area and function room (total of 302 Sq.M.) is probably slightly smaller than the current bar/function room, though I'm not certain of that. With the tiny (5 metres or so) new bar it'll be almost impossible to serve a crowd of 1,000+ on a match day and they'll be no space to have an outside bar. More thought needed her, methinks.


----------



## blueheaven (Apr 7, 2016)

A new letter in the local press from Friends of Greendale: Letters of the week (07/04/2016) - Southwark News

Is there no window for compromise, whereby the bulk of Greendale behind the new ground is simply left as it is, without the play equipment, ornamental gardens etc, which it would seem are not wanted anyway?

The part about loss of the current astroturf is bizarre - the current astroturf is well past its best and it would surely only be "lost" to the extent that it'd be replaced with a far better facility.


----------



## EDC (Apr 7, 2016)

Astroturf?  It's more like Astrocrete.


----------



## blueheaven (Apr 7, 2016)

EDC said:


> Astroturf?  It's more like Astrocrete.



It's certainly a very strange surface - first time I played on it it reminded me of the felt on a snooker table (but laid over concrete). I've never seen a surface like it anywhere else.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2016)

Joe K said:


> I used to think this was the case, but watching a game on the most up-to-date artificial surfaces is pretty similar to watching a game on a really good grass pitch. It's not Loftus Road 1984 stuff. Moreover, it would save clubs and fans an awful lot of wasted journeys/ empty Saturdays. Refs seem to be getting tighter and tighter on what consitutes a postponement now.


I know and understand the arguments. But I like  the look, the smell and the variablity of grass, where the pitch reflects the seasons and the style of football has to change accordingly.


----------



## Paula_G (Apr 7, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Actually, you're correct. When, at the turn of the century, one of the opponents to building on Greendale with a Homebase on our ground, who is also opposed to the current scheme,  John Beasley, spoke out against the Homebase/ground scheme, he 'only'' compared Greendale to the Peak District.
> 
> And, if you've seen the leaflet produced by Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood, opposed to our new ground, they're not adverse to using made up images either. Fighting fire with fire...


There's a copy of the Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood (sic) leaflet that they have been distributing locally - to say their impression of the ground impact is amateurish and inaccurate is putting it mildly. Interested to note the renaming of Greendale.


----------



## liamdhfc (Apr 7, 2016)

They are also offering a spring walk that will use Greendale and, it appears, a kick about on the Astroturf. Apparently, this is because the property belongs to Southwark and not DHFC. However, I am advised that the club does have a lease in perpetuity and that any access to the public is entirely voluntary on the club's behalf. I call that being a good neighbour to them.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Apr 7, 2016)

Re the Gym
wouldn't it be better to have conferencing/social facilities rather than a gym that requires regular updating and is  very much at the vagaries of the economy and vogues


----------



## vornstyle76 (Apr 7, 2016)

That graffiti on the leaflet's imagined stadium wall is the most aesthetically interesting bit of Hadley's design.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Apr 7, 2016)

vornstyle76 said:


> That graffiti on the leaflet's imagined stadium wall is the most aesthetically interesting bit of Hadley's design.



The local graffiti artists' battle cry: "MOL MOL MOL"


----------



## liamdhfc (Apr 7, 2016)

There is an option with one of the country's biggest gym operators to run the facility. Business plans far from finalised but will ensure that risks to club are minimised.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 8, 2016)

The graffiti seems to be all by supports of the 'Friends of Dog Kennel Hill' - vandals!
On the plus side it does show that the Toilets opposite stand has been moved and re-used - excellent idea chaps ;-)


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 8, 2016)

Seriously though there main objection seems to be the loss of a small strip of 'Virgin MOL' land that is currently between the old 'astro-concrete' and the current ground, which when I saw last week is currently occupied by a rusty shipping container and a numberof old Sainsbury's trolleys.


----------



## Al Crane (Apr 8, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Seriously though there main objection seems to be the loss of a small strip of 'Virgin MOL' land that is currently between the old 'astro-concrete' and the current ground, which when I saw last week is currently occupied by a rusty shipping container and a numberof old Sainsbury's trolleys.



I've heard you can do wonderful things with a rusty old shipping container


----------



## pinknblue (Apr 8, 2016)

PartisanDulwich said:


> Re the Gym
> wouldn't it be better to have conferencing/social facilities rather than a gym that requires regular updating and is  very much at the vagaries of the economy and vogues



Maybe that's what the space designated as a 'studio' is for? Does anyone know what the 'studio' space will be used for?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 8, 2016)

pinknblue said:


> Maybe that's what the space designated as a 'studio' is for? Does anyone know what the 'studio' space will be used for?


Means exercise activities that don't require fixed equipment. Dance, martial arts etc.


----------



## pinknblue (Apr 8, 2016)

liamdhfc said:


> There is an option with one of the country's biggest gym operators to run the facility. Business plans far from finalised but will ensure that risks to club are minimised.



Thanks for the info. Liam!


----------



## pinknblue (Apr 8, 2016)

Crispy said:


> Means exercise activities that don't require fixed equipment. Dance, martial arts etc.


Ahhh!


----------



## EDC (Apr 8, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Seriously though there main objection seems to be the loss of a small strip of 'Virgin MOL' land that is currently between the old 'astro-concrete' and the current ground, which when I saw last week is currently occupied by a rusty shipping container and a numberof old Sainsbury's trolleys.



Which the public shouldn't have access to that area anyway if the fences around the astro-concrete were in put back in place.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 8, 2016)

"Hadley could redevelop the existing stadium or if that's not their bag, sell the land back to Southwark Council"

What planet are these people on?. Councils are making massive cuts and they're going to buy the land and build a stadium?.


----------



## chris gil (Apr 8, 2016)

editor said:


> I know and understand the arguments. But I like  the look, the smell and the variablity of grass, where the pitch reflects the seasons and the style of football has to change accordingly.


the demise of "divot of the day "


----------



## Taper (Apr 8, 2016)

One of the chief protagonists behind this campaign is Stephen Govier. He has a rather colourful backstory and a history of campaigning. 

Murder, arms dealing, treason and sexual abuse: the apartheid regime and the Tory right


----------



## vornstyle76 (Apr 8, 2016)

Taper said:


> One of the chief protagonists behind this campaign is Stephen Govier. He has a rather colourful backstory and a history of campaigning.
> 
> Murder, arms dealing, treason and sexual abuse: the apartheid regime and the Tory right


I knew about the drug-fuelled attempted murder but didn't realise he was a former pro-apartheid Tory. Labour seem willing to let any scumbag become a local councillor as long as they're not even vaguely socialist.


----------



## Joe K (Apr 8, 2016)

vornstyle76 said:


> I knew about the drug-fuelled attempted murder but didn't realise he was a former pro-apartheid Tory. Labour seem willing to let any scumbag become a local councillor as long as they're not even vaguely socialist.



Christ. That's some Gladio-level stuff.


----------



## Scolly (Apr 14, 2016)

So Govier's new tactic on tweeter is to try to convince Dulwich fans that no alcohol will be allowed on the terraces of a new stadium.  How is this guy on the council?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Apr 14, 2016)

He's NOT on the Council. He is a former councillor, who is a maverick, to say the least.


----------



## Scolly (Apr 14, 2016)

I see ....


----------



## Taper (Apr 14, 2016)

I follow Mr Govier on Twitter, which is something of a chore as I don't share his, er, diverse interests. 

I have tried to get to the bottom of the links between Friends of DKH woods and FoGreendale and where Govier fits in.  He's very active in both.  And Fo DKH Woods seem to make a lot of the running lobbying for Greendale to stay as it is. 

He is a liability for the campaign.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Apr 14, 2016)

What campaign?


----------



## Scutta (Apr 14, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> What campaign?


save greendale


----------



## Cyclodunc (Apr 14, 2016)

He started tweeting me utter nonsense yesterday. Blocked.


----------



## Taper (Apr 14, 2016)

I've posted elsewhere about his expertise as a lobbyist and campaigner; for Apartheid South Africa it transpires.


----------



## darryl (Apr 14, 2016)

Taper said:


> I've posted elsewhere about his expertise as a lobbyist and campaigner; for Apartheid South Africa it transpires.



Maybe he'll book Queen to do a benefit gig on Greendale.


----------



## Taper (Apr 14, 2016)

That's a good idea.  Any badgers on Greendale?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Apr 14, 2016)

Scutta said:


> save greendale


 Ah, it was meant as the anti-campaign. I misunderstood, and thought it meant our (non) campaigning...D'oh!


----------



## YTC (Apr 14, 2016)

The man is clearly in need of some assistance. He sent me a barrage of tweets un prompted yesterday, never had any communication with him before.


----------



## Pink Panther (Apr 14, 2016)

Cyclodunc said:


> He started tweeting me utter nonsense yesterday. Blocked.





YTC said:


> The man is clearly in need of some assistance. He sent me a barrage of tweets un prompted yesterday, never had any communication with him before.


I reckon people need to keep a record of this sort of thing and use it agaisnt him if he becomes active in any sort of opposition to the redevelopment plans.


----------



## Taper (Apr 14, 2016)

I think so.  Hyperbole, intransigence and ad hominem attacks can seriously undermine campaigns like this and alienate public opinion.  See "Save Southwark Woods" by way of an example.

The real issue with the Hadley development is the massive housing development on the pitch, which if I lived around there I'd be worried about.  And yet most debate hitherto has been about the sanctity of the outdated notion of MOL and a shitty piece of astroturf on a previously inaccessible piece of urban scrubland.   Bizarre really.


----------



## Taper (Apr 15, 2016)

And I see he's been at it over night on Twitter.

I follow him and, among pictures of bread, retweets of "emergency twinks" and accusations of slavery, there are quite a few posts about the Hamlet.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 15, 2016)

What's the timeline on this then?


----------



## dcdulwich (Apr 16, 2016)

Taper said:


> And I see he's been at it over night on Twitter.



Blocked him a couple of years ago. To put it politely he is an 'interesting' character.


----------



## editor (Apr 16, 2016)

That unhinged fuckwit Stephen E. P. Govier has decided to send a stream of weird shit to the buzz and urban75 twitter accounts. I think he'll have to be blocked because he's just so fucking dull.


----------



## Scrooge (Apr 17, 2016)

Me too, he went back over about six months worth of my tweets and replied to stuff apparently randomly


----------



## Taper (Apr 17, 2016)

He was harassing a few people on Twitter last night, because they'd tweeted about the game.  I think he's a pretty disturbed character, as his history would suggest


----------



## Pink Panther (Apr 17, 2016)

Taper said:


> The real issue with the Hadley development is the massive housing development on the pitch, which if I lived around there I'd be worried about.  And yet most debate hitherto has been about the sanctity of the outdated notion of MOL and a shitty piece of astroturf on a previously inaccessible piece of urban scrubland.   Bizarre really.


It was the same with the 'Hambase' redevelopment proposal in 2002.  Council was happy to approve buildign a huge DIY retail shed on the current ground, but not to approve the replacement ground on Greendale.  By the same logic they wouldn't oppose building houses on the current ground.

Personally, and in all honesty, I wouldn't be bothered about any of the proposals.  Several brownfield or wasteland sites within a couple of hundred yards radius of my home have been developed for housing over the thirty years in which I've lived there, and in all cases it's an improvement on having an overgrown wilderness fenced off with corrugated sheeting, or crumbling old houses that barely look fit for human habitation.


----------



## darryl (Apr 17, 2016)

Did anyone else get approached yesterday by a woman with a red clipboard introducing herself as being "from Dulwich Hamlet" inviting them to sign a petition "from fans" backing Hadley's redevelopment? Did the trust know this was happening?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Apr 18, 2016)

Why would the Trust have to know? Perosnally, I didn't know...but it comes from the owners of the Club, and thought it was a good idea.


----------



## darryl (Apr 18, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Why would the Trust have to know? Perosnally, I didn't know...but it comes from the owners of the Club, and thought it was a good idea.



well, Hadley is meant to be securing fans' support via the Trust, not via a petition. What happens if the Trust isn't happy, but a load of day-trippers have signed a petition?


----------



## clog (Apr 18, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Why would the Trust have to know? Perosnally, I didn't know...but it comes from the owners of the Club, and thought it was a good idea.



They're asking us to sign a petition in support of a stadium when we haven't seen any plans for it yet? Hmm.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 18, 2016)

clog said:


> They're asking us to sign a petition in support of a stadium when we haven't seen any plans for it yet? Hmm.


The planning application is available to view - linked from this thread.
Supporting this application is the critical thing. Specific details (eg bar layout, number of toilets etc.) can be worked out after permission is granted.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Why would the Trust have to know? Perosnally, I didn't know...but it comes from the owners of the Club, and thought it was a good idea.


I would suggest that notifying the fans and media before the game would have been a pleasant courtesy and perhaps have garnered a more positive  response.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Apr 18, 2016)

Possibly, yes.
But at the end of the day it was a simple asking you to support this initiative.

Part of the problem, I think, is that there is no campaigning from within the Club, on from on the terraces, to build support for the development...the people handing out these flyers are not 'football people' like the rest of us.

Personally, I am hoping this will change soon.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Possibly, yes.
> But at the end of the day it was a simple asking you to support this initiative.


I think it's unreasonable to expect people to sign any kind of petition when they've haven't been afforded the opportunity to study the facts first.


----------



## YTC (Apr 18, 2016)

editor said:


> I think it's unreasonable to expect people to sign any kind of petition when they've haven't been afforded the opportunity to study the facts first.



Have to agree. Without this thread I would know nothing of the plans. So i'd imagine 90% of attendees on Saturday were totally clueless.


----------



## clog (Apr 18, 2016)

Crispy said:


> The planning application is available to view - linked from this thread.
> Supporting this application is the critical thing. Specific details (eg bar layout, number of toilets etc.) can be worked out after permission is granted.



I'm sorry but I am not going to give my blanket support to something when the detail isn't clear enough for me to be sure I support it.


----------



## EDC (Apr 18, 2016)

Just a quick reminder of one of Cllr. James Barber's quotes on the EDF after the last match of last season.

*






Re: Dulwich Hamlet FC*
Posted by *James Barber* 20 April, 2015 22:32

3,000 capacity on Saturday. We'll need a bigger ground! 
What a great problem to have.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 19, 2016)

Any news as to when we will get full details of the ground and proposal to vote on?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 19, 2016)

You've already got them. The planning application's been made and it won't change substantially from now.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 19, 2016)

I'd want to see more than that planning application before I support anything. I'd hope we would have a proper presentation to the fans from Hadley? Including exactly how the hand over of the club and ground will take place, and timeframe, plus guarantees that the new ground will be ready before we have to leave the old one as promised. I'd also want to see projections of running costs  (gym, bar, pitch etc) and how we can see that the club can be financially viable in the new ground. At the moment some achitectual drawings aren't going to get my vote.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2016)

I think it would be good to open this out onto Buzz but it does feel like it's hard to get an overview on what's on offer. Would someone (Crispy ?) fancing penning something that makes it all a little more clear?


----------



## AndyDHFC (Apr 19, 2016)

editor said:


> I think it would be good to open this out onto Buzz but it does feel like it's hard to get an overview on what's on offer. Would someone (Crispy ?) fancing penning something that makes it all a little more clear?


If it can wait til the Friday/ the weekend I'd be happy to


----------



## Jamie Wyatt (Apr 19, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> I'd want to see more than that planning application before I support anything. I'd hope we would have a proper presentation to the fans from Hadley? Including exactly how the hand over of the club and ground will take place, and timeframe, plus guarantees that the new ground will be ready before we have to leave the old one as promised. I'd also want to see projections of running costs  (gym, bar, pitch etc) and how we can see that the club can be financially viable in the new ground. At the moment some achitectual drawings aren't going to get my vote.



Would it even be possible to build new one before we leave current one, given the main building is due to be built within the existing footprint of current ground or am I wrong on that?


----------



## crocustim (Apr 19, 2016)

I am extremely sceptical about the circulation of fans around the pitch/behind the goals to and from the bar, catering and toilets. It all looks very tight and there'll be no breathing room to expand onto if it turns out to be rubbish once in operation. Then what? People won't keep coming if its an unpleasant scrum for 2 hours.

Edit: perhaps the 1.2m is just about enough after all.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 19, 2016)

Jamie Wyatt said:


> Would it even be possible to build new one before we leave current one, given the main building is due to be built within the existing footprint of current ground or am I wrong on that?


I'm guessing they could put up that stand and clubhouse in between seasons?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 19, 2016)

I think when it comes to a straightforward 'do you support the application' question what's missing from the conversation at the moment is that it's not clear at all what you'd be voting for if you voted 'no.' Really that's a more important question than the specific details of the new proposal. If planning permission is refused then what's the alternative, because it's unlikely to be the status quo. Hadley aren't going to want to run the club into the indefinite future so what do they do in the event that they don't get permission for this scheme?


----------



## Jamie Wyatt (Apr 19, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm guessing they could put up that stand and clubhouse in between seasons?



Don't think that would be allowed (ground grading etc if we was going for promotion) or even possible?!?


----------



## EDC (Apr 19, 2016)

It took builders six months to do my extension!


----------



## B.I.G (Apr 19, 2016)

EDC said:


> It took builders six months to do my extension!



Bad PM? Or bad QS????


----------



## Al Crane (Apr 19, 2016)

EDC said:


> It took builders six months to do my extension!



To be fair basement swimming pools can take a while..


----------



## B.I.G (Apr 19, 2016)

Al Crane said:


> To be fair basement swimming pools can take a while..


----------



## EDC (Apr 19, 2016)

B.I.G said:


> Bad PM? Or bad QS????



Nope, just useless made worse by being Tottenham fans.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 20, 2016)

Jamie Wyatt said:


> Would it even be possible to build new one before we leave current one, given the main building is due to be built within the existing footprint of current ground or am I wrong on that?



Don't know how but it's one of the agreements in this document between Hadley and DHST.
Hopefully Hadley sick as close to all that is 'promised' in it

http://dhst.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/DHST-and-HDML-signed-MOU-September-2015.pdf


----------



## Jamie Wyatt (Apr 20, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Don't know how but it's one of the agreements in this document between Hadley and DHST.
> Hopefully Hadley sick as close to all that is 'promised' in it
> http://dhst.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/DHST-and-HDML-signed-MOU-September-2015.pdf
> http://dhst.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/DHST-and-HDML-signed-MOU-September-2015.pdf



Fair enough, will be intresting to see how. If planning permission granted, I still think we will have to play somewhere else for a period of time!


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Apr 20, 2016)

I, personally, think there would, in all practicality, be a 'short window' of a groundshare...I've not been told that, that's my personal hunch.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 20, 2016)

I'm not totally against a short ground share but I would be very nervous to see flats going up on our ground before the new one looks well on its way


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Apr 20, 2016)

That, simply, would not happen.


----------



## Fingers (Apr 20, 2016)

No it would not.  There is scope for getting work done over the summer season but I am not privy to any plans to do this so again, pure speculation.


----------



## Scutta (Apr 20, 2016)

worth reading perspectives on here people have similar worries - also some nimbyism plus govier defending, but good to understand all sides and perspectives.
The East Dulwich Forum


----------



## Taper (Apr 20, 2016)

Yes, you'll notice I've made an input on that thread.  Some rather disgraceful slurs from a local councillor (which under pressure from me he seems to have run away from) and then from another source on the motivation behind some of the club and supporters' community facing work. Some real dogmatic nimbyism about the sanctity of Greendale and MOL too. 

But there are some well made points about the nature of Hadley's commitment that I think should concern us all.  I'd like to see Southwark drive some real hard commitments from Hadley: on the new stadium, but also on affordable housing and improvements to the green space around there, including Greendale.  It may be the DHST could take a wider view on benefit to the community in offering in principle support.  I don't think a straight yes or no works under the current circumstances.


----------



## darryl (Apr 20, 2016)

Dulwich Hamlet Football Club Committee statement on proposed new stadium - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club



> _"Dulwich Hamlet Football Club Committee fully supports the principle of the club being relocated to a new stadium on the site identified by our owners, Hadley Property Group. The Football Club Committee believes that without these plans coming to fruition that Dulwich Hamlet Football Club will never become a viable business. This will leave it always having to rely on the goodwill of its owners/investors for its continued survival. Without this financial input the club will be unsustainable at its current level and face a future that will see it decline in importance._
> 
> _The club urges all fans to communicate their support for a new stadium.
> 
> ...


----------



## festa (Apr 20, 2016)

darryl said:


> Dulwich Hamlet Football Club Committee statement on proposed new stadium - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club



A strong stance from the committee which is good to see. Although have they put all their eggs in one basket, I wonder? What do they propose if planning permission doesn't get accepted. Or we end up like we did last time with a short lease, or the stadium as it is designed now, because quite frankly it isn't good enough for what we want, need or the space to move up. Is it a case of better this, than nothing? What about a long term plan? Also what is their plan if Hadley and their hedge funds decide to screw us over? Be interesting to know if we are to support this course of action. 



darryl said:


> _The Committee expects that all of its members will communicate their support for a new stadium whenever they are requested to express their opinion on potential development._



I notice a couple of the members straddle their responsibilities with the Trust, who are not taking a stance or directing members which way to vote (rightly or wrongly). So they can (rightly) represent the members democratic decision, how and which position (Trust or Committee) trumps the other? Or are they still unable to express an opinion - even though they have clearly already done so here?



Basically there are a lot of unanswered questions on all sides, we need to hear more before we can decide and make sure we don't make past mistakes or new mistakes. And so far the presentations have been woeful, pretty much the same although the second one had a cardboard model and the pictures were coloured in. And any question asked was answered "yeah, no but we can add that in after" or "no the Gym wont be as it is there, they wont get to watch the game for free". Were we being fobbed off, if I was cynical about property developers (I am), I would say yes. This doesn't fill me with confidence. The MoU by the trust also has worrying caveats, that from the outside look like they could/would be exploited.

Personally, I'm yet to be convinced by the stadium plans as being good enough or thought out well enough, however I only see us getting screwed if we don't get the planning position - no matter how happy clappy Hadley have been -  Hedge funds and money are "more important" than community, in the end. Not to be too cynical (which I am).

So I'm unsure as I don't want to agree to what is a pretty shit stadium plan, but I also don't want us to get screwed over by not supporting it enough. What is the option other than get what we are given or go bust.


----------



## liamdhfc (Apr 20, 2016)

These are my views and not those of the committee on the 'what ifs' should planning permission not be forthcoming but it isn't too hard to work out.

There is lots of space to rationalise the stadium and build around it whilst leaving the club with a stadium that is basic. There is room for lots of flats on the car park and that i believe would instantly get council backing.

There is also the potentially even worse scenario of selling on to another developer who does not see the football club as part of their plans.

Then there is also the question of Hadley looking to recover the money they put in to rescue the club.

The committee statement is designed to ensure it does not give any backing to the stadium designs as presented so far but does back the principle of relocation in general as it believes it is the most realistic way for the club to be able to build a sustainable future.

As for the length of the lease, then it is something Hadley will struggle to influence alone. This is where  the fans have a strong voice to change this by lobbying the council, as they will be the club's landlords if Greendale becomes a reality and I am sure the council will be minded to listen.

In addition, I would like to be told a little more about what the Trust mean when using the word 'sustainable'. The club could become sustainable by reverting back to amateur status and paying no players. Obviously this would mean slipping down the pyramid to a level that is commensurate with that philosophy. Or does it mean a club that is run entirely debt free or within its means?

Does it mean a club that is debt free and/or one that will never take on debt to fund growth?

What is very clear is that trying to maintain the status quo will not be possible whatever happens.


----------



## Taper (Apr 21, 2016)

I have no reason not to believe that the club can't survive or prosper in its current ground.  But it would be very useful for the argument to have some more financial detail on this. It's pure assertion otherwise.


----------



## liamdhfc (Apr 21, 2016)

Taper said:


> I have no reason not to believe that the club can't survive or prosper in its current ground.  But it would be very useful for the argument to have some more financial detail on this. It's pure assertion otherwise.


I have asked for more information on some of this but don't think that all the club's finances will be put in the public domain. A quick look at Companies House for the accounts of DHFC pre Hadley reveal a Profit & Loss Account with a deficit of around £430000 so we can safely assume it wasn't making money.
There is also a figure for bringing the stadium up to standard (which I haven't got) that is not wildly different from a figure the council themselves came up with as part of the process.
My personal opinion is that to stay much longer at the current stadium, and to even begin to make it work, would mean at a minimum, extensive spending on refurbishing the main stand, replacing the grass pitch with 3G and definitely installing new floodlights.


----------



## Scutta (Apr 21, 2016)

liamdhfc said:


> I have asked for more information on some of this but don't think that all the club's finances will be put in the public domain. A quick look at Companies House for the accounts of DHFC pre Hadley reveal a Profit & Loss Account with a deficit of around £430000 so we can safely assume it wasn't making money.
> There is also a figure for bringing the stadium up to standard (which I haven't got) that is not wildly different from a figure the council themselves came up with as part of the process.
> My personal opinion is that to stay much longer at the current stadium, and to even begin to make it work, would mean at a minimum, extensive spending on refurbishing the main stand, replacing the grass pitch with 3G and definitely installing new floodlights.


So basically the ground is not fit for purpose anymore? whatever happens a lot of changes need to happen to the current ground, Maybe worth committee putting something like that together, to show people why the current ground may not work as it is.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Apr 21, 2016)

Scutta said:


> So basically the ground is not fit for purpose anymore? whatever happens a lot of changes need to happen to the current ground, Maybe worth committee putting something like that together, to show people why the current ground may not work as it is.


 I believe...'watch this space'....


----------



## liamdhfc (Apr 21, 2016)

Scutta said:


> So basically the ground is not fit for purpose anymore? whatever happens a lot of changes need to happen to the current ground, Maybe worth committee putting something like that together, to show people why the current ground may not work as it is.


I would  say that in my personal opinion the stadium will require a lot of work (and money) to be a stadium we can be proud of. I would acknowledge that this has come to a head because of the lack of spending by previous owners to maintain even basic functions. However, that is where we are and without a new stadium I can see a lot of money having to be spent to stand still in the not too distant future. I can see if the committee wants to add to their statement but I am sure more will be available once a campaign to support it starts properly


----------



## Jamie Wyatt (Apr 21, 2016)

I expect Hadley to produce something like this to show how new ground will be built... 

Barcelona's plans to transform the Nou Camp in the next four years


----------



## Champion_hill (Apr 23, 2016)

We have set a cut off date to join the trust as we prepare to poll.

Poll on proposed ground redevelopment to launch next week «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


----------



## Joe K (Apr 23, 2016)

Jamie Wyatt said:


> I expect Hadley to produce something like this to show how new ground will be built...
> 
> Barcelona's plans to transform the Nou Camp in the next four years



Yeah, with a tiny little footnote saying 'Please note: picture is on a 1:1 scale'.


----------



## StephenMac (Apr 23, 2016)

Champion_hill said:


> We have set a cut off date to join the trust as we prepare to poll.
> 
> Poll on proposed ground redevelopment to launch next week «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


Racist.


----------



## AndyDHFC (Apr 24, 2016)

editor said:


> I think it would be good to open this out onto Buzz but it does feel like it's hard to get an overview on what's on offer. Would someone (Crispy ?) fancing penning something that makes it all a little more clear?


Do you still want this? I've been ill all weekend so got nothing done but should be ok to pen it over next few days.


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2016)

AndyDHFC said:


> Do you still want this? I've been ill all weekend so got nothing done but should be ok to pen it over next few days.


Yes please!


----------



## Scutta (Apr 30, 2016)

The DHST poll on the proposed redevelopment of Champion Hill has now launched «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


----------



## liamdhfc (May 1, 2016)

Latest opinions from the Chairman & Football Committee are here
Just Vote YES - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club


----------



## Jimbob73 (May 4, 2016)

In the documents it say the rent/fee for the gym will be paid to Dulwich Hamlet OR the council? anyone know what this is about?


----------



## editor (May 4, 2016)

I don't think I'm the only one here who feels that there hasn't been enough information released about the whole process to make an informed decision. How do others feel?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 4, 2016)

Simply...watch this space. Some fans are arranging a meeting around this for next week, as we speak. Expect news by the end of today.


----------



## editor (May 4, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Simply...watch this space. Some fans are arranging a meeting around this for next week, as we speak. Expect news by the end of today.


I'd really like to have some kind of idea what the stadium is going to look like because so far I'm not been very impressed at all by the mock ups.

I also think it would be a really really good idea to have a succinct summary of the proposals and the reasons for voting 'yes' and then I could put it up on Buzz and involve a whole load more people and perhaps encourage them to sign up to the Trust too.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 4, 2016)

This is being worked on....I believe, as well.


----------



## AndyDHFC (May 4, 2016)

editor said:


> I'd really like to have some kind of idea what the stadium is going to look like because so far I'm not been very impressed at all by the mock ups.
> 
> I also think it would be a really really good idea to have a succinct summary of the proposals and the reasons for voting 'yes' and then I could put it up on Buzz and involve a whole load more people and perhaps encourage them to sign up to the Trust too.


Sorry. I owe you this. Internet been down. Will be with you later.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 4, 2016)

That 'old chestnut'...a bit like going to a small club, at the end of a season, and telling those groundhoppers' sorry, no programme, the printer broke down'!


----------



## Spikey mikey (May 4, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Hi all. Plans for the vote on our new ground have been published.
> 
> Trust to poll members on ground redevelopment plans «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust
> 
> ...


Hi m8, got your conversation alert thru re Facebook , I'm still trying to fully workout how to use the forum and how u reply to that conversation or other ones in the future. I ticked the box next to where it says Facebook. If this means wanna add as friend on f/b then u can search me as Mick Fowler then you'll c my profile pic as it is on the forum here. Send request thru then I can accept it no prob. Take care. Au revoir


----------



## Fingers (May 4, 2016)

Spikey mikey said:


> Hi m8, got your conversation alert thru re Facebook , I'm still trying to fully workout how to use the forum and how u reply to that conversation or other ones in the future. I ticked the box next to where it says Facebook. If this means wanna add as friend on f/b then u can search me as Mick Fowler then you'll c my profile pic as it is on the forum here. Send request thru then I can accept it no prob. Take care. Au revoir



Ha found you!   Cheers!


----------



## pompeydunc (May 4, 2016)

editor said:


> I'd really like to have some kind of idea what the stadium is going to look like because so far I'm not been very impressed at all by the mock ups.
> 
> I also think it would be a really really good idea to have a succinct summary of the proposals and the reasons for voting 'yes' and then I could put it up on Buzz and involve a whole load more people and perhaps encourage them to sign up to the Trust too.





editor said:


> I don't think I'm the only one here who feels that there hasn't been enough information released about the whole process to make an informed decision. How do others feel?



Did you get the email with further information sent last Saturday? This included full details of the plans together with an update from Hadley on security of tenure of the site and the proposed management of the ground and associated facilities. There is also further details on fan ownership, which have been shared previously. 

The email also asked for any questions, such as  from Jimbob73, to be sent to the Trust email account.


----------



## Spikey mikey (May 4, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Ha found you!   Cheers!


Cool. The forum name is the nickname they given me at Maidstone football. I go check f/c now and accept.


----------



## Spikey mikey (May 4, 2016)

Spikey mikey said:


> Cool. The forum name is the nickname they given me at Maidstone football. I go check f/c now and accept.


Accepted now. I'm truckin to colsterworth on A1 in the sun whilst all the others r in sunny Truro eagerly awaiting the kick off for the Semi Final 1st leg play off match at 1945.


----------



## Fingers (May 4, 2016)

Spikey mikey said:


> Accepted now. I'm truckin to colsterworth on A1 in the sun whilst all the others r in sunny Truro eagerly awaiting the kick off for the Semi Final 1st leg play off match at 1945.



Good luck!


----------



## AndyDHFC (May 5, 2016)

editor said:


> I'd really like to have some kind of idea what the stadium is going to look like because so far I'm not been very impressed at all by the mock ups.
> 
> I also think it would be a really really good idea to have a succinct summary of the proposals and the reasons for voting 'yes' and then I could put it up on Buzz and involve a whole load more people and perhaps encourage them to sign up to the Trust too.


See thread above re meeting.  Halfway through summary - but you may be able to crib some general stuff together from here as well if you want.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2016)

AndyDHFC said:


> See thread above re meeting.  Halfway through summary - but you may be able to crib some general stuff together from here as well if you want.


I know there's a whole package to deal with here, but what I'd really like to see is clear plans of what the ground will actually look like with details of the size of stands, the cover provided etc etc. The link you posted just dumps me back into the Southwark planning site as soon as you look for that kind of detail.


----------



## Champion_hill (May 5, 2016)

Charity game against FBB 

Charity game on Friday against Football Beyond Borders «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust

And info on goose green fair...

DHST at Dulwich Festival Fair 2016 «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 5, 2016)

Just out of interest...how is the game sponsored by DHST?


----------



## pompeydunc (May 6, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Just out of interest...how is the game sponsored by DHST?



The Football Committee offered sponsorship in exchange for a donation to FBB.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 6, 2016)

Yes, I have just seen the email, forwarded on to me by Liam. Please feel free to let the Football Committee know as to how much the donation is please.

BTW, I shall soon send you an email regarding the payment for both the wreath for the Boardroom in November, and the matchball sponsorship from the FA Assyria game, both by the Trust.

Thank you.

See you tonight, and that you for all the Trust support.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 6, 2016)

Apparently there was a write-up in the new newspaper, the Dulwich Diverter, can someone scan a copy?.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 6, 2016)

I will...if I get to see one.

Anyone know where they're available from?


----------



## editor (May 6, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Apparently there was a write-up in the new newspaper, the Dulwich Diverter, can someone scan a copy?.


That's a curious name for a paper.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 6, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> I will...if I get to see one.
> 
> Anyone know where they're available from?


Local shops in Dulwich.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 6, 2016)

editor said:


> That's a curious name for a paper.


It's from the people who brought you the _Peckham Peculiar._


----------



## the 12th man (May 6, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> I will...if I get to see one.
> 
> Anyone know where they're available from?


I believe in the entrance at DHFC


----------



## editor (May 6, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's from the people who brought you the _Peckham Peculiar._


Edgy!


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 6, 2016)

editor said:


> Edgy!


Vibrant!


----------



## Jimbob73 (May 10, 2016)

editor said:


> That's a curious name for a paper.



don't mistake it for the Dulwich Divoter - a collection of the best Divot of the day photos


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 10, 2016)

A couple of points:

If we are going to make the argument that the current ground is unsustainable then we need to provide some figures to back it up.

I was a bit disappointed by the turnout - are we doing enough to engage local residents?

 I'm in favour and there were some good points raised tonight - we need to push the case better.


----------



## editor (May 10, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> A couple of points:
> 
> If we are going to make the argument that the current ground is unsustainable then we need to provide some figures to back it up.
> 
> ...


I can only speak for myself, but I don't imagine the apparent vagueness of the plans helped. I would have liked to have run a piece on Buzz the week before with clear images and descriptions of the new stadium, backed by real details (capacity, ground cover, how it impacts on Greendale etc etc).

I fancy that all that might have made a difference, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 10, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> I was a bit disappointed by the turnout - are we doing enough to engage local residents?
> 
> r.



Well the meeting was billed as a 'fans supporting the development' meeting. Not to criticise that in itself but it's definitely not a way to engage the locals or wider groups. I would hope they have more in mind for the near future.


----------



## darryl (May 11, 2016)

Well, well. I came into the meeting wanting to support the new ground - I see the arguments for and understand how this is almost like running through a closing door to secure the future of the club.

But I came out feeling _more_ sceptical, not less. I was going to ask a question but saw the arrogant, dismissive and rude responses from the table and decided it wasn't worth my while. And I'm gutted for Mishi, Liam and Gavin because the others really let them down.

Where to start?

Maybe with the Supporters Direct guy accusing a guy who was both a DHFC regular and a lover of Greendale of "not being straight" for asking about the future viability of the ground. _What the hell was that about?_ _Why call a public meeting and then imply the public are being dishonest?_

Or perhaps the Hadley suit who suggested that the firm could just build a huge fence around Greendale anyway. _Yeah, that attitude's going to get locals on side. Didn't take long for the mask to slip, eh?
_
And then there was Matt Rimmer calling a question about the existence of Greendale Property Company (the Hadley vehicle which has apparently submitted the planning application) and whether it was registered with Companies House "ridiculous". _Guess what? Greendale Property Company isn't listed with Companies House. And if DHFC fans are being asked to take on the future of the club, then what's ridiculous about DHFC fans doing a bit of due diligence?_

The weirdest point came afterwards when Matt Rimmer said how Hadley were genuinely interested in people's views, which was why they held the meeting _after_ the application had gone into Southwark. _Shouldn't they have had this meeting before sending it to the council?
_
Apart from at the end, when there was a very good question about the gym's viability couched in terms of its energy usage, it just felt that questions about the club's finances and just how a future fan-run side would be sustainable were met with defensive "how very dare you?"-type responses. Yet if fans are being asked to take on the club, then everything needs to be transparent.

Taking people's support for granted - and turning on people with legitimate questions and worries - isn't a good look, and it betrays the people on the DHFC committee and the trust who have put a heroic shift in to make this work.

Really unimpressed. I've seen Hadley do decent stuff before - I'm reasonably familiar with their Greenwich Square development (flats, new public swimming baths, library and council service centre, plus some retail units which are stubbornly not shifting) and they did some decent community work around that. But this wasn't their finest hour.


----------



## editor (May 11, 2016)

darryl said:


> Taking people's support for granted - and turning on people with legitimate questions and worries - isn't a good look, and it betrays the people on the DHFC committee and the trust who have put a heroic shift in to make this work.


That pretty much sums up my gut instinct. Something hasn't felt quite right about this from the start and I'm not feeling any easier about it now. 

Thanks for posting that report - appreciated.


----------



## blueheaven (May 11, 2016)

Just want to say thanks to whoever it is that runs the official Twitter account - there was lots of good stuff on there last night.

I'm sure quite a lot of regulars at matches weren't able to be there last night, so it would be good to see some more detail about the meeting over the coming days.


----------



## Scutta (May 11, 2016)

Gutted I missed it last night didnt leave work til 8.30/9. So seconded thanks Griff_Turnstile


----------



## liamdhfc (May 11, 2016)

Daryl

I_ have responded in line to some of your queries and hope this helps a little. It does seem strange that we are taking at face value what opponents say but questioning everything that questions their dubious comments. I am sure some of them have genuine concerns but there are others who just oppose any change at all. If there had been tremendous management of Greendale then it would not be the place it is today as it would be football pitches (albeit permanently waterlogged ones) as it is old ILEA playing fields. That is a fact._



darryl said:


> Well, well. I came into the meeting wanting to support the new ground - I see the arguments for and understand how this is almost like running through a closing door to secure the future of the club.
> 
> But I came out feeling _more_ sceptical, not less. I was going to ask a question but saw the arrogant, dismissive and rude responses from the table and decided it wasn't worth my while. And I'm gutted for Mishi, Liam and Gavin because the others really let them down.
> 
> ...



They've done all the community discussion stuff before the application so no need now to do more as it is out there as an application. 

_The brutal question is what happens if it doesn't get approved and, whichever way you look at it, I believe that scenario does not look pretty for Dulwich Hamlet FC. Once under fan control,  with a  new facility where the costs are underwritten in some way and income streams defined then we have the best chance of another century of football in East Dulwich_


----------



## dcdulwich (May 11, 2016)

My initial response to the points made below: 



darryl said:


> Well, well. I came into the meeting wanting to support the new ground - I see the arguments for and understand how this is almost like running through a closing door to secure the future of the club.
> 
> But I came out feeling _more_ sceptical, not less. I was going to ask a question but saw the arrogant, dismissive and rude responses from the table and decided it wasn't worth my while. And I'm gutted for Mishi, Liam and Gavin because the others really let them down.
> 
> ...


----------



## darryl (May 11, 2016)

Thanks for your response, liamdhfc - editor, is it possible for Liam's comments to be put in red so they're easier to follow?

I fully get your argument that this, effectively, is a lifeboat and perhaps many of the questions are quibbling about the comfort of the lifeboat rather than just bloody getting on board. I get that. If it's a choice between getting on the boat or drowning...

But... and I think this leads to the nub of my discomfort:



> _ there is a need to fight back against misinformation which cannot always be done on the hoof as we would like if given more time._



I don't live in the immediate area, so I don't have a dog in the fight on that front. I'd never set foot in Greendale until a few months back when I thought I'd go and have a wander to see what the fuss is about. 

So I don't really see the misinformation. The infamous former councillor Govier hasn't bothered my Twitter feed. But what I am seeing is people like Kevin Rye and that guy in the suit getting snappy and impatient. 

I know all about nasty, lying "residents" groups. I do a bit of community journalism in Greenwich and had the misfortune to come across the vicious, entitled NOGOE - the campaign against using Greenwich Park for the equestrian events at the 2012 Olympics. They were truly nasty, led by a couple rich enough to be able to afford a house with a private gate into the park. But they gained support because the answers from LOCOG and Greenwich Council were evasive and snappy. (As a bonus, it also included rows over Metropolitan Open Land.)  So NOGOE, a tiny band of monied eccentrics, got media attention and looked bigger than they were, even though they were lying freely about huge lockdowns and disturbing Saxon burial grounds. 

LOCOG learned, adjusted their approach, and support for NOGOE evaporated before the organisation self-combusted. And as we know, it all went ahead and was a huge success that everybody was proud of.

I don't know enough about the Friends of Greendale to comment on them. But as someone that's not at the centre of the fight, and as someone whose home area is full of planning rows over "regeneration" projects, I'm not seeing a persuasive argument about *how the ground will suit DHFC's future needs*, which I think is one of the lead worries. Instead there were arguments against people who may not have been in the room - if this was a meeting aimed about supporters, then shouldn't the arguments have been aimed at persuading supporters, rather than assuming they'll happily get on board? 

The point about Greendale Property Company - yes, it's very minor, but if you want fans to run the club, we have to look at minor points. And for a meeting announced only a week ago, I thought the turnout of 50-60 was bloody good - I'm not sure why there were grumblings from the table about how few people were there. 

Like I said at the start, I take the argument that this is a lifeboat for DHFC. But last night didn't do much to make me confident about the owners of that lifeboat.


----------



## Taper (May 11, 2016)

There is a lot of mis-information.  If you look at the thread on the East Dulwich Forum, we have seen:

An acting councillor accuse DH fans of attacking local people on Twitter.  This was in response to me saying the club was a vital community asset.  I challenged him to give details and surmised this was in fact the abusive Govier who people were reacting to.  He then went quiet, so I think I was right

Another poster accused the club of using its games against Stonewall and Assyria and its refugee work as PA publicity stunts.  A disgusting slur

We've had the Friends of Greendale tweeting about 3G pitches giving you cancer.

More generally, there seems to an absolute refusal to see any change to Greendale as it stands, including the derelict astro-turf pitch, and lots of dogmatic assumptions about the sanctity of MOL.

These are the forces of conservatism people!  Do we want a new stadium, a new park and new houses.  Or do we want a shitty astro-turf pitch for the hedgehogs and badgers to play footer on and our club sinking back down the leagues.

I recognise people are sceptical about Hadley's motives, but please hold your nose and post in support on the Southwark site.  the club is in the shit if things don't change.


----------



## darryl (May 11, 2016)

Taper said:


> I recognise people are sceptical about Hadley's motives.



It's not Hadley's motives that bother me. Property developers do as their shareholders demand. They could just flatten the place tomorrow. But it's whether the club they're going to bequeath will be sustainable and have the room to expand, either to accommodate crowds or to accommodate business opportunities to sustain that club (I suspect the latter may be more likely than the former) that worries me.  Yet it seemed questioning on those issues wasn't welcomed last night.

On a more general point, it would be useful if the pro-development side made clear these misrepresentations made by opponents and calmly rebutted them - a mythbusting page on the website would be useful.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 11, 2016)

darryl said:


> It's not Hadley's motives that bother me. Property developers do as their shareholders demand. They could just flatten the place tomorrow. But it's whether the club they're going to bequeath will be sustainable and have the room to expand, either to accommodate crowds or to accommodate business opportunities to sustain that club (I suspect the latter may be more likely than the former) that worries me.  Yet it seemed questioning on those issues wasn't welcomed last night.



For me it's the other way round I'd say. Or at least I'm not particularly concerned by Hadley's motives (which are pretty obvious and are what they are) but that the incentives based on those motives are for them to save as much as they can on the ground, and cut corners where possible as long as the flats get built. I'd be concerned that some of these might be difficult to rectify in future years. 

On sustainability I think the concentration needs to be on the viability of the club as an Isthmian league club with a relatively low attendance, which it has been for pretty much all of it's existence. I don't really think a supporter owned club in particular should be reliant on extending it's business beyond that really.


----------



## AndyDHFC (May 11, 2016)

darryl said:


> It's not Hadley's motives that bother me. Property developers do as their shareholders demand. They could just flatten the place tomorrow. But it's whether the club they're going to bequeath will be sustainable and have the room to expand, either to accommodate crowds or to accommodate business opportunities to sustain that club (I suspect the latter may be more likely than the former) that worries me.  Yet it seemed questioning on those issues wasn't welcomed last night.
> 
> On a more general point, it would be useful if the pro-development side made clear these misrepresentations made by opponents and calmly rebutted them - a mythbusting page on the website would be useful.


That's a really helpful suggestion - will knock one up based on the questions last night and the comments on here.  Thanks.  I think Liam and dcdulwich have covered what I might have said in response to the rest of your comments so I won't repeat!


----------



## ForwardHamlet (May 11, 2016)

darryl said:


> Well, well. I came into the meeting wanting to support the new ground - I see the arguments for and understand how this is almost like running through a closing door to secure the future of the club.
> 
> But I came out feeling _more_ sceptical, not less. I was going to ask a question but saw the arrogant, dismissive and rude responses from the table and decided it wasn't worth my while. And I'm gutted for Mishi, Liam and Gavin because the others really let them down.
> 
> ...


Do you mind if I share this on Twitter?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 11, 2016)

Why wouldn't you share anything on here on Twitter, or anywhere else. By being on here it's already in the public domain, so share away, I would have thought.

One thing, with regard to last night's meeting...as far as I am concerned it wasn't actually a consulation. The 'clue' is in the name "Support Our Stadium".
It was called by a group of fans, and we invited the top table. The meeting wasn't set up by Hadley, or any other PR type people.

It wasn't aimed at people opposed to the development from OUTSIDE the Club, though they were free to attend.

The aim is to quickly start mobilising our fans to support the scheme, which 'Support Our Stadium' believe the only proper way forward for our Club to be sustainable for decades to come, and fully supporter owned.

The meeting was called to help our fans understand why it is so vital to support the new stadium plans.

Frankly, if others are against it, from the community but not Dulwich fans, then we're not really there to convince them otherwise...


----------



## darryl (May 11, 2016)

ForwardHamlet said:


> Do you mind if I share this on Twitter?



It's all in the public domain, go for it.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (May 11, 2016)

Hello all, I just signed up to the forum so that I can participate and hopefully clear up a few things. I’m the fella at the meeting last night who got the sharp end of Supporters Direct Kevin’s tongue  I’ve been a regular at DHFC since the early 90s, I’m a member of the Supporters Trust and I’m also someone who appreciates Green Dale for being a unique habitat and open space for people and wildlife. I take an active role in Friends of Green Dale – some of you will be aware of my postings on the East Dulwich Forum.

All along the Friends of Green Dale – despite having our focus on Green Dale itself – have wanted to make clear their support for a sustainable future for the football club. My questions last night were more to do with that, as the meeting was primarily about the club’s future and not questions to do with Metropolitan Open Land etc.

As Darryl suggested (in a report that chimes pretty much with my reactions), I felt that Kevin and Matt on the panel didn’t want anyone to question the assurances that HPG have given the club and supporters about the future. My basic point was that people need to know that and they will look closely at the detail to make sure they can trust any deal on the table. To me, that’s just ‘due diligence’. By looking at someone’s books, you’re not doubting their word, you’re simply showing caution about entering into any agreement that has significant future ramifications. Given the ownership issues to do with the club in the last 25 years, that seems only wise.

Even if I had no interest in Green Dale, I would not have come out of yesterday’s meeting feeling confident that sufficient and transparent cast-iron assurances had been made to make me support the plan in its current form. And in that regard, HPG’s response of ‘there is no plan B’ is further reason not to feel sufficiently confident.

I’ll answer some of detailed points made above later (must get back to work). I just want to emphasise that Friends of Green Dale have had cordial relations with HPG for the last few years and our goal is to seek a solution that suits both the club’s sustainable future and Green Dale’s future as a unique local asset.


----------



## StephenMac (May 11, 2016)

Through my previous footballing affiliations i'm as dubious as any of a property company involved in a football club. That said, we are over a barrel somewhat. The options appear to be to back the development or ultimately end up without a football club.

I'm hugely uncomfortable about it all but am opting to get on the lifeboat rather than drown and so i've voted in favour in the Trust poll and am more than happy to email Southwark etc.


----------



## StephenMac (May 11, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> By looking at someone’s books, you’re not doubting their word, you’re simply showing caution about entering into any agreement that has significant future ramifications. Given the ownership issues to do with the club in the last 25 years, that seems only wise.


This seems a rather important point.


----------



## ForwardHamlet (May 11, 2016)

darryl said:


> It's all in the public domain, go for it.


Courtesy though, innit. Thanks.


----------



## liamdhfc (May 11, 2016)

StephenMac said:


> This seems a rather important point.


I would think that with the previous ownership of the club that whatever is historically in the books is somewhat unreliable to put it politely. What cannot be doubted is that the club was days from closure when Hadley came in.


----------



## clog (May 11, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> For me it's the other way round I'd say. Or at least I'm not particularly concerned by Hadley's motives (which are pretty obvious and are what they are) but that the incentives based on those motives are for them to save as much as they can on the ground, and cut corners where possible as long as the flats get built. I'd be concerned that some of these might be difficult to rectify in future years.
> 
> On sustainability I think the concentration needs to be on the viability of the club as an Isthmian league club with a relatively low attendance, which it has been for pretty much all of it's existence. I don't really think a supporter owned club in particular should be reliant on extending it's business beyond that really.



It needs to be viable as that but allow for success so success doesn't kill it, I think.


----------



## StephenMac (May 11, 2016)

liamdhfc said:


> I would think that with the previous ownership of the club that whatever is historically in the books is somewhat unreliable to put it politely. What cannot be doubted is that the club was days from closure when Hadley came in.


I'm sure nobody is suggesting otherwise but it's natural that people want to look at the small print around a pretty momentous decision.


----------



## Paula_G (May 11, 2016)

At times I am a little confused about the standpoint of the Fiends of Greendale - they complained about neglect of the area yet that same neglect has allowed the flora and fauna they so cherish to flourish. As for the point about building 8 foot high fences, it was stated that was something that COULD have happened NOT something that would happen. Hadley's representative stated that instead they chose to work with Friends of Greendale to tidy up the place something that was acknowledged by the FoG representative though was also stated that some of their membership were unhappy with this. As for assurances I could understand the frustration - how cast iron do Assurances have to be to ensure that these Assurances are assured? Trust representatives stated that their own due diligence was being undertaken, the Football Club Committee is working hard to put in place a sustainable business plan that ensures that Dulwich Hamlet does not fall down the same path as under previous ownership - as in any business this is not something that can be guaranteed, one only has to look through at corporate giants that have fallen from grace down the years, but rest assured the club is doing everything it can to make sure they survive and thrive. My frustration here is there is the chance to create something special here with Dulwich Hamlet and her fans taking the lead but there is also the possibility of failure & a massive millstone around the necks of the club which will slowly draw it to an agonising death.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 11, 2016)

clog said:


> It needs to be viable as that but allow for success so success doesn't kill it, I think.



Yes fair point. I think there's a conversation that should be had around what that is, particularly with regard to crowds, even aside from the development question. What's the end point of the current growth in crowds? What happens if and when capacity starts getting reached, how is that managed? Those questions are there anyway - as far as the new ground goes do you accommodate some theoretical maximum? There probably just isn't the space.


----------



## sankara (May 11, 2016)

ForwardHamlet said:


> Courtesy though, innit. Thanks.


Bring back vicarofsibley - I preferred him, he was less courteous.


----------



## Taper (May 11, 2016)

My main concern is what appears to be Southwark's outright opposition. If they were sceptical but prepared to engage, then some of the clarity and assurances we want could be levered out of Hadley.  But as things stand, they appear to be folding their arms and not prepared to budge on MOL, despite this being a very modest development on a rather useless bit of it. I like Greendale and use it quite a lot.  but the astro-turf element is of very little utility, including visually.


----------



## Paula_G (May 11, 2016)

StephenMac said:


> I'm sure nobody is suggesting otherwise but it's natural that people want to look at the small print around a pretty momentous decision.



My frustration at that, as someone who sat round a table, trying to work out where the club was going to find a four figure sum to pay a single utility bill was does the club open up these books to every "concerned" Tom, Dick and Harriet, some of whom may use that as ammunition against the club? Doesn't seem that long ago that fans were reading articles such as these but a little success seems to the panacea for pain.

Hamlet Under The Hammer, Again | Twohundredpercent
There may be trouble ahead: Dulwich Hamlet FC face an uncertain future
Saturday at home to Bury Town WILL PLAY - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 11, 2016)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> My frustration at that, as someone who sat round a table, trying to work out where the club was going to find a four figure sum to pay a single utility bill was does the club open up these books to every "concerned" Tom, Dick and Harriet, some of whom may use that as ammunition against the club? Doesn't seem that long ago that fans were reading articles such as these but a little success seems to the panacea for pain.



I'm not quite clear what people mean when they're talking about transparency. I think what you should be able to see is accounts at the usual level of published accounts - the higher level profit and loss, plus interest, tax etc. Then also transparency of ownership - who actually owns the club etc.

If anyone is asking for the actual day to day transaction ledgers to be made generally available then that's not a reasonable request and is never going to happen.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 11, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> Hello all, I just signed up to the forum so that I can participate and hopefully clear up a few things. I’m the fella at the meeting last night who got the sharp end of Supporters Direct Kevin’s tongue  I’ve been a regular at DHFC since the early 90s, I’m a member of the Supporters Trust and I’m also someone who appreciates Green Dale for being a unique habitat and open space for people and wildlife. I take an active role in Friends of Green Dale – some of you will be aware of my postings on the East Dulwich Forum.
> 
> All along the Friends of Green Dale – despite having our focus on Green Dale itself – have wanted to make clear their support for a sustainable future for the football club. My questions last night were more to do with that, as the meeting was primarily about the club’s future and not questions to do with Metropolitan Open Land etc.


And if the figures show that the current ground is unsustainable, would you back the new one?


----------



## StephenMac (May 11, 2016)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> My frustration at that, as someone who sat round a table, trying to work out where the club was going to find a four figure sum to pay a single utility bill was does the club open up these books to every "concerned" Tom, Dick and Harriet, some of whom may use that as ammunition against the club? Doesn't seem that long ago that fans were reading articles such as these but a little success seems to the panacea for pain.
> 
> Hamlet Under The Hammer, Again | Twohundredpercent
> There may be trouble ahead: Dulwich Hamlet FC face an uncertain future
> Saturday at home to Bury Town WILL PLAY - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club


Ok, i'll rise to the bait. I was heavily involved with a football club that was theoretically being rescued by a property company many years ago. Everyone at the club was beside themselves with gratitude to said company and didn't bother looking at the detail. Within two years the club, after a bit of spending, had been utterly fucked over by the company and was groundless. It now hasn't played a home game in the town whose name it bears for what must be 20 years or more.

For me that is an example of why people should ask questions. I am not suggesting this will happen with DHFC at all but why should people be criticised for asking serious questions?

And to reiterate, I have voted in favour of the proposals


----------



## Paula_G (May 11, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yes fair point. I think there's a conversation that should be had around what that is, particularly with regard to crowds, even aside from the development question. What's the end point of the current growth in crowds? What happens if and when capacity starts getting reached, how is that managed? Those questions are there anyway - as far as the new ground goes do you accommodate some theoretical maximum? There probably just isn't the space.


The answer is related to the ambition of the club, even in the megabucks world of modern football the opportunity is there for a club to progress. Remember when T**ting were at planning for their ground, one question asked from a local councillor was what would happen on the car parking front if they played Man U in a FA Cup tie!! Kingsmeadow seemed to cope pretty well when AFC played Liverpool there...


----------



## GregDHFC (May 11, 2016)

From my point of view, I think one of the issues is that the move has been really pushed hard by Hadley and others on the grounds that the current stadium is completely unsustainable.  I'm slightly sceptical that this couldn't be sorted (and it isn't just the result of a history of mismanagement), particularly as Hadley has a massive interest in telling us that we're better off moving, but enough people who are much more involved in the club than me have repeated this, so I'm happy to believe it.

Given that emphasis on the unsustainability of the current ground, I don't think enough has been said on how the new stadium will be better.  And I don't mean just saying "we'll build a more sustainable ground that Dulwich Hamlet can use for the next century" or whatever - I mean, actually laying out in what specific ways this new stadium will be workable compared to the current one.  For example, the gym is often spoken about as a massive burden on the club - how, specifically, will the new one be better?

I'm not saying it won't be, by the way.  I hope it will.  But I think if you really push the idea that Champion Hill is unworkable, then I think you need to then go into some detail to reassure people that the new stadium will address those issues.  I don't think wanting those details, rather than just vague assurances that it will all be ok, is unreasonable.


----------



## Paula_G (May 11, 2016)

Taper said:


> My main concern is what appears to be Southwark's outright opposition. If they were sceptical but prepared to engage, then some of the clarity and assurances we want could be levered out of Hadley.  But as things stand, they appear to be folding their arms and not prepared to budge on MOL, despite this being a very modest development on a rather useless bit of it. I like Greendale and use it quite a lot.  but the astro-turf element is of very little utility, including visually.


Of course what politicians say in public is often tempered by the audience they are addressing...


----------



## chris gil (May 11, 2016)

GregDHFC said:


> From my point of view, I think one of the issues is that the move has been really pushed hard by Hadley and others on the grounds that the current stadium is completely unsustainable.  I'm slightly sceptical that this couldn't be sorted (and it isn't just the result of a history of mismanagement), particularly as Hadley has a massive interest in telling us that we're better off moving, but enough people who are much more involved in the club than me have repeated this, so I'm happy to believe it.
> 
> Given that emphasis on the unsustainability of the current ground, I don't think enough has been said on how the new stadium will be better.  And I don't mean just saying "we'll build a more sustainable ground that Dulwich Hamlet can use for the next century" or whatever - I mean, actually laying out in what specific ways this new stadium will be workable compared to the current one.  For example, the gym is often spoken about as a massive burden on the club - how, specifically, will the new one be better?
> 
> I'm not saying it won't be, by the way.  I hope it will.  But I think if you really push the idea that Champion Hill is unworkable, then I think you need to then go into some detail to reassure people that the new stadium will address those issues.  I don't think wanting those details, rather than just vague assurances that it will all be ok, is unreasonable.



as far as I have read ,the gym will be run by an outside company paying the club an agreed amount ,  they will be responsible for the upkeep of the gym so no burden on the club .


----------



## GregDHFC (May 11, 2016)

chris gil said:


> as far as I have read ,the gym will be run by an outside company paying the club an agreed amount ,  they will be responsible for the upkeep of the gym so no burden on the club .



Great.  Why can't we do that with the current one?


----------



## Paula_G (May 11, 2016)

GregDHFC said:


> From my point of view, I think one of the issues is that the move has been really pushed hard by Hadley and others on the grounds that the current stadium is completely unsustainable.  I'm slightly sceptical that this couldn't be sorted (and it isn't just the result of a history of mismanagement), particularly as Hadley has a massive interest in telling us that we're better off moving, but enough people who are much more involved in the club than me have repeated this, so I'm happy to believe it.
> 
> Given that emphasis on the unsustainability of the current ground, I don't think enough has been said on how the new stadium will be better.  And I don't mean just saying "we'll build a more sustainable ground that Dulwich Hamlet can use for the next century" or whatever - I mean, actually laying out in what specific ways this new stadium will be workable compared to the current one.  For example, the gym is often spoken about as a massive burden on the club - how, specifically, will the new one be better?
> 
> I'm not saying it won't be, by the way.  I hope it will.  But I think if you really push the idea that Champion Hill is unworkable, then I think you need to then go into some detail to reassure people that the new stadium will address those issues.  I don't think wanting those details, rather than just vague assurances that it will all be ok, is unreasonable.


Hadley have pointed out that they have no interest in (or experience of) running a football club which would mean that any burden of costs would almost certainly pass to whoever is running the club. With a operator (GLL was mentioned last night) taking on management of the facilities (e.g. pitch hire & gym), including responsibility for maintenance, & paying a fee to DHFC whilst the club paid a peppercorn rent (to be agreed), the cvlub would be free to concentrate on the football rather than worrying about the ancillaries. Costs would be minimised elsewhere with the ASPIRE Academy games being played here rather than at Rutland Walk which is quiet frankly a shambles. Not just about sustainability but ensure DHFC can concentrate on the football side of things solely


----------



## Paula_G (May 11, 2016)

GregDHFC said:


> Great.  Why can't we do that with the current one?


Not just about managing the gym but the whole management & maintenance of the new facility, given the choice of taking over a spanking brand new facility rather than trying to bring the current one up to scratch I'm pretty certain which one GLL would find the better business proposition


----------



## chris gil (May 11, 2016)

GregDHFC said:


> Great.  Why can't we do that with the current one?



I haven't been there for 20  years , it wasn't that much kop then so I don't think its much better now so probably not that attractive to would be suitors


----------



## darryl (May 11, 2016)

chris gil said:


> as far as I have read ,the gym will be run by an outside company paying the club an agreed amount ,  they will be responsible for the upkeep of the gym so no burden on the club .



From one of the documents on the DHST site. The relevant section is on bold. The leisure provider may be GLL (which trades as Better).


_There are discussions currently taking place between the club, the appointed leisure provider and the borough as to whom will a) manage the maintenance and running of the outdoor facilities, and b) who will take control of the commercial provision contained therein.  The preferred stances and ensuing results have not been clarified yet, as there are further meetings planned between all parties on this matter. They range from: 
_

_Leisure operator runs pitches and pays club/borough a fixed premium (with potential overage) _
_Club runs pitches and pays a fixed rental to the borough for the land _
_Leisure operator runs pitches and pays borough through a ground rental license.  _
_
Until these meetings have taken place, there is no further detail available. Discussions will involve all parties mentioned and continue throughout the planning process. They have been requested, cancelled and rearranged in recent months and all parties are aware of the importance of their occurring in the very near future. 


*Internal (gym and leisure) operations at the facility will be handled by the leisure provider who will pay a ground rent to either the community benefit society which owns DHFC or to the borough (as part of their leisure offering/portfolio).* Again – these discussions are taking place and will continue to do so in coming weeks. 
_


So if Southwark Council was to take on the gym as part of its leisure offering, would DHFC see any income from it?


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 11, 2016)

GregDHFC said:


> Great.  Why can't we do that with the current one?


Hadley property development own the club and the ground, who's the we your talking about?


----------



## vornstyle76 (May 11, 2016)

The gently implied threat in Hadley's promise to hand the club over debt-free in the event of planning etc. being successful - i.e. that it either wouldn't be handed over and/or the previous fatal debt would return if the plans aren't successful - is reason enough to support the proposals, though not one that is particularly heartwarming.


----------



## GregDHFC (May 11, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Hadley property development own the club and the ground, who's the we your talking about?



By "we", I mean DHFC.  

I appreciate Hadley own the club, but there's a world of difference between Hadley saying to supporters: "the current stadium is not a viable option for the club, no matter who runs it", and them saying "We own the stadium, and we aren't willing to make any changes to the way it is run because we want to build flats on it; and without changes the current stadium isn't a viable option for the future of the club".

The first option suggests that without a new ground, DHFC is doomed - the second one suggests that we've got the wrong owners.  (My understanding is that it's the first one that's true)

Thanks Griff_Turnstile for the response - I'm glad this is clearly already being addressed, I think it is important.


----------



## Al Crane (May 11, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Hadley property development own the club and the ground, who's the we your talking about?



Just to clarify: Hadley do not own the Club, they own the freehold of the ground through Greendale Property Co Ltd. See text below taken from the Supporters' Trust website which expands on this and suggests what will happen with a successful planning consent. The MoU between HPG and DHST also expands further on this scenario outlining a timeframe for completion of the purchase.

At the current time, Champion Hill Stadium and Dulwich Hamlet FC Ltd (DHFC Ltd) are separate legal entities.  Greendale Property Company Limited (Greendale) 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.  Since obtaining the option Greendale, through HPG, has invested considerable financial resources in DHFC Ltd and effectively runs the Football Club.  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 Trust.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 11, 2016)

But, to all intents and purposes, Hadley Property Group DO own the Club & the ground, in all but name.
Greendale Property Co Ltd is under their umbrella, & McCormack has no say or involvement in the Club.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 11, 2016)

vornstyle76 said:


> The gently implied threat in Hadley's promise to hand the club over debt-free in the event of planning etc. being successful - i.e. that it either wouldn't be handed over and/or the previous fatal debt would return if the plans aren't successful - is reason enough to support the proposals, though not one that is particularly heartwarming.


 Why is it not 'heartwarming'? It warmed my heart when they saved the Club from going under on their watch...after they bought the ground.


----------



## Lucy Fur (May 11, 2016)

Who's the real enemy here? Southwark sit back whilst DHFC / FOG / Hadleys tear chunks out of each other, and then reap the benefits later with no blood on their hands. Just a thought. Not so disimilar to what Lambeth are doing.


----------



## dcdulwich (May 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> Who's the real enemy here? Southwark sit back whilst DHFC / FOG / Hadleys tear chunks out of each other, and then reap the benefits later with no blood on their hands. Just a thought. Not so disimilar to what Lambeth are doing.



Southwark is the Planning Authority which has to take a quasi-judicial decision in a legally constrained way - not take a political standpoint which, in planning terms, would be illegal anyway. I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do? And I'm not sure that alluding to them as 'the real enemy' is in any way helpful.


----------



## vornstyle76 (May 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> Who's the real enemy here? Southwark sit back whilst DHFC / FOG / Hadleys tear chunks out of each other, and then reap the benefits later with no blood on their hands. Just a thought. Not so disimilar to what Lambeth are doing.


As has been mentioned before by others, certain members of Southwark Council - like the utterly evil Peter John - having the cheek to oppose this development after their joyful social housing destruction and property expo cavorting is hypocrisy beyond belief.


----------



## Jimbob73 (May 12, 2016)

Do we know how many flats there will be on the proposed site and what propotion will be affordable/social housing?


----------



## Jimbob73 (May 12, 2016)

Answering part my own question: "155 residential dwellings (7xstudio, 56x1 bed, 46x2 bed, 43x3 bed and 3x4 bed)"

Doesn't say if any are 'affordable' - I guess this depends on how rich you are


----------



## JTee (May 12, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Answering part my own question: "155 residential dwellings (7xstudio, 56x1 bed, 46x2 bed, 43x3 bed and 3x4 bed)"
> 
> Doesn't say if any are 'affordable' - I guess this depends on how rich you are


Quantity of affordable will be an on going negotiation between the council and Hadley and the figure not released until both have agreed what amount is 'viable' for the development.
However the whole concept of viability is suspicious at best, needless to say developers will skew figures to get away with as little as possible.


----------



## editor (May 12, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Do we know how many flats there will be on the proposed site and what propotion will be affordable/social housing?


There'll be ZERO social housing of course, and the developers will reluctantly include the absolute minimum of 'affordable' housing that they can get away with. 

If they're like many other developers, they will have either in-house or hired-in expertise at manoeuvring the affordable quota down to the bare minimum (see Barratt Homes, Brixton), not that this 'affordability' bullshit isn't totally farcical in practice. 

And I have to say the development looks as bland, ugly and _office block-like_ as all the other crap that's going up around town.


----------



## darryl (May 12, 2016)

dcdulwich said:


> Southwark is the Planning Authority which has to take a quasi-judicial decision in a legally constrained way - not take a political standpoint which, in planning terms, would be illegal anyway. I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do? And I'm not sure that alluding to them as 'the real enemy' is in any way helpful.



I'm no expert in how Southwark Council works, but some councils allow a little more political influence over planning than others, despite the law. In my own borough of Greenwich, planning has long been bent through threats and bullying - Inside the planning committee: it’s not enough just to say it’s all fair and impartial. You have to show it is, too. 

Southwark may well be perfectly above board by comparison - it doesn't do anything dodgy like allowing its leader to have a routine role in decision-making, for example. But Metropolitan Open Land is one of those aspects that survives on political will. If a council leadership wants to build on MOL, they'll make sure it happens, no matter what. If they want to hold onto it at all costs, they'll go as far as they can to protect it. As one of the local councillors, Peter John's attitude will be worth watching. In some boroughs, you wouldn't want to be the councillor who defied the leader on a planning decision.


----------



## editor (May 12, 2016)

I still think criminal charges should be brought against Southwark over the Heygate scandal, but that's a different story...


----------



## Al Crane (May 12, 2016)

darryl said:


> In some boroughs, you wouldn't want to be the councillor who defied the leader on a planning decision.



Unless of course you were both the relevant ward councillor and the Leader of the Council...


----------



## vornstyle76 (May 12, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Do we know how many flats there will be on the proposed site and what propotion will be affordable/social housing?


According to this affordable housing campaign group:

They also note the plans have an "excessive" 25% profit margin and that the £psf is quite conservatively estimated for the location.

It's the first planning application to come under a new Southwark 'transparency' policy - this is where the 35% Campaign has got the info - so there'll probably be more critical focus on it than might be expected. And probably increases the likelihood of Southwark Council making a (far too late) political gesture of turning it down.


----------



## Scolly (May 12, 2016)

Last line ....much better spin.....must have employed a different PR agent than the one who suggested "we could put up a bloody 9ft wall and padlock it!"

"We would comment that, were they not re-providing the Football Club and carrying out improvements to Green Dale Playing Fields, the Applicant would be prepared to provide more affordable housing on-site."

So the reason behind the lack of social housing in the proposal is due to them having to build a new stadium!!!


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 12, 2016)

Yes, that's what I would expect.


----------



## Jimbob73 (May 12, 2016)

Right time to get of the fence (hopefully not a 9ft high one round Green Dale). I'm not 100% happy with the stadium, I think it has issues (especially with the bar area and the lack of standing cover) but I greatly respect Mishi and he seems convined so it's a yes from me.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (May 12, 2016)

To clear up a few points from earlier:

_Me and Mishi discussed this afterwards and if the guy has been following the club for 20 years (as he stated) then it must be at some distance because we have never seen him before… There seem to be a number of mystery Dulwich Hamlet fans amongst the opposition  [liamdhfc]_
I'm a rather dull-looking middle-aged bloke, so it's probably no surprise that I don't stand out particularly ;-) Just to repeat, I moved to East Dulwich in 1993 – as a lifelong Villa fan (for my sins). When we had a young family, I stopped going to see the Villa and started watching DHFC. Probably about ten games a season. Most memorable moment before the last few years? The FA Cup first round game against Southport in 1998. No mystery – and I don't think there are any others among the 'opposition' who are a 'mystery'. Jonathan Hunt I think you know...

_The guy who said he had followed the club for 20 years also brought out selective statements from the previous application made by me and Mishi. We said at the time that a failed previous application would lead to the club hitting the financial buffers and, although we were not given the chance to come back at him, that was exactly what happened by the time Hadley came in. So we weren't wrong. [liamdhfc]_
The point I made was that, 17 years ago, we had DHFC supporters saying that unless the council approved the plans, the club would go under. And I said that the club didn't exactly thrive afterwards but the prediction didn't come true.

And about the contentious statement about fencing off Green Dale:

_Or perhaps the Hadley suit who suggested that the firm could just build a huge fence around Greendale anyway. Yeah, that attitude's going to get locals on side. Didn't take long for the mask to slip, eh? [darryl]
I'm pretty certain that wasn't anyone from Hadley. What that guy said was out of order and not well received by anyone in the room so far as I could tell. [dcdulwich]_
It was someone from Hadley – in fact, it was the Managing Director of HPG, Peter Bennison. He spoke to me after the meeting.
Peter Bennison: Executive Profile & Biography - Businessweek

_That was in direct response to the statement that Hadley/the club did not have a lease on Greendale which is not true. [liamdhfc]_
Well, the lease has expired. The council decided last year not to seek it back until HPG made a planning application. If they thought the area was going to be locked, fenced off, mown and turned into football pitches, though, I'm pretty sure they'd react very quickly on the question of the lease...


----------



## Paula_G (May 12, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> _Or perhaps the Hadley suit who suggested that the firm could just build a huge fence around Greendale anyway. Yeah, that attitude's going to get locals on side. Didn't take long for the mask to slip, eh? [darryl]
> I'm pretty certain that wasn't anyone from Hadley. What that guy said was out of order and not well received by anyone in the room so far as I could tell. [dcdulwich]_
> It was someone from Hadley – in fact, it was the Managing Director of HPG, Peter Bennison. He spoke to me after the meeting.



As this chap did say this was something they COULD have done but chose not to but instead worked with FoG to tidy up the place. One representative of the FoG said that this had in fact not gone down well with some of their membership, it might have been yourself but unfortunately didn't spot anyone doing Jimmy Durante impressions with a beer glass as in your pic!


----------



## BrandNewGuy (May 12, 2016)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> As this chap did say this was something they COULD have done but chose not to but instead worked with FoG to tidy up the place. One representative of the FoG said that this had in fact not gone down well with some of their membership, it might have been yourself but unfortunately didn't spot anyone doing Jimmy Durante impressions with a beer glass as in your pic!



It covers my face so Mishi and Liam don't recognise me and deck me 

About working alongside HPG, we've done so openly and honestly. Some members of FOGD - not including me - worried that we were 'getting into bed' with the property developer and it would compromise any position we took about their proposals. I can understand that even though I don't agree with it. The committee explained our position to members over a year ago that co-operating with HPG over keeping Green Dale tidy did not indicate a view either away about the proposals. 

And for what it's worth, Mr Bennison apologised to me for his outburst.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 12, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> It covers my face so Mishi and Liam don't recognise me and deck me
> 
> About working alongside HPG, we've done so openly and honestly. Some members of FOGD - not including me - worried that we were 'getting into bed' with the property developer and it would compromise any position we took about their proposals. I can understand that even though I don't agree with it. The committee explained our position to members over a year ago that co-operating with HPG over keeping Green Dale tidy did not indicate a view either away about the proposals.
> 
> And for what it's worth, Mr Bennison apologised to me for his outburst.



Two points. First welcome - it's good you've come here and hopefully this can lead to a positive discussion.

Secondly what is your position (personally or as a group)? No development, or do you see a compromise position?


----------



## crocustim (May 12, 2016)

Two points from me:

One, it was frustrating that _all_ of the initial questions from the floor came from FoG affiliated DHFC fans. I get the impression that they have had many discussions with Hadley for some time before the application went in. Not their fault for being the only ones to volunteer questions I suppose, but coupled with the response, it certainly set the tone of the meeting to super-negative.

Two, I think it is unfair of fans to complain of lack of effort put into a Plan B unless they themselves are actively involved in the club. Its easy to be a critic. I think Matt alluded to this when he said a plan B could be possible but it will take a lot of work from more of the fans. It will happen if all goes wrong and the application& appeal are refused but no one is going to do all that hard work until it is absolutely necessary. Let's not look a gift horse in its mouth.

Oh and three that Pete guy was definitely from Hadley and he was definitely a douchebag.

On the application itself, if they provide 16% affordable housing as well as the stadium then that's pretty good. Look at Brentford's stadium with 0 affordable homes among the 910 on the new stadium site and 0 among the 170 proposed on Griffin Park site all in the name of paying for the new stadium.

Final rallying call! We need more homes! We need a new stadium! Let's make sure we stay involved and get the quality right (devil detail etc). MOL and greenbelt boundaries were set in a different age - my generation is f****d BTW and most of the opposition has come from ahem older gentlemen who may be more secure in their tenacy/ownership - a minor change to the configuration/enclosure of tiny part of MOL is a small price to pay for housing people who need homes and a great new facility! No doubt in my mind!


----------



## Lucy Fur (May 12, 2016)

dcdulwich said:


> Southwark is the Planning Authority which has to take a quasi-judicial decision in a legally constrained way - not take a political standpoint which, in planning terms, would be illegal anyway. I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do? And I'm not sure that alluding to them as 'the real enemy' is in any way helpful.


I admire your faith in local authorities and their handling of planning issues. nigh on 30 years of experience of it has left me a good deal more cynical however.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> I admire your faith in local authorities and their handling of planning issues. nigh on 30 years of experience of it has left me a good deal more cynical however.



Southwark Council's actions around housing have been fucking disgusting and I share editor s belief that outright criminal behaviour has been involved at the Heygate. It's grimly amusing that it looks like it might be harder to build on a bit of scrubland than on an area where thousands of people have their homes.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 12, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> _That was in direct response to the statement that Hadley/the club did not have a lease on Greendale which is not true. [liamdhfc]_
> Well, the lease has expired. The council decided last year not to seek it back until HPG made a planning application. If they thought the area was going to be locked, fenced off, mown and turned into football pitches, though, I'm pretty sure they'd react very quickly on the question of the lease...


But it kind of spoils the argument that there is not supposed to be development on there when there is an existing lease for a fenced off pitch.


----------



## Maj. Tom Laser (May 12, 2016)

vornstyle76 said:


> As has been mentioned before by others, certain members of Southwark Council - like the utterly evil Peter John - having the cheek to oppose this development after their joyful social housing destruction and property expo cavorting is hypocrisy beyond belief.



Perhaps they're not getting any kickbacks.


----------



## Scolly (May 12, 2016)

Have any viability reports of the current stadium been made public?


----------



## BrandNewGuy (May 13, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> But it kind of spoils the argument that there is not supposed to be development on there when there is an existing lease for a fenced off pitch.


No, it's not to do with development on MOL, it's to do with the fact that Southwark and HPG have agreed on minimal management of Green Dale fields until the planning application has gone through. Southwark also have plans for the site, and although these have changed over the last couple of years, none of those plans involve turning it into football pitches.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (May 13, 2016)

crocustim said:


> Two points from me:
> 
> One, it was frustrating that _all_ of the initial questions from the floor came from FoG affiliated DHFC fans. I get the impression that they have had many discussions with Hadley for some time before the application went in. Not their fault for being the only ones to volunteer questions I suppose, but coupled with the response, it certainly set the tone of the meeting to super-negative.
> 
> Two, I think it is unfair of fans to complain of lack of effort put into a Plan B unless they themselves are actively involved in the club. Its easy to be a critic. I think Matt alluded to this when he said a plan B could be possible but it will take a lot of work from more of the fans. It will happen if all goes wrong and the application& appeal are refused but no one is going to do all that hard work until it is absolutely necessary. Let's not look a gift horse in its mouth.



FOGD's discussions with Hadley prior to the submission of the planning application were almost all to do with management of the site in terms of access, safety, clean-up, surveys, organising walks and so on. All along in relation to any development, we have said that we reserve our position on that and will be led by our members.

I don't think it's up to fans to suggest the details of a Plan B. That should be built into the internal process and discussions when putting the planning application together. I understand the delicate politics of it in that you're reluctant to tell everyone your Plan B because that could then be assumed to be a fallback position and weaken your Plan A. But to reveal nothing is putting a gun to the heads of those who are uncertain, saying, "Support this or everything is lost!"


----------



## Jimbob73 (May 13, 2016)

Just a reminder that tomorrow, Saturday 14th May, is the last day to vote in the DHST poll
Poll on proposed redevelopment of Champion Hill «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 13, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> No, it's not to do with development on MOL, it's to do with the fact that Southwark and HPG have agreed on minimal management of Green Dale fields until the planning application has gone through. Southwark also have plans for the site, and although these have changed over the last couple of years, none of those plans involve turning it into football pitches.



The existing planning permission for that site is for a fenced off football pitch, isn't it.?


----------



## BrandNewGuy (May 13, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The existing planning permission for that site is for a fenced off football pitch, isn't it.?


No. There is no existing planning permission for Green Dale fields.


----------



## magneze (May 13, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Just a reminder that tomorrow, Saturday 14th May, is the last day to vote in the DHST poll
> Poll on proposed redevelopment of Champion Hill «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


I couldn't go on Tuesday. I'm current thinking of voting for it. Anyone want to convince me otherwise?


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 13, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> No. There is no existing planning permission for Green Dale fields.


Ok, on what basis were the existing AstroTurf pitches put in then, do they not have permission?

Edit, I think you're getting confused between the lease and the planning permission which is what the Hadley person referred to.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (May 13, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Ok, on what basis were the existing AstroTurf pitches put in then, do they not have permission?
> 
> Edit, I think you're getting confused between the lease and the planning permission which is what the Hadley person referred to.



We're still trying to find out if there was formal planning permission in 1992, but it seems unlikely as there's no paperwork to be found. But in any case MOL works on the principle that if anything manmade is already there, you can reasonably refurbish it or even rebuild it (eg a cricket pavilion) but you cannot extend it or build a different substantial structure or enclose an area of it. The details of the current application suggest there is no historic planning permission of any kind for Green Dale Fields. And if there were, it would have lapsed by now. Go to the main planning application page, then Related cases, then Properties and you'll see all related cases to do with the property under Property history.
tinyurl.com/dhfcplans


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 13, 2016)

BrandNewGuy - as I asked before, is your position no development whatever or do you see any potential compromise position?


----------



## BrandNewGuy (May 13, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> BrandNewGuy - as I asked before, is your position no development whatever or do you see any potential compromise position?


Well, the flippant reply is that as Hadley's position is strictly no compromise, all or nothing, then our position can only be the same. To be honest, it's not up to me or any other individual or group to suggest a compromise, certainly not in any detail, but whatever it might possibly be, it would not include building a substantial walled structure on Metropolitan Open Land.

Here's one suggestion rather than my idea of what a compromise has to be. Could Hadley turn a profit by redeveloping the ground where it is – and don't forget, they say it's on an inefficiently large footprint as it is – handing it over to DHFC/Southwark and developing the rest of the non-MOL part of the land? I'm asking that genuinely, because I haven't seen that question properly asked or answered.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 13, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> Well, the flippant reply is that as Hadley's position is strictly no compromise, all or nothing, then our position can only be the same. To be honest, it's not up to me or any other individual or group to suggest a compromise, certainly not in any detail, but whatever it might possibly be, it would not include building a substantial walled structure on Metropolitan Open Land.
> 
> Here's one suggestion rather than my idea of what a compromise has to be. Could Hadley turn a profit by redeveloping the ground where it is – and don't forget, they say it's on an inefficiently large footprint as it is – handing it over to DHFC/Southwark and developing the rest of the non-MOL part of the land? I'm asking that genuinely, because I haven't seen that question properly asked or answered.



Fair questions IMO.


----------



## Scolly (May 13, 2016)

I'm sorry to report that dispite a number of us supporters getting together and submitting a number of questions before the meeting on Tuesday, that we feel we have not been given adequate responses to. To be fair a few of the questions did get brought up at the meeting and responses given, however we have since made a request for written responses to our questions together with hard evidence supporting what we are being told. For instance there is concern that the report of the viability inspection of the current stadium as not been made public, we have only been verbally told of the results. Another major concern is the set up of the new ground. For instance catering, bar and shop areas are smaller than those at the current stadium... yet currently we can't cope with a crowd of 2k and the stadium we hope to take ownership holds 4K.... These faculties will be a major source of income to a fan owned club and under the current new stadium plans they could be for from adequate. Finally, there is no obligation to make public current financial figures but given that we are being asked to support the ground proposal that looks forward to the club being fan owned it would be good to be given a rough guide what kind of liabilities the fans could look to be inheriting.

By no means we are not saying that we do not support the proposal and dont believe what we are being told, but seeing some written hard evidence on what we are being informed would help reassure us that supporting the proposal is the best way forward for the future of Dulwich Hamlet.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 14, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> We're still trying to find out if there was formal planning permission in 1992, but it seems unlikely as there's no paperwork to be found.


Is it not part of the original section 106?.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 15, 2016)

Just to let people know, due to some completely unforeseen circumstances there has been a delay in AndyDHFC  getting the notes he took sorted. There's nothing sinister behind it, and he hopes to have it complete & published either tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 16, 2016)

Does anyone know how the Trust poll went? Voting closed on Saturday...


----------



## Paula_G (May 16, 2016)

Scolly said:


> For instance catering, bar and shop areas are smaller than those at the current stadium... yet currently we can't cope with a crowd of 2k and the stadium we hope to take ownership holds 4K



Be interested to know how the likes of Maidstone United and Sutton United cope with the bar situation, in particular the latter whose main bar is tiny in comparison to ours. Important thing is to get a system in place that works; perversely I'd say one of our greatest problems is caused by the variety we serve in our bar, the number of ales etc in stock probably far outweighs that at professional clubs were you might get a lager, a bitter and a couple of soft drinks making it easier to pre-pour. As is currently the case catering could be franchised out to the likes of Fleischmob & 100% British Grass Fed Burgers or others. A proper outside bar (no tokens) could be included too. The studio gym featured on the plans could be opened up on matchdays to extend the footprint of the bar. However we must remember without the development itself all these little tweeks will count for nothing.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 16, 2016)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> Be interested to know how the likes of Maidstone United and Sutton United cope with the bar situation, in particular the latter whose main bar is tiny in comparison to ours.



Maidstone have outside bars that serve cooking lager quickly. It's exactly what we should be doing (or aiming to do once the licencing is worked out).


----------



## editor (May 16, 2016)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> Be interested to know how the likes of Maidstone United and Sutton United cope with the bar situation, in particular the latter whose main bar is tiny in comparison to ours. Important thing is to get a system in place that works; perversely I'd say one of our greatest problems is caused by the variety we serve in our bar, the number of ales etc in stock probably far outweighs that at professional clubs were you might get a lager, a bitter and a couple of soft drinks making it easier to pre-pour. As is currently the case catering could be franchised out to the likes of Fleischmob & 100% British Grass Fed Burgers or others. A proper outside bar (no tokens) could be included too. The studio gym featured on the plans could be opened up on matchdays to extend the footprint of the bar. However we must remember without the development itself all these little tweeks will count for nothing.


The fact that tiny East Thurrock managed to cope with a crowd vastly bigger than they usually get speaks volumes of how inefficient we are when it comes to the simple matter of dispensing booze. And that inefficiency costs the club money in lost revenue.


----------



## the 12th man (May 16, 2016)

editor said:


> The fact that tiny East Thurrock managed to cope with a crowd vastly bigger than they usually get speaks volumes of how inefficient we are when it comes to the simple matter of dispensing booze. And that inefficiency costs the club money in lost revenue.


I do wonder if our outstandingly poor effort at an outside bar is due to licensing restrictions thanks to those who previously nearly fucked the club over!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 16, 2016)

editor said:


> The fact that tiny East Thurrock managed to cope with a crowd vastly bigger than they usually get speaks volumes of how inefficient we are when it comes to the simple matter of dispensing booze. And that inefficiency costs the club money in lost revenue.



Bognor as well. They anticipated the bigger than usual crowd and had people just pouring pints, and others serving. OK the crowd wasn't quite as big as ours gets but our bar gets totally jammed up at that sort of level. I think Griff_Turnstile is absolutely right to point to the range of drinks as being a problem, at least before and during the game.


----------



## Paula_G (May 16, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Maidstone have outside bars that serve cooking lager quickly. It's exactly what we should be doing (or aiming to do once the licencing is worked out).



Obviously Maidstone are now faced with a new problem now that they are in the National League as that is where the "No Booze Whatsoever in Sight of the Game" comes into effect. Both Bognor and Maidstone's main bars are laid out in the same manner with the bar furthest from the entrance which aids flow. Still find Bognor a bit of a scrum as you search for a gap to dive in then catch the eye of the nearest barstaff. Alternatives would be those backpack things which they used at the Olympics, think we had them once when Guinness did a promotion but that could mean a tie up with part of the Evil Empires (InBev / SABMiller).



editor said:


> The fact that tiny East Thurrock managed to cope with a crowd vastly bigger than they usually get speaks volumes of how inefficient we are when it comes to the simple matter of dispensing booze. And that inefficiency costs the club money in lost revenue.



Can't judge on East Thurrock's set up as wasn't there for the game itself, if someone could let me know how that operated I'd love to know! Cheers


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 16, 2016)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> Obviously Maidstone are now faced with a new problem now that they are in the National League as that is where the "No Booze Whatsoever in Sight of the Game" comes into effect. Both Bognor and Maidstone's main bars are laid out in the same manner with the bar furthest from the entrance which aids flow. Still find Bognor a bit of a scrum as you search for a gap to dive in then catch the eye of the nearest barstaff. Alternatives would be those backpack things which they used at the Olympics, think we had them once when Guinness did a promotion but that could mean a tie up with part of the Evil Empires (InBev / SABMiller).
> 
> 
> 
> Can't judge on East Thurrock's set up as wasn't there for the game itself, if someone could let me know how that operated I'd love to know! Cheers



Not obvious to me as I'd forgotten that! Yes I think they'll have a big problem with that - I've only been once but the main bar near the gate was every bit as bad as ours gets. I gave up in the end and eventually found the small bar down the other end where I got served. Without that I don't know it'll function.

East Thurrock had set up a cans bar. It worked pretty well (although the queue still took a while). I suspect they were taking a chance on it licencing wise though as it was a one-off. They also allocated a small bar area specifically to away fans - not something we have a suitable area for I don't think.


----------



## Fingers (May 16, 2016)

We have counted up the votes. 94% of members back the plans for the new ground.

DHST backs redevelopment of Champion Hill «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 17, 2016)

We need to get onto local councillors with this now.


----------



## dcdulwich (May 17, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> We need to get onto local councillors with this now.



Refraining from calling one of them 'utterly evil' (which he certainly isn't btw) might be a good starting point.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 17, 2016)

dcdulwich said:


> Refraining from calling one of them 'utterly evil' (which he certainly isn't btw) might be a good starting point.



Eh? Who has done that and where?


----------



## dcdulwich (May 17, 2016)

Bottom of page 15 of this very thread.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 17, 2016)

dcdulwich said:


> Bottom of page 15 of this very thread.


 That's one fan, who shall we say, equates to the more maverick wing of our fanbase...surely anyone is entitled to their opinion, even it doesn't come across as entirely rational?

I'm not the biggest fan of Peter John, but he came across as a perfectly reasonable bloke, albeit one who I may not agree with on his current stance on Greendale, when I had a little chat with him on Saturday.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 17, 2016)

Fingers said:


> We have counted up the votes. 94% of members back the plans for the new ground.
> 
> DHST backs redevelopment of Champion Hill «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


  When you say 94% of members...does that mean it was a 100% turn out?

How many of the membership exercised their right to vote, just out of curiousity?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 17, 2016)

It's good to see that the Trust website is encouraging members to write to the Council in support individually. I hope all do so.

Can I please ask when else they are planning to do to garner support? Time is of the essence, as the cut-off date for public submissions is the 27th of May.


----------



## Fingers (May 17, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> When you say 94% of members...does that mean it was a 100% turn out?
> 
> How many of the membership exercised their right to vote, just out of curiousity?



Hi Mishi,

94% of a turnout of 122 who voted.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2016)

I wish I'd felt involved in this but I can't shake off a feeling that something's not right here so didn't vote. Sorry.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 17, 2016)

Thanks for answering my first point. Cheers.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (May 17, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Hi Mishi,
> 
> 94% of a turnout of 122 who voted.



So bang on 50% of the total membership?


----------



## Fingers (May 17, 2016)

Around 72%. We have had some membership churn since renewals in January so will be on an active recruitment drive over the summer and the start of next season.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (May 17, 2016)

Right, but the DHST news page says there's a membership of "over 230". And I'm assuming 94% of 122 votes is 114 or 115.
DHST backs redevelopment of Champion Hill «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


----------



## Fingers (May 17, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> Right, but the DHST news page says there's a membership of "over 230". And I'm assuming 94% of 122 votes is 114 or 115.
> DHST backs redevelopment of Champion Hill «  Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust



I think a number of those quote members joined after the cut off date so were not eligible to vote and there are a number of under 18s included in the total figure who were also not eligible. I will double check when I have a few mins spare


----------



## Scutta (May 17, 2016)

Over 70% is a pretty bloody good turn out and 94% voting in favour. Sends a very clear message. Well done all involved getting this turned around pretty quickly, considering the various delays etc.


----------



## AndyDHFC (May 18, 2016)

Posted on the other thread but given the discussion here posting the note of last weeks meeting which is basically a load of Q&A some of which is pertinent to the points raised.


----------



## editor (May 19, 2016)

I'm sure Buzz could be really instrumental in garnering more support but no one seems interested in sending me anything. I got sent a personal piece from Dulwich Mishi a couple of days ago but he hasn't got back to me and no one else has offered anything. All seems something of a lost opportunity given the site's popularity.

Normally I'd just crack on and write the story myself but as I've stated before, I'm not entirely won over so don't think I'd prove the best advocate for such an important decision.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 19, 2016)

Apologies...it's simply 'time' for me...I will attempt to knock something up, but only have limited internet time after work. all genuine good intentions, and all that....I will do my best to find time, but am aware I've let you down somewhat...


----------



## pompeydunc (May 19, 2016)

editor said:


> I'm sure Buzz could be really instrumental in garnering more support but no one seems interested in sending me anything. I got sent a personal piece from Dulwich Mishi a couple of days ago but he hasn't got back to me and no one else has offered anything. All seems something of a lost opportunity given the site's popularity.
> 
> Normally I'd just crack on and write the story myself but as I've stated before, I'm not entirely won over so don't think I'd prove the best advocate for such an important decision.



You should have received a press release from DHST on Tuesday. Let me know if you haven't got it.


----------



## editor (May 19, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Apologies...it's simply 'time' for me...I will attempt to knock something up, but only have limited internet time after work. all genuine good intentions, and all that....I will do my best to find time, but am aware I've let you down somewhat...


I'm happy to run what you sent me if that's OK?


pompeydunc said:


> You should have received a press release from DHST on Tuesday. Let me know if you haven't got it.


I was hoping from something a bit more personalised than a press release, to be honest.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 19, 2016)

You can...but it's not much, I will try to find time to put a post on here sometime tomorrow.


----------



## editor (May 19, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> You can...but it's not much, I will try to find time to put a post on here sometime tomorrow.


I think it's gets across the point that I was trying to achieve: i.e. that it's in the supporters and local community's interest that the new ground gets the go ahead. What I would like is some pics of what the ground will look like. So far I've seen the heavily idealised mock up up of the club entrance (the one that looks like it's in the middle of the countryside!) but I've not seen similar levels of detail for the actual ground itself. 

I've no idea how much of the ground will be covered, how much terracing there will be, what the sightlines will be like, capacity etc. Do such things exist?


----------



## pompeydunc (May 19, 2016)

editor said:


> I think it's gets across the point that I was trying to achieve: i.e. that it's in the supporters and local community's interest that the new ground gets the go ahead. What I would like is some pics of what the ground will look like. So far I've seen the heavily idealised mock up up of the club entrance (the one that looks like it's in the middle of the countryside!) but I've not seen similar levels of detail for the actual ground itself.
> 
> I've no idea how much of the ground will be covered, how much terracing there will be, what the sightlines will be like, capacity etc. Do such things exist?



There are numerous different angles and plans on the Southwark website. The most relevant ones were signposted in the background info that was sent to members as part of the poll. Scroll down to near bottom here and get clicking www.dhst.org.uk/about/trust-activities/trustandground/redevelopment-poll/


----------



## editor (May 19, 2016)

pompeydunc said:


> There are numerous different angles and plans on the Southwark website. The most relevant ones were signposted in the background info that was sent to members as part of the poll. Scroll down to near bottom here and get clicking www.dhst.org.uk/about/trust-activities/trustandground/redevelopment-poll/


I was hoping I wouldn't have to trawl through loads of PDF files to find the images to download. Could someone at least post up the links to the actual stadium images?  Thanks.

And how about capacity? Ground cover?


----------



## all to nah (May 20, 2016)

The reaction of the Greendale crowd in the South London Press.

I've been over ten or eleven times now. But I've never been to this open land. Maybe I'll sleep there next time I'm over.


----------



## editor (May 20, 2016)

This is the point that I keep coming back to and it's something that needs to be be balanced out - that's what I'm hoping a Buzz piece could do. 


> At last week’s Support Our Stadium meeting and in forums online, many Dulwich Hamlet supporters have expressed their unease that the property developers are taking an ‘all or nothing’ approach to the planning application, which practically forces fans to support it without having the sorts of guarantees of the club’s sustainability that they desire.


----------



## EDC (May 20, 2016)

all to nah said:


> The reaction of the Greendale crowd in the South London Press.
> 
> I've been over ten or eleven times now. But I've never been to this open land. Maybe I'll sleep there next time I'm over.



I wouldn't.  You're likely to be eaten alive by foxes or rats, crawled on by slugs bigger than you could imagine, that's if you survive getting burnt alive by kids disposing off a stolen moped.  All that after setting your bedding down on dog shit.


----------



## Lucy Fur (May 20, 2016)

EDC said:


> I wouldn't.  You're likely to be eaten alive by foxes or rats, crawled on by slugs bigger than you could imagine, that's if you survive getting burnt alive by kids disposing off a stolen moped.  All that after setting your bedding down on dog shit.


How Friends of Greendale describe it:

What its actually like:


----------



## mick mccartney (May 20, 2016)

Quick ! Save that bear/elephant/whatever . use in campaign: 'saved by friends of DHFC , not by friends of greendale '


----------



## EDC (May 20, 2016)

mick mccartney said:


> Quick ! Save that bear/elephant/whatever . use in campaign: 'saved by friends of DHFC , not by friends of greendale '


It is pink 'n' blue after all.


----------



## crocustim (May 20, 2016)

Its a pretty snide approach. Bombard the meeting with negative questions then report it to the press as being representative of DHFC fans' views. Pft!


----------



## GregDHFC (May 20, 2016)

Yeah, Friends of Greendale seem like a pretty dishonest bunch.  I've expressed my concerns about the new ground on here before, but for me the best reason to support the proposals is that FoG oppose them!


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 20, 2016)

crocustim said:


> Its a pretty snide approach. Bombard the meeting with negative questions then report it to the press as being representative of DHFC fans' views. Pft!


It's strange that apparently it is many fans view, yet they overwhelmingly back the proposal - no mention of that!.


----------



## editor (May 20, 2016)

Buzzed: Dulwich Hamlet redevelopment plans explained as fan urges planning application support


----------



## clog (May 20, 2016)

editor said:


> I wish I'd felt involved in this but I can't shake off a feeling that something's not right here so didn't vote. Sorry.


Me too. And I forgot.


----------



## Pink Panther (May 21, 2016)

Spot the difference:









*first image copied from Tricky Skills post on Needham Market match thread:
Needham Market v. Dulwich Hamlet, 23rd April 2016


----------



## BrandNewGuy (May 21, 2016)

crocustim said:


> Its a pretty snide approach. Bombard the meeting with negative questions then report it to the press as being representative of DHFC fans' views. Pft!


 Wait a minute. Read the last few pages of this thread to see how unanimous the fans aren't. And the piece doesn't say it was representative of the fans' views, it points out that the fans are not unanimous. And the SLP have quoted 94% of the DHST members being in favour. I can only assume that this sleight of hand is deliberate as it has been repeated in several places. It's 94% of the 50% of members who voted.


----------



## liamdhfc (May 21, 2016)

No football club will ever have its fans agreeing 100% on anything. What is obvious is that the majority of fans who have expressed an opinion are in favour. The reason they are in favour is because the alternatives are not attractive especially being at the mercy of further developers and dodgy owners with a stadium not fit for purpose. By the way if all of the MOL is undeveloped what is that fence round the astroturf and the 8 big steel pylons on it?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 21, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> Wait a minute. Read the last few pages of this thread to see how unanimous the fans aren't. And the piece doesn't say it was representative of the fans' views, it points out that the fans are not unanimous. And the SLP have quoted 94% of the DHST members being in favour. I can only assume that this sleight of hand is deliberate as it has been repeated in several places. It's 94% of the 50% of members who voted.


 
No, actually it said:

“At last week’s Support Our Stadium meeting and in forums online, many Dulwich Hamlet supporters have expressed their unease that the property developers are taking an ‘all or nothing’ approach to the planning application, which practically forces fans to support it without having the sorts of guarantees of the club’s sustainability that they desire. "

I would hardly say a handful is many...and it certainly wasn't 'many' at the meeting! But then, let's be honest, you need ever spin & trick in the book to argue your case, really...


----------



## vornstyle76 (May 21, 2016)

I don't know how anyone can interpret the 94% - on a turnout of approximately 72% of the eligible DHST membership - as anything other than a thumping landslide. It's much higher than I expected.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 21, 2016)

Yes, but most people have more faith in property developers than you!


----------



## darryl (May 21, 2016)

Was the SLP story written by the work experience kid? It reads like it.


----------



## Scutta (May 21, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> Wait a minute. Read the last few pages of this thread to see how unanimous the fans aren't. And the piece doesn't say it was representative of the fans' views, it points out that the fans are not unanimous. And the SLP have quoted 94% of the DHST members being in favour. I can only assume that this sleight of hand is deliberate as it has been repeated in several places. It's 94% of the 50% of members who voted.





vornstyle76 said:


> I don't know how anyone can interpret the 94% - on a turnout of approximately 72% of the eligible DHST membership - as anything other than a thumping landslide. It's much higher than I expected.


yes 72% turnout, much higher than a lot of elections in general (and the general). Unless we are going to question the whole idea of elections not being fully democratic, which i wouldn't always disagree on - the idea of it only being less than half the memebers that agree is as bigger spin on the numbers we are seeing bounded about in the eu debate.

yes i dont think all fans are in total agreement and  are slightly wary of the eventual outcome but it shows that they support this outcome more than the other options. I mean everyone who votes in the general election doesn't always vote for exactly what they want, just what they think will give them the better option in the longrun and actually for greendale and Hamlet people have put a strong message out saying this is the best option. An improved cared for greenspace, a new sustainable stadium, fan ownership, no debts and much needed housing (unfortunately too expensive for normal people, but it is London) over the possibility of saving a few small meters of greenspace and old astroturf with a club possibly lost, sold, saddled with debt and no fan ownership.......etc


----------



## editor (May 21, 2016)

Of all the reasons to support this scheme, the bit about it providing "much needed housing" is the least persuasive. It'll all be unaffordable to 'normal' people on normal incomes with a vast chunk probably bought up by buy to let cunts.

Social housing is what's much needed.


----------



## Scutta (May 21, 2016)

editor said:


> Of all the reasons to support this scheme, the bit about it providing "much needed housing" is the least persuasive. It'll all be unaffordable to 'normal' people on normal incomes with a vast chunk probably bought up by buy to let cunts.
> 
> Social housing is what's much needed.


er did you read the brackets - thats what i said - still need housing though, also it was the last on the list, but also maybe showing the power of spin, who knows.


----------



## crocustim (May 23, 2016)

BrandNewGuy said:


> Wait a minute. Read the last few pages of this thread to see how unanimous the fans aren't. And the piece doesn't say it was representative of the fans' views, it points out that the fans are not unanimous. And the SLP have quoted 94% of the DHST members being in favour. I can only assume that this sleight of hand is deliberate as it has been repeated in several places. It's 94% of the 50% of members who voted.



I forgot to vote and I would have voted in favour so you can't just pile all the unmade votes in the against column either.


----------



## crocustim (May 23, 2016)

editor said:


> Of all the reasons to support this scheme, the bit about it providing "much needed housing" is the least persuasive. It'll all be unaffordable to 'normal' people on normal incomes with a vast chunk probably bought up by buy to let cunts.
> 
> Social housing is what's much needed.



I totally agree but we are in such a desperate situation with housing supply at the moment that any housing is a good thing. It takes a long time to build and lasts for many decades so the building may end up serving different people in different ways to how it is currently imagined. I would rather it was a different sort from the outset but that would take a big change in national govt policy and imho we can't afford to wait for that.


----------



## editor (May 23, 2016)

crocustim said:


> I totally agree but we are in such a desperate situation with housing supply at the moment that any housing is a good thing. It takes a long time to build and lasts for many decades so the building may end up serving different people in different ways to how it is currently imagined. I would rather it was a different sort from the outset but that would take a big change in national govt policy and imho we can't afford to wait for that.


No, sorry, I can't agree that all and any housing is always a good thing. Unaffordable and luxury housing does nothing for the existing communities - in fact their development can have an adverse effect on those living nearby.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 23, 2016)

The sad reality is that there's no way there's going to be any scope for social housing to be included in this development. It's just not going to happen - the powers that be are terrible at enforcing it anyway and in this instance the developers have the proposed new ground to wave around as the 'social' element of the development which makes it even less likely. 

If you feel strongly enough about it then you should oppose the development as a whole IMO - I'm certainly not entirely enthused by it and given the likely strength of opposition it's more likely than usual you'll actually be listened to. What's not going to happen is a development involving a new ground AND social housing though.


----------



## clog (May 23, 2016)

I must admit the lack of social housing in the residential part of the development worries me more than the ground stuff. But given Southwark's record, I can't see them insisting on any.


----------



## Jimbob73 (May 26, 2016)

Last day tomorrow to register your support!
16/AP/1232	 |			  Redevelopment of Dulwich Hamlet Football Stadium, including the demolition of existing buildings, and land at Greendale, to provide: - the erection of a new stadium with relocated playing pitch, two-storey clubhouse with a Health and Fitness Club and stand, with capacity for 4000 spectators, a multi-use games area (MUGA) and associated floodlighting; - the erection of a series of buildings between three and six-storeys in height to provide 155 residential dwellings (7xstudio, 56x1 bed, 46x2 bed, 43x3 bed and 3x4 bed); - associated car parking, cycle parking, refuse storage and access road; - enhancements to existing open space at Green Dale Fields and the creation of a new public linear park; - the relocation of existing telecommunication equipment within the site.				  |																		 DULWICH HAMLET FOOTBALL CLUB STADIUM AND GREEN DALE PLAYING FIELDS, DOG KENNEL HILL, LONDON, SE22 8BD


----------



## Taper (May 26, 2016)

There's a very useful post on the EDF from BrandNewGuy (who has posted on this thread), about the Tooting and Mitcham stadium development; which was also on MOL.

The Planning Committee report read :

"7.6 The development that has been undertaken on the land has already significantly altered its open character, which, despite its continued status as Metropolitan Land, has taken on a far more “urbanized” character than was previously the case."

And in the Secretary of State's eventual approval:

"7.4 The Secretary of State approved the existing use and built development in 1997 subject to conditions and a Section 106 Obligation (ref 96/P0574). In reaching this decision, the Secretary of State placed considerable weight on the fact that if the development did not proceed the club was likely to close, which would be a significant loss to the community. It was considered that the provision of the stadium went well beyond what was essential to outdoor sport or recreation and accordingly could not reasonably be considered as an appropriate use within MOL. Despite this it was decided that the benefits that were gained by the development in this instance outweighed the harm to the MOL."

So interesting parallels with the DH development.  And as BrandNewGuy notes, this is why Hadley have been stressing the parlous situation DH is in financially.  I hope they are able to make this case with more detail than we've seen so far in the planning process.


----------



## dcdulwich (May 29, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Last day tomorrow to register your support!
> 16/AP/1232	 |			  Redevelopment of Dulwich Hamlet Football Stadium, including the demolition of existing buildings, and land at Greendale, to provide: - the erection of a new stadium with relocated playing pitch, two-storey clubhouse with a Health and Fitness Club and stand, with capacity for 4000 spectators, a multi-use games area (MUGA) and associated floodlighting; - the erection of a series of buildings between three and six-storeys in height to provide 155 residential dwellings (7xstudio, 56x1 bed, 46x2 bed, 43x3 bed and 3x4 bed); - associated car parking, cycle parking, refuse storage and access road; - enhancements to existing open space at Green Dale Fields and the creation of a new public linear park; - the relocation of existing telecommunication equipment within the site.				  |																		 DULWICH HAMLET FOOTBALL CLUB STADIUM AND GREEN DALE PLAYING FIELDS, DOG KENNEL HILL, LONDON, SE22 8BD



Might as well repeat what I put on another thread: The deadline has been extended to 12th June - see under the 'Important Dates' tab via the 'Details' tab on the link above.


----------



## JTee (Jun 8, 2016)

Stadium proposals are on latest 35% blog. Proposal is apparently 16% affordable, with zero social rented. And a tasty 17.6 million profit for Hadley. 

Dulwich Hamlet - unviable but profitable


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2016)

JTee said:


> Stadium proposals are on latest 35% blog. Proposal is apparently 16% affordable, with zero social rented. And a tasty 17.6 million profit for Hadley.
> 
> Dulwich Hamlet - unviable but profitable


I didn't know the ACV listing had been shunted into oblivion.


> However, in 2014 another developer (Hadley Group) bought the site(for £5.7m), and shortly afterwards Southwark removed the club’s ACV status on a legal technicality involving the Trust’s original application for listing.


And this is depressing:


> Hadley is owned by Hong Kong developer Peterson group, which is owned by wealthy Hong Kong business tycoons the Yeung family and used an SPV (registered on the Isle of Man) to purchase the Champion Hill site.


And this shameful:


> As well as the loss of council-owned public open space, the application provides less than half of the required amount of affordable housing - 16% when 35% is the rule. On top of this no social rented housing is proposed when it should be 70% of the affordable quota. Instead the application proposes a 16% mix of shared ownership and ‘affordable rent’ - i.e. rents of up to 80% market rent1.
> 
> Hadley justifies its pitiful affordable housing offer by playing the usual viability trump card - i.e. the development cannot provide the required affordable housing and a new football stadium. This argument ignores the generous 25% profit amounting to £17.6 million that Hadley awards itself and has factored into its viability assessment.


It may not great reading for Hamlet fans but it's a bloody important piece of reporting.


----------



## Latahs (Jun 8, 2016)

Are they correct regarding the MOL status of Greendale? +ownership by Southwark?


----------



## Taper (Jun 8, 2016)

Yes to both I think. Was leased to the club, but I think that's run out.

The amount Hadley played for the club is huge.  What the hell happens if they don't get permission for the development?  They won't walk away from that level of investment, but the sell on price will be bugger all. Is a scenario where they build on the pitch and build a new stadium off champion hill for the club likely? How would people feel about that? 

I have a sense of dread about all of this.  And the KFH distraction, and people's intemperate reaction, has added to it.


----------



## Scolly (Jun 8, 2016)

Distraction is the word here, there will be and are more important issues that who the short sponsors are!


----------



## Scutta (Jun 8, 2016)

Scolly said:


> Distraction is the word here, there will be and are more important issues that who the short sponsors are!


if KFH are only the short sponsors who have we got lined up for the shirts? Foxtons!


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 8, 2016)

Greendale is owned by the London Borough ofSouthwark. The Football Club Limited had it on a lease from the council, which is currently on a rolling renewal of some sort, until the planning application is over. Not sure of the legalese of all that, but it means it is still legally leased to the Football Club Limited.

Hadley did not pay a huge amount for the Football Clun. They initially  bought the Football Ground itself, NOT the football Club, and were our landlords, after the previous landlords went into administration.

After this the huge debts wracked up by the previous owners came to light, as the Club was in days of being closed down. Hadley then stepped in to steady the ship, sort out the debts and so on...without them doing this there would, simply, be no Dulwich Hamlet Football Club as we know it, today!

I personally believe that, yes, they are fully committed to building a new stadium, alongside their housing development & do not believe the council would do one without the other. Further...they are committed to get our new ground ready BEFORE the housing.

Also: Hadley had no influence on getting KFH on board as new shirt sponsors. This was a deal negotiated totally by the Commercial Team on the Football Club Committee, and was fully supported by all on the football Club Committee, including those who are members of the Trust.

Like it or not, we are-at the end of the day-an ordinary Football Club and not one with a special agenda, much as we try to do much more for our local community than other clubs.

Despite the KFH deal not being to the taste of all, we simply cannot afford to turn down such sponsorship, and try as we might, it is very hard still, despite the raised profile & reputation of our club, to attract sponsorship.

The free season tickets offer are a way to try to attract new fans to the Club, and are only for one season, the hope is that new people to the area like what they see & purchase a renewal the following year.

With regard to free tickets for others, as I have put out appeals for on a number of occasions, if any of you out there know of community groups who would like free tickets, for individual games, then please get in touch.

We do actually do some work with free ticketing to a number of community groups, which we do not wish to publicise, and they come on a regular basis. This is work with groups who deal with vulnerable groups, &/or groups who do not have the finances to spend at a local non-league club; but for a variety of reasons, including both their own safety & confidentiality, I understandably cannot disclose these.

But trust me, we do actually do more than you sometimes hear of...

I am sure we would all love to be in a position where we can morally pick & choose who accept sponsorship from, and it is a fine line we walk...one which we all, as a group of volunteers, I think we do ok with...despite some misgivings.


----------



## Scolly (Jun 8, 2016)

I love you Jack


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> I am sure we would all love to be in a position where we can morally pick & choose who accept sponsorship from, and it is a fine line we walk...one which we all, as a group of volunteers, I think we do ok with...despite some misgivings.


The main problem wasn't the sponsor - I think most people understand that we have to take what we get  - it was the PR spin in the press release.

As for the shenanigans exposed in that article relating to the lack of social/affordable provision, I am, frankly, furious.


----------



## Scutta (Jun 8, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Greendale is owned by the London Borough ofSouthwark. The Football Club Limited had it on a lease from the council, which is currently on a rolling renewal of some sort, until the planning application is over. Not sure of the legalese of all that, but it means it is still legally leased to the Football Club Limited.
> 
> Hadley did not pay a huge amount for the Football Clun. They initially  bought the Football Ground itself, NOT the football Club, and were our landlords, after the previous landlords went into administration.
> 
> ...


again happy to take the money but trying to spin and promote them as community minded is taking the piss. And makes all the work we do look stupid, from the outside and obviously the inside too.


----------



## mick mccartney (Jun 8, 2016)

well , that's a surprise , Hadley blaming their commitment to DHFC for the lack of social/affordable housing . Methinks we will be manning the barricades sooner rather than later . Perhaps we can find a ground somewhere to share with Kingstonian ?


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 8, 2016)

JTee said:


> Stadium proposals are on latest 35% blog. Proposal is apparently 16% affordable, with zero social rented. And a tasty 17.6 million profit for Hadley.
> 
> Dulwich Hamlet - unviable but profitable



I think this is a pretty shitty opinion piece which to be fair to them they say is from an affordable housing perspective".

There is Metropolitan Open Land and there is a stadium with a football club on privately owned land. The stadium is on land leased from the owner of the land. I think any reaonable journalism on the issue should ask the question: what will happen to DHFC if the land owner refuses a lease? 

To my knowledge, we have no right to a lease so any consideration of the matter needs to take the football club into the decision making process, unless those making the decision don't care about the club.

Turn down any development that hands over a guaranteed long lease to the club and the outcome of that club rests with those making that decision. That private land can be passed into any hands.

Do what is best for all parties. Not just everyone but the football club.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 8, 2016)

I don't give a shit about "affordable housing". Who the fuck even gets to buy it? 



mick mccartney said:


> well , that's a surprise , Hadley blaming their commitment to DHFC for the lack of social/affordable housing . Methinks we will be manning the barricades sooner rather than later . Perhaps we can find a ground somewhere to share with Kingstonian ?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 8, 2016)

B.I.G said:


> There is Metropolitan Open Land and there is a stadium with a football club on privately owned land. The stadium is on land leased from the owner of the land. I think any reaonable journalism on the issue should ask the question: what will happen to DHFC if the land owner refuses a lease?
> 
> To my knowledge, we have no right to a lease so any consideration of the matter needs to take the football club into the decision making process, unless those making the decision don't care about the club.



There's no right to a lease but there is a covenant on the current site saying it can only be used for a sports club. The provision of a new ground is their attempt to have that set aside - without it I've no doubt they'd have bulldozed the ground already. What happens if planning is refused is still the big question though I agree.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 8, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> There's no right to a lease but there is a covenant on the current site saying it can only be used for a sports club. The provision of a new ground is their attempt to have that set aside - without it I've no doubt they'd have bulldozed the ground already. What happens if planning is refused is still the big question though I agree.



A covenant doesn't guarantee the existence of DHFC as every will agree.

So far Hadley's argument is more accomodating of greendales then all the opposition's arguments regarding DHFC.

As they do never address what happens if we don't get a lease


----------



## mick mccartney (Jun 8, 2016)

feeling a total fool . am i the only one that didn't realise that the only land hadley own is our ground ? which means they bought us to use as leverage to get southwark to sell them greendale . this sucks as much as the glaziers using man utd's assets to buy man utd . manning the barricades now .
many thanks to 35% campaign for a clear and transparent explanation , and my best wishes to your campaign .


----------



## StephenMac (Jun 8, 2016)

This would be the time for Hadley to comment on all this, or are we pretending that they don't keep an eye on this forum?


----------



## editor (Jun 9, 2016)

B.I.G said:


> I don't give a shit about "affordable housing". Who the fuck even gets to buy it?


Then how about giving a shit about the social rented housing that Hadley are doing their best to avoid providing?


> As well as the loss of council-owned public open space, the application provides less than half of the required amount of affordable housing - 16% when 35% is the rule. On top of this no social rented housing is proposed when it should be 70% of the affordable quota. Instead the application proposes a 16% mix of shared ownership and ‘affordable rent’ - i.e. rents of up to 80% market rent1.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 9, 2016)

editor said:


> Then how about giving a shit about the social rented housing that Hadley are doing their best to avoid providing?



I think social rented housing is bollocks too in the manner in which it seems to exist. I do believe in council housing though.

So if I had the necessary power as a council, it seems the best thing to do would be to say we want to approve this applicatiom but we want to be given for free x% of the housing to us to own as council housing.

Then the developers can take it or leave it or reach another agreement.


----------



## EDC (Jun 9, 2016)

Very few councils have their own housing these days, its mainly associations. I think Southwark still do though.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 9, 2016)

mick mccartney said:


> feeling a total fool . am i the only one that didn't realise that the only land hadley own is our ground ? which means they bought us to use as leverage to get southwark to sell them greendale . this sucks as much as the glaziers using man utd's assets to buy man utd . manning the barricades now .
> many thanks to 35% campaign for a clear and transparent explanation , and my best wishes to your campaign .


 As I understand it...Hadley would not buy Greendale. When, hopefully, the new ground is built, our landlords will be the London borough of Southwark...and, if all goes to plan, we will be fan owned.

Surely much better for the long term future of our football club, rather than the current situation, and that over the last few decades, of being owned by one majority shareholder, and ending up with a very dodgy owner of the stadium, prior to Hadley.


----------



## crocustim (Jun 9, 2016)

EDC said:


> Very few councils have their own housing these days, its mainly associations. I think Southwark still do though.


Housing nerd fact of the day: Southwark have the highest proportion of council housing of any London borough.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 9, 2016)

crocustim said:


> Housing nerd fact of the day: Southwark have the highest proportion of council housing of any London borough.



Is that current? Because they're certainly doing their best to change that.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 9, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> As I understand it...Hadley would not buy Greendale. When, hopefully, the new ground is built, our landlords will be the London borough of Southwark...and, if all goes to plan, we will be fan owned.
> 
> Surely much better for the long term future of our football club, rather than the current situation, and that over the last few decades, of being owned by one majority shareholder, and ending up with a very dodgy owner of the stadium, prior to Hadley.



It is extremely annoying that everyone outside the club seems to ignore our tenancy situation as I am sure you agree


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 9, 2016)

There's lots of things that annoy me...but if I were to compile a list...I'd be a lot more unpopular than I already am!


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 9, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> There's lots of things that annoy me...but if I were to compile a list...I'd be a lot more unpopular than I already am!



Ha! No wonder you aren't on twitter.  Your list on me would be several tweets of 140 characters.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 9, 2016)

Nah, I'd be ok...keep your friends close, but your enemies closer!


----------



## rover07 (Jun 9, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> As I understand it...Hadley would not buy Greendale. When, hopefully, the new ground is built, our landlords will be the London borough of Southwark...and, if all goes to plan, we will be fan owned.
> 
> Surely much better for the long term future of our football club, rather than the current situation, and that over the last few decades, of being owned by one majority shareholder, and ending up with a very dodgy owner of the stadium, prior to Hadley.



The land may still belong to the Council but the stadium will be owned by Hadley's.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 10, 2016)

No it won't. Under this development it will be leased.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 10, 2016)

And, further, if all goes to plan, and approval is given, down the line Hadley will no longer be involved, our Club will be fan-owned, so the Club will be all of ours.


----------



## Paula_G (Jun 10, 2016)

editor said:


> Then how about giving a shit about the social rented housing that Hadley are doing their best to avoid providing?


The information on provision of social housing is included in the FAQs on the Champion Hill Development site which has been around for some time so its not as Hadley have been hiding this FAQs | Champion Hill Stadium
Was a glaring inaccuracy in the orginal 35% Report which states that the club sold the land for the building of Sainsbury, Had that been the case might be in a lot better position finacially (probably?).


----------



## Scutta (Jun 10, 2016)

"It is important to note that the proposals are not a typical residential-led scheme, where a policy-compliant amount of affordable housing can be of course be provided. Instead, it is a stadium-led scheme that brings additional benefits to the local community."

So that is pretty specific, they are using us to avoid providing social housing?


----------



## Paula_G (Jun 10, 2016)

I'd bet the profit would be a lot higher if you just let the club die much as happened to Fisher and a few other clubs. With a derelict stadium on their doorsteps, locals don't tend to baulk at residential developments as much.


----------



## Paula_G (Jun 10, 2016)

Scutta said:


> "It is important to note that the proposals are not a typical residential-led scheme, where a policy-compliant amount of affordable housing can be of course be provided. Instead, it is a stadium-led scheme that brings additional benefits to the local community."
> 
> So that is pretty specific, they are using us to avoid providing social housing?



There are a lot easier ways to avoid the provision of social housing. Developers condemn housing policy that risks wrecking social mix in London


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jun 10, 2016)

Scutta said:


> "It is important to note that the proposals are not a typical residential-led scheme, where a policy-compliant amount of affordable housing can be of course be provided. Instead, it is a stadium-led scheme that brings additional benefits to the local community."
> 
> So that is pretty specific, they are using us to avoid providing social housing?



Is it social or affordable? Getting confused. Either way using dhfc to avoid is grim.


----------



## editor (Jun 10, 2016)

I love Dulwich Hamlet. I really don't like Hadleys' weaselling ways. That is all for now.


----------



## Paula_G (Jun 10, 2016)

poptyping said:


> Is it social or affordable? Getting confused. Either way using dhfc to avoid is grim.


With it being a private development won't be social, affordable within that definition of the word.


----------



## Paula_G (Jun 10, 2016)

Could also be construed that Dulwich Hamlet are using Hadley to obtain a new stadium with a decent leash and the chance to put behind us some of the shysters that have leached off the club pre-Hadley, making a fresh start as a Supporter-Owned club.


----------



## Scutta (Jun 10, 2016)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> Could also be construed that Dulwich Hamlet are using Hadley to obtain a new stadium with a decent leash and the chance to put behind us some of the shysters that have leached off the club pre-Hadley, making a fresh start as a Supporter-Owned club.


Whichever way you twist it social/affordable housing is lost... so that's bad.


----------



## Scutta (Jun 10, 2016)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> With it being a private development won't be social, affordable within that definition of the word.


Section 106. A certain of percentage of any development needs to have social or affordable housing... which I am assuming we the stadium are part of within the plans, so they dont have to build anymore..


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 10, 2016)

Providing social or affordable housing in this way is just a bodge job anyway, I didn't expect Hadley to provide it so I'm not surprised it isn't there.


----------



## Taper (Jun 21, 2016)

Shit, not looking forward to the reaction from young renting vegetarians

Meaty Discount Available to Season Ticket Holders with Flock & Herd - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2016)

Taper said:


> Shit, not looking forward to the reaction from young renting vegetarians
> 
> Meaty Discount Available to Season Ticket Holders with Flock & Herd - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club


That's one offer I won't be writing about on Buzz.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 21, 2016)

Estate agents and now butchers! I supose we need to get the unsustainable increase in spectators down some how.


----------



## Taper (Jun 21, 2016)

Nice sausages.  Nice lads.


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2016)

All we need now is some sponsorship from a petrochemical company!


----------



## Taper (Jun 21, 2016)

You don't win the Ryman eating peanut mince.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 21, 2016)

What on earth are you on about 'now butchers'????

What's wrong with eating meat?

Flock & Herd have been backers of the Club for several years now, in fact they have been one of our loyalist minor sponsors.

Have you noticed the warm-up tops, boards around the ground, programme adverts & the back of the dugouts?

Good grief!


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> What on earth are you on about 'now butchers'????
> 
> What's wrong with eating meat?


We need to be encouraging people to eat less meat, you know. You must have seen the research on this, no?


----------



## Paula_G (Jun 21, 2016)

Always amazes me that with Burger this and Burger that all over London, no one's thought to break the mould with some veggie options rather than each trying to outdo the other on how weird the toppings can get before maximum burger point is reached.


----------



## EDC (Jun 21, 2016)

editor said:


> We need to be encouraging people to eat less meat, you know. You must have seen the research on this, no?


And drink less alcohol.


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2016)

EDC said:


> And drink less alcohol.


How is that impacting on global warming?


----------



## EDC (Jun 21, 2016)

Beer farts.


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2016)

EDC said:


> Beer farts.


That post was a wet one.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 21, 2016)

but I'm not vegetarian...and can't stand vegetables!


----------



## Jamie Wyatt (Jun 21, 2016)

Eat less meat...?? Your be telling me I should have voted remain next!!


----------



## mick mccartney (Jun 22, 2016)

Taper said:


> Shit, not looking forward to the reaction from young renting vegetarians
> 
> Meaty Discount Available to Season Ticket Holders with Flock & Herd - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club


this is the right way round : kfh should be offering 10% off prices to season ticket holders


----------



## crocustim (Jun 22, 2016)

A lot of people are cutting out cheap supermarket meat and going vegetarian most the week/month, which then allows them to pay a bit more for good quality meat as an occasional treat. This is a local business that takes care over its choice of suppliers so fits the bill nicely - I'll be using my 10%. Thanks!


----------



## Taper (Jun 22, 2016)

It's a good butchers.  Pretty good value and as you say the meat is ethically sourced. I see elsewhere the talk is of mascots for the new season.  Perhaps F&H could donate a creature to be the club mascot: a regimental goat perhaps or a Dexter?  All dressed in Hamlet livery.  And not an estate agent in sight.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 22, 2016)

Or a Bob the Builder type mascot....as a nod to developers building houses & sold by KFH!


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 22, 2016)

Note to self: remember to put a  after posts as it's not good for Mishi's blood presure


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 22, 2016)

I blaim Brussels #Brexit 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






Jamie Wyatt said:


> Eat less meat...?? Your be telling me I should have voted remain next!!


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 22, 2016)

New signing...


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 22, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Or a Bob the Builder type mascot....as a nod to developers building houses & sold by KFH!


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 22, 2016)

Reminds me of the last relegation year, which somewhat annoyed our then manager Les Cleeveley:

"Les the manager...
Can he fix it?
Les the manager-
NO HE CAN'T"

Ah, when the Rabble was a Rabble!


----------



## Roger D (Jun 22, 2016)

Ah happy days. Well not on the pitch perhaps. Seem to remember we travelled to Farnborough midweek late in the season. They were bankrolled and strolling the league. We were useless and took about ten fans, including me who lived all of five minutes walk from Farnborough's ground. The gate was still well over a thousand I think. How times change, for both clubs.

We got hammered and picked up an FA fine for too many cautions. The one that secured the fine was Les for dissent. He only ran up to about the halfway line to shout at the ref. Very harsh caution that......

Edited to say I think all the other Hamlet fans left a few minutes early to ensure they got the last fast train to London. From memory there was only one Hamlet fan in the ground at final whistle. Good job I lived round the corner or I'd have left as well and it would have been none.


----------



## Scutta (Jun 22, 2016)

Taper said:


> It's a good butchers.  Pretty good value and as you say the meat is ethically sourced. I see elsewhere the talk is of mascots for the new season.  Perhaps F&H could donate a creature to be the club mascot: a regimental goat perhaps or a Dexter?  All dressed in Hamlet livery.  And not an estate agent in sight.


A sacrificial goat perhaps, and then a goat curry after every home game.


----------



## Scutta (Jun 22, 2016)




----------



## Taper (Jun 22, 2016)

This monkey funker


----------



## Scutta (Jun 22, 2016)

Taper said:


> This monkey funker


I saw that one too but i thought he was too cool to be sacrificed!


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2016)

I'd like a pantomime villain for a mascot. Every week he/she comes on dressed as the current figure of hate (Farage/Boris etc) and gets pelted with foam rocks.


----------



## Paula_G (Jun 22, 2016)

Roger D said:


> Ah happy days. Well not on the pitch perhaps. Seem to remember we travelled to Farnborough midweek late in the season. They were bankrolled and strolling the league. We were useless and took about ten fans, including me who lived all of five minutes walk from Farnborough's ground. The gate was still well over a thousand I think. How times change, for both clubs.
> 
> We got hammered and picked up an FA fine for too many cautions. The one that secured the fine was Les for dissent. He only ran up to about the halfway line to shout at the ref. Very harsh caution that......
> 
> Edited to say I think all the other Hamlet fans left a few minutes early to ensure they got the last fast train to London. From memory there was only one Hamlet fan in the ground at final whistle. Good job I lived round the corner or I'd have left as well and it would have been none.


Was that the time they had that giant "thing" as mascot, rather like some B Movie monster from the 50s?


----------



## Roger D (Jun 22, 2016)

Think you are right. Some bizarre shrimp costume from memory. Rumoured to have been purchased from K's. The bloke inside it was a their highly paid centre forward (their players back then lived as locally as Doncaster and Swansea) who had upset Graham Westley and was ordered to do it to fulfill his contract and get paid.

There was also a seriously embarrassing poem on the proggie front cover based around Graham's 'Ambition is more important than ability' mantra.


----------



## Scutta (Jun 22, 2016)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> Was that the time they had that giant "thing" as mascot, rather like some B Movie monster from the 50s?


this is what we need!!!


----------



## JTee (Jun 23, 2016)

The new Mayor has thrown out the Cray Wanderers new stadium and flats development, citing his promise of protecting the green belt, despite the council previously approving the scheme.


----------



## Roger D (Jun 23, 2016)

Could get interesting for the Hamlet given MOL is basically the urban version of greenbelt. Did Sadiq's promise cover the issue of MOL in any way?


----------



## Pink Panther (Jun 23, 2016)

editor said:


> We need to be encouraging people to eat less meat, you know. You must have seen the research on this, no?





crocustim said:


> A lot of people are cutting out cheap supermarket meat and going vegetarian most the week/month, which then allows them to pay a bit more for good quality meat as an occasional treat. This is a local business that takes care over its choice of suppliers so fits the bill nicely - I'll be using my 10%. Thanks!


I already eat 'less meat', especially red meat, and often go several days at a time without eating any; a conscious decision partly for health reasons (I'm susceptible to attacks of gout), partly for financial reasons (I can knock up a tasty vegetable curry once a week from fresh ingredients and spices that stretches to three main meals for two or three quid) and I just don't feel the need to eat meat all the time, although I don't want to give it up altogether as there are meals I enjoy that include meat.  I'll use my 10% discount at Flock & Herd for an occasional treat.



Roger D said:


> Think you are right. Some bizarre shrimp costume from memory. Rumoured to have been purchased from K's. The bloke inside it was a their highly paid centre forward (their players back then lived as locally as Doncaster and Swansea) who had upset Graham Westley and was ordered to do it to fulfill his contract and get paid.


I believe the mascot in question was 'Hoppy the Grasshopper', and had a red & white hooped shirt even though Farnborough played in red & white stripes at the time, hence the theory that they'd got it second hand from K's, who were in Conference National at the time.

The player wearing it was Bruno Mendonca, who ended up joining Not Police.  At one game when he played against us for the Bogus bill his agent was apparently sitting in the stand.

The new Farnborough club now has 'Farney Rubble' as its mascot!


----------



## Taper (Jun 23, 2016)

JTee said:


> The new Mayor has thrown out the Cray Wanderers new stadium and flats development, citing his promise of protecting the green belt, despite the council previously approving the scheme.



I have every expectation this is what will happen to the Champion Hill proposal.  And then what...


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 23, 2016)

Let's hope it does not come to that....stitched up by the former MP for t*****g....


----------



## scousedom (Jun 23, 2016)

Am told by AFC fans that Sadiq is very much against their plans for Plough Lane. Seems to be a trend.


----------



## Roger D (Jun 23, 2016)

It has to get through Southwark planning for Sadiq to be able to call it in and overturn the decision....... One step at a time.

Edited to add a link to the PR statement about why the Cray plan was rejected.

Mayor refuses permission for development to protect Green Belt | London City Hall


----------



## Roger D (Jun 23, 2016)

Another link, the Mayoral planning role.

What powers does the Mayor have for planning applications? | London City Hall

The current redevelopment plans clearly trigger the referable development criteria, meaning Sadiq can get involved.


----------



## Paula_G (Jun 24, 2016)

JTee said:


> The new Mayor has thrown out the Cray Wanderers new stadium and flats development, citing his promise of protecting the green belt, despite the council previously approving the scheme.



There's open green space and there's Flamingo Park which is a bit of a dump which seems to be mainly used for car boot sales. Also seems that total lack of affordable housing played a part.
Sadiq Khan rejects football stadium plans to protect Bromley’s green space


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 27, 2016)

Flamingo Park is hardly green belt - Mayor protecting land for boot fairs and dogging!?


----------



## Pink Panther (Jun 27, 2016)

Jimbob73 said:


> Flamingo Park is hardly green belt - Mayor protecting land for boot fairs and dogging!?


The danger is that Greendale looks much the same right now!


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 27, 2016)

It is slightly different though, in that our application isn't totally on Greenbelt/Metropolitan Open Land...


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jul 11, 2016)

When are we likely to hear any news?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jul 11, 2016)

With planning applications it really is 'wait and see'. Once an actual date has been set then we shall publicise it the club website & other strands of our social media; as well on the independent forums like this.


----------



## Chris K (Jul 14, 2016)

Hi all. Long time lurker here - seen there's been little update on progress so I've done some digging on the Southwark and GLA websites. Looks like the GLA have given the scheme a general thumbs up (including, crucially, the 'principle' of building on the MOL), but there's concerns about the level of affordable housing, and some other issues.

Ultimately most things can eventually be overcome once the principle of development is agreed, so looks like we're onto a winner.

No idea how long Southwark could take to make a decision though - they might want to go back to the drawing board with the developer re the AH which could take some time.


----------



## EDC (Jul 14, 2016)

Chris K said:


> Hi all. Long time lurker here - seen there's been little update on progress so I've done some digging on the Southwark and GLA websites. Looks like the GLA have given the scheme a general thumbs up (including, crucially, the 'principle' of building on the MOL), but there's concerns about the level of affordable housing, and some other issues.
> 
> Ultimately most things can eventually be overcome once the principle of development is agreed, so looks like we're onto a winner.
> 
> No idea how long Southwark could take to make a decision though - they might want to go back to the drawing board with the developer re the AH which could take some time.



Exactly what I heard the other day too.


----------



## Taper (Jul 14, 2016)

Well I am genuinely surprised. But potentially very good news. i think we'd all feel better about this though if the amount of affordable housing was increased. I've always felt the proposal is solid if built on three pillars: a sustainable fan owned future for the club; enhanced public green space; and much needed and affordable housing.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jul 15, 2016)

To be brutally honest.....the amount of 'affordable housing' won't make me feel better or worse. The only thing that will 'make me feel better' is when we are in a brand new modern, sustainable stadium, hopefully as a fan-owned Club.


----------



## Scutta (Jul 15, 2016)

Considering "affordable" housing is considered to be £450,000 according to the Tories, surely you can still make a huge profit on it anyway!  Social housing is dead.


----------



## Taper (Jul 15, 2016)

Yes, good point. The whole affordable housing Schtick is bollocks given the state of the housing market. We need proper social housing.  I was bought up in a terrace on a private 60s estate on the edge of Nottingham. Garden, three bedrooms, good local schools. Great place to grow up.   You can still buy those houses for 120k. We need to build on London's green belt. Or at least the worthless bits.


----------



## Noss (Jul 15, 2016)

Taper said:


> We need to build on London's green belt. Or at least the worthless bits.



It's the conversion of brownfield sites like Battersea Power Station to exclusively top end (and ultimately offshore) property that's the issue. Much rather this was addressed rather than eating into green belt, however you define it. Another fucked up Boris legacy.


----------



## dcdulwich (Aug 17, 2016)

Scutta said:


> Social housing is dead.



Not sure about that. Recently received notification about a proposed LB Southwark development on an old garages plot on Bassano Street SE22 that, so far as I can tell, will be 100% "Council" housing.


----------



## Scutta (Aug 17, 2016)

dcdulwich said:


> Not sure about that. Recently received notification about a proposed LB Southwark development on an old garages plot on Bassano Street SE22 that, so far as I can tell, will be 100% "Council" housing.


so far, til it goes through. 

although still tiny amount i bet compared to the Heygate and Aylesbury 

call me cynical


----------



## Jimbob73 (Sep 1, 2016)

Any sign of any news on this?


----------



## Paula_G (Sep 2, 2016)

Not yet I'm afraid


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Sep 5, 2016)

To be honest...it's in the hands of the council....it really is a case of just waiting until they announce the actual date of the Planning Meeting.


----------



## liamdhfc (Sep 5, 2016)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> To be honest...it's in the hands of the council....it really is a case of just waiting until they announce the actual date of the Planning Meeting.



As Mishi said, waiting on the council. The Trust have  made some very positive contributions regarding stadium design changes & I am sure there are lots of discussions about how to get the level of "affordable" housing increased.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2016)

liamdhfc said:


> ...I am sure there are lots of discussions about how to get the level of "affordable" housing increased.


I think you need bigger quotation marks for 







affordable


----------



## liamdhfc (Sep 5, 2016)

Well we all know what is deemed as affordable in East Dulwich will be nothing of the sort for most of us.


----------



## Al Crane (Sep 6, 2016)

An update from the DHST ground redevelopment subcommittee:

As we get closer to Southwark’s planning committee, it’s more and more important that all of us keep the pressure on. As is the case with major applications like this, the Council will take on board all comments right up until a week or so before the meeting so keep writing in if you haven’t done so! Now the Councillors are back from their summer holidays, it would be good to remind them that we are still here and we’re still campaigning hard for the club’s secure future in East Dulwich.

The Trust have continued to speak with Hadley and, as mentioned in the post above, we recently went with Liam from the Football Committee, to meet Hadley to discuss the application in more detail following analysis of the comments submitted with our poll earlier this year. We were keen to impress on them that whilst a new ground is essential, it must first and foremost meet our needs. The meeting was really positive and they took our comments, suggestions and feedback on board.

Following the grant of planning permission, technical design will still allow for a number of internal amendments. This will ultimately impact on the way we as supporters will all use the ground so we're seeking early engagement now to make sure all those using the facilities in the future are in a comfortable and well-designed environment.


----------



## Taper (Sep 6, 2016)

Might be useful if someone could provide a standard reply, which people could adapt. Or bullet points people could draw upon; plus a list of people to send it to?  Need only be short.

A lot hangs on this.


----------



## Al Crane (Sep 6, 2016)

Taper said:


> Might be useful if someone could provide a standard reply, which people could adapt. Or bullet points people could draw upon; plus a list of people to send it to?  Need only be short.
> 
> A lot hangs on this.



See this page on the DHST website which was set up in anticipation of our own poll, and in particular this page which provided a template for writing to Southwark Planning but can be adapted to suit those who you might wish to approach to garner support. In terms of who you should write to then we would encourage you to write to Southwark Planning and any councillors, groups and associations that you can think of.


----------



## Taper (Sep 6, 2016)

Cheers. Just the job.


----------



## EDC (Sep 6, 2016)

Taper said:


> Cheers. Just the job.



How's Doris?


----------



## Taper (Sep 6, 2016)

On the mend, thanks. I hope to bring her to the game on Saturday.


----------



## all to nah (Sep 15, 2016)

I'm still waiting for my copy of Joe K book. That's why I've just finished Dave Roberts new book _Home And Away_. I've read all his books (if there're five of them) and really like his style of writing.

But I think I have to invite him to Champion Hill one time. He has mentioned the mighty Hamlet three times. First as an example for the poor past of his club (p. 43) and two times as "hipster darlings" (p.175 & 290). I can only forgive him, because Col and his _Two Footed Tackle_ fanzine do play a big part in this book about their first season in the conference.


----------



## Joe K (Sep 16, 2016)

all to nah said:


> I'm still waiting for my copy of Joe K book. That's why I've just finished Dave Roberts new book _Home And Away_. I've read all his books (if there're five of them) and really like his style of writing.
> 
> But I think I have to invite him to Champion Hill one time. He has mentioned the mighty Hamlet three times. First as an example for the poor past of his club (p. 43) and two times as "hipster darlings" (p.175 & 290). I can only forgive him, because Col and his _Two Footed Tackle_ fanzine do play a big part in this book about their first season in the conference.



Sorry mate. I do think foreign deliveries take a bit longer, but that's quite some wait.


----------



## YTC (Jan 12, 2017)

Developer hoping to build homes on green space beside Dulwich Hamlet stadium launches appeal against council - Southwark News


----------



## Paula_G (Jan 19, 2017)

More developments on this reported in today's Southwark News, available from all good newsagents across the borough..
Bigger Dulwich Hamlet regeneration plans could include more affordable homes - Southwark News


----------



## editor (Jan 19, 2017)

Never trust a fucking developer. 



> The new homes proposed as part of the Dulwich Hamlet Stadium transformation could now end up including 35 per cent at an ‘affordable rent’, and a larger development, writes Kirsty Purnell…
> 
> If Southwark Council gives the proposals the go-ahead, developers Greendale Property Development will rebuild the stadium and put more than 155 new homes on the nearby Green Dale Fields.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 19, 2017)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> More developments on this reported in today's Southwark News, available from all good newsagents across the borough..
> Bigger Dulwich Hamlet regeneration plans could include more affordable homes - Southwark News


 That's a VERY poorly worded article, that simply plays up to the NIMBY propaganda. Here's the bit I'm commenting on, in CAPITALS, just to mark my comments out...

"If Southwark Council gives the proposals the go-ahead, developers Greendale Property Development will rebuild the stadium and put more than 155 new homes on the nearby Green Dale Fields."
NO HOMES ARE GOING ON GREE DALE! This implies total that they will.

"Although the proposals for a new stadium have been met with overwhelming support from Dulwich Hamlet fans, there has been dogged opposition from councillors and residents about the building on Green Dale Fields – which is a protected space."
I WOULD NOT CALL A VOCAL MINORITY AS 'DOGGED'!

"Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich, James Barber, told the News:  “I’m against any development on green, open space. They’re taking a punt that they’ll get away with it and if they do, it will be an appalling precedent that open space is up for grabs. The population of London is growing and will continue to do so. This means we need more green open spaces, not less.”
WELL THERE'S A SURPRISE! BARBER HAS NO INTEREST IN OUR FOOTBALL CLUB AND, IN MY OPINION, DOESN'T GIVE A TOSS ABOUT DULWICH HAMLET AND THE WORK WE DO. NOT ONLY ARE LOCAL LIBERAL DEMOCRATS OPPOSED TO THIS SCHEME THEY WERE ALSO OPPOSED TO THE BUILDING OF THE CURRENT GROUND! INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT FORMER LIB-DEM COUNCILLOR & DULWICH HAMLET FAN JONATHAN HUNT, WHO WAS OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT GROUND, AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED BUILDING OF A NEW ONE NEXT DOOR, HAS TOLD ME THAT HE WOULD AGREE TO A 'COMPROMISE' THAT WOULD 'ONLY OVERLAP SLIGHTLY' ONTO GREENDALE, WITH PART OF OUR CURRENT CAR PARK AND GROUND BEING BUILT ON, WITH ONLY SOME OF GREENDALE BEING USED [as in less than what is proposed now] FOR PART OF A NEW GROUND. WORK THAT ONE OUT...


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 19, 2017)

editor said:


> Never trust a fucking developer.


 I trust the one we have enough...if we get a new stadium out of it.
Personally I don't trust ranting website owners!


----------



## editor (Jan 19, 2017)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> I trust the one we have enough...if we get a new stadium out of it.
> Personally I don't trust ranting website owners!


I didn't pretend I couldn't afford something then suddenly change my mind when I couldn't get what I want. Don't you fucking dare compare me with slippery property developers. This site is run for fuck all. No one's here to grease their palms.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 19, 2017)

I suggest you have another look at my post, and my use of the '' thingy, which clearly suggests that I'm taking the piss.
I realise this site is run for fuck all, even though you do deserve payment...certainly through attracting new people and bigging up proper Brixton. Though the downside is that you have inadvertently helped with the gentrification...still you can't have everything.

I can compare, jokingly or not, to anything I like really...call me old fashioned, but I thought that's how I thought messageboards worked....you know...people having differing opinions... 

Ah, there goes that '' thingy again...


----------



## editor (Jan 19, 2017)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> I suggest you have another look at my post, and my use of the '' thingy, which clearly suggests that I'm taking the piss.
> I realise this site is run for fuck all, even though you do deserve payment...certainly through attracting new people and bigging up proper Brixton. Though the downside is that you have inadvertently helped with the gentrification...still you can't have everything.
> 
> I can compare, jokingly or not, to anything I like really...call me old fashioned, but I thought that's how I thought messageboards worked....you know...people having differing opinions...
> ...


Yeah sure. You keep adding a  at the end of every comment you make comparing me with fucking slippery, cash-raking, deal twisting property developers and everything will just be dandy.


----------



## Taper (Jan 19, 2017)

We just need a decision.  I hope this move will swing it towards what the club needs.


----------



## YTC (Jan 19, 2017)

editor said:


> Yeah sure. You keep adding a  at the end of every comment you make comparing me with fucking slippery, cash-raking, deal twisting property developers and everything will just be dandy.



Fucking Hell editor, have you met Mishi before?


----------



## YTC (Jan 19, 2017)

Are we swaying towards not supporting this now? They are fucking slippery, evidently.


----------



## editor (Jan 19, 2017)

YTC said:


> Are we swaying towards not supporting this now? They are fucking slippery, evidently.


Hey, if you love them, you support them.


----------



## NPDHFC (Jan 19, 2017)

I don't think it's about 'loving' them, more trying to make the best of a bad situation


----------



## YTC (Jan 19, 2017)

editor said:


> Hey, if you love them, you support them.



Sorry, who loves who?


----------



## editor (Jan 19, 2017)

YTC said:


> Sorry, who loves who?


"If."


----------



## YTC (Jan 19, 2017)

editor said:


> "If."



what the fuck are you talking about mate? Who loves what? Who loves developers? Who has said they love developers? You've lost me.


----------



## editor (Jan 19, 2017)

YTC said:


> what the fuck are you talking about mate? Who loves what? Who loves developers? Who has said they love developers? You've lost me.


----------



## YTC (Jan 19, 2017)

editor said:


>




u ok hun?


----------



## editor (Jan 19, 2017)

YTC said:


> u ok hun?


Feeling great sweetie. xx


----------



## YTC (Jan 19, 2017)

editor said:


> Feeling great sweetie. xx



More Sudafed for that man!


----------



## jnrknight (Jan 30, 2017)

I just received the attached via email. On first glance nothing that we don't already know but seemed relevant to this thread so thought I would post...


----------



## Maj. Tom Laser (Feb 8, 2017)

jnrknight said:


> I just received the attached via email. On first glance nothing that we don't already know but seemed relevant to this thread so thought I would post...


Got that too.
Careful not to dox yourself there though.


----------



## Al Crane (Feb 14, 2017)

DHST have put out a press release regarding a meeting proposed for *Monday 20th February 7pm at the Club bar*. It really is important that as many people attend as possible and encourage all others who care about the future of the Club to come if they can and find out what you can do to help ensure the successful future of the Club.

Your Club needs you – #SupportOurStadium – Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


----------



## Lucy Fur (Feb 14, 2017)

.


----------



## Taper (Feb 15, 2017)

done.  Important that everyone does this.


----------



## YTC (Feb 15, 2017)

Lucy Fur said:


> .



I hear that.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Feb 20, 2017)

See you tonight, people.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 21, 2017)

so what happened last night, updates?


----------



## Lucy Fur (Feb 21, 2017)

Jimbob73 said:


> so what happened last night, updates?


In a nutshell, we all need to write to the Planning Inspectorate and tell them why DHFC is so vital to the local community. There are flyers which give more info, and suggestions for what to say, and we have 2 weeks to get them in.


----------



## pompeydunc (Feb 21, 2017)

Lucy Fur said:


> In a nutshell, we all need to write to the Planning Inspectorate and tell them why DHFC is so vital to the local community. There are flyers which give more info, and suggestions for what to say, and we have 2 weeks to get them in.



Suggestions on what can be said are also here - Planning Application Appeal – Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust.  We will be updating this (and the leaflet) in the next day or so to reflect some of the good ideas that came up in the discussion last night and to include more info on handling the separate appeal to amend the S106 agreement.


----------



## clog (Feb 21, 2017)

I wasn't at the meeting, so feel free to flame me to high heaven, but isn't the planning inspectorate concerned with legal processes and whether they've been followed, not the value of DHFC to the community? It strikes me that this is something that is of much more interest and concern to Southwark council.


----------



## dcdulwich (Feb 21, 2017)

Not in this case I think.
The Planning Inspectorate will determine the application itself (on planning grounds) if it feels that the Planning Authority (i.e. Southwark) does not have good enough reasons to excuse the delay.
In any case, according to the Government, ALL applications should be determined within an absolute maximum of 26 weeks (assuming the applicant has not agreed to an extension in reaching a decision).
I wasn't at the meeting either so I'm sure others will be able to provide a more informed view.


----------



## Moroccan Sunset (Feb 25, 2017)

Does anyone know if there's a way of finding out if you've already commented on the Stadium appeal? I'm sure I did it ages ago, but can't find a way of checking for certain.


----------



## Al Crane (Feb 25, 2017)

Moroccan Sunset said:


> Does anyone know if there's a way of finding out if you've already commented on the Stadium appeal? I'm sure I did it ages ago, but can't find a way of checking for certain.



Not sure. Of course you could sift through all the comments and check but that would take ages. In any case does it matter? If you want to make further comment then do! If you've commented previously then your comments will be forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate but you can still make further comment and I'd suggest you do. 

We have just over a week to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate. These are people who will decide the outcome of this appeal and who might not know anything about our Club, what we've done in the community, and why it's important to stay in East Dulwich. 

Don't hesitate and think we'll be okay because someone else will comment. It's 5-10 mins online max to make your voice heard. Make it count!


----------



## jnrknight (Mar 1, 2017)

Just completed my 'representation'.

Harman is my MP so will send her a hard copy. Is there a painless way of working out who my local councillors are so I can send hard copies to them too? Al Crane pompeydunc


----------



## jnrknight (Mar 1, 2017)

jnrknight said:


> Just completed my 'representation'.
> 
> Harman is my MP so will send her a hard copy. Is there a painless way of working out who my local councillors are so I can send hard copies to them too? Al Crane pompeydunc



Answer to my own question:

Find your local councillors - GOV.UK


----------



## Jimbob73 (Mar 3, 2017)

Time running out so here's a quick link to the information you need on the DHST website again
#SupportOurStadium – Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


----------



## Al Crane (Mar 5, 2017)

Excellent opportunity for everyone to spend 10 minutes putting in their comments today!

We've produced a step-by-step guide to submitting comments on the Planning Inspectorate website here

Guidance on what to say (other than your passionate description of what the Hamlet means to you and the community) can be found here for the main application and here for the Section 106 application.

A copy of the leaflet that we've produced and been handing out over the last couple of weeks can be found here and contains similar guidance to that above.

Finally, if you have any queries or problems making comments then you can email us at info@dhst.org.uk or here and we'll do our best to respond as helpfully as we can.


----------



## Ian Kaye (Mar 5, 2017)

Just posted my representation, its really easy to do, so if you haven't done it yet please do so.


----------



## Christian Burt (Mar 6, 2017)

Done - easy - made easy by the DHFC Trust and others hard work.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Mar 6, 2017)

Christian Burt said:


> Done - easy - made easy by the DHFC Trust and others hard work.


 Couldn't agree more...the Trust have really stepped up to the plate on this, over the last few weeks.


----------



## Noss (Mar 6, 2017)

Al Crane said:


> Excellent opportunity for everyone to spend 10 minutes putting in their comments today!
> 
> We've produced a step-by-step guide to submitting comments on the Planning Inspectorate website here
> 
> ...



Done! Great work everyone (but Al's post made it sooo easy)


----------



## AndyF (Mar 6, 2017)

Al Crane I've been asked today is the deadline 11:59pm or can people get their comments in on the 7th?

I've told people to get them in today and will chase again.


----------



## Al Crane (Mar 6, 2017)

AndyF said:


> Al Crane I've been asked today is the deadline 11:59pm or can people get their comments in on the 7th?
> 
> I've told people to get them in today and will chase again.



All I know is what is on the Planning Inspectorate website (7th March) but my message is get comments in asap. Do not delay!


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Mar 7, 2017)

Well I've just posted mine from thei nternet in Dulwich Library, on my way to the ground, and they accepted it. &th March ends tonight at midnight, if they meant last night at midnight it would surely have said the 6th?
So please, everyone , get all of your work colleagues and friends to support this appeal to the Planning Inspectorate today, it doesn't have to be detailed, you don't have to local, or even from England!


----------



## AndyF (Mar 7, 2017)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Well I've just posted mine from thei nternet in Dulwich Library, on my way to the ground, and they accepted it. &th March ends tonight at midnight, if they meant last night at midnight it would surely have said the 6th?
> So please, everyone , get all of your work colleagues and friends to support this appeal to the Planning Inspectorate today, it doesn't have to be detailed, you don't have to local, or even from England!



Did mine very late last night and likewise just heard from a mate who put his in just now. As I intimated it wasn't clear (by can mean before) but anyway we know now. See you in a bit mate.


----------



## crocustim (Mar 10, 2017)

Interesting High Court decision this week in favour of QPR's new training facility on Metropolitan Open Land.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Mar 10, 2017)

crocustim said:


> Interesting High Court decision this week in favour of QPR's new training facility on Metropolitan Open Land.


 Not that interesting, as you didn't tell us what it was...


----------



## billbond (Mar 10, 2017)

Did mine 
Also got 2 cousins  to do it whos Grandads son played for the club
Plus i sent E mails to 14 Millwall fans(dont laugh) and i know for sure 6 of those did the deed
Lets hope we have done our bit for this great old club


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Mar 10, 2017)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Not that interesting, as you didn't tell us what it was...


Actually, replying to myself, it is interesting, because you said 'in favour', but would have preferred a link, if you saw it on-line.


----------



## crocustim (Mar 10, 2017)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Actually, replying to myself, it is interesting, because you said 'in favour', but would have preferred a link, if you saw it on-line.


Hi. I originally saw it on a website that has a paywall but there is an article here. Some similarities, some thing different, but seems to suggest MOL not sacrosanct to alterations in favour of community and sporting uses.

QPR's Warren Farm facility to go ahead after High Court backing


----------



## Jimbob73 (Mar 16, 2017)

When realistically do you think we will hear anything about this, can Southwark just ignore this too?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Mar 16, 2017)

If you mean the decision of the Planning Inspectorate, then no...as I understand it, though clearly I'm no planning expert, their decision 'trumps' that of the Council...so whatever the Council say, the Planning Inspectorate will over-ride it....even though the Council haven't made a decision.
I don't know one hundred per cent if the Council can appeal a Planning Inspectorate decision, I am guessing they might be able to, but it would be very expensive.


----------



## AndyF (Mar 16, 2017)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> If you mean the decision of the Planning Inspectorate, then no...as I understand it, though clearly I'm no planning expert, their decision 'trumps' that of the Council...so whatever the Council say, the Planning Inspectorate will over-ride it....even though the Council haven't made a decision.
> I don't know one hundred per cent if the Council can appeal a Planning Inspectorate decision, I am guessing they might be able to, but it would be very expensive.



I would have thought that it would go to appeal for the Mayor of London but highly unlikely. Not sure if it's of enough strategic importance i.e. we don't have to build new transport links.


----------



## dcdulwich (Mar 17, 2017)

A Planning Inspectorate decision can be overturned via a Statutory Review (aka a Judicial Review) in the High Court.
In practice it is highly unlikely that the High Court would overturn a Planning Inspector's decision.


----------



## dcdulwich (Mar 21, 2017)

The Planning Inspectorate has written to Southwark (the letter was posted on Southwark's website today) to say that the appeal will be heard at the Council Offices at 160 Tooley Street from 10am on 12th December. It has requested that the venue be reserved for 8 days.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Mar 22, 2017)

12th December - wow glad this is urgent!


----------



## scousedom (Mar 22, 2017)

Jimbob73 said:


> 12th December - wow glad this is urgent!



It's a good thing. By that time, we'll be selling out every week at the top of Conference South and the need for a new ground will be evident to even the meanest nimby intellect.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Mar 22, 2017)

Alternatively....no better not go there....


----------



## blueheaven (Apr 8, 2017)

Anyone else get a letter from the council about the stadium development this week? Haven't seen anyone else on here mention it.


----------



## jnrknight (Apr 8, 2017)

blueheaven said:


> Anyone else get a letter from the council about the stadium development this week? Haven't seen anyone else on here mention it.


 
I did. Seemed a generic response to anyone who'd 'borne witness' or 'made testament' or whatever their stupid jargon was about the club & the development proposal. Did make mention of the fact the council had received a large amount of correspondence on the matter.


----------



## Taper (May 16, 2017)

Via the EDT, here's Southwark's submission outlining why they would have declined permission for the development 

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument={{{!7Q9/YBVUPYmwj4QPQ6/Fxg==!}}}


----------



## EDC (May 16, 2017)

Taper said:


> Via the EDT, here's Southwark's submission outlining why they would have declined permission for the development
> 
> http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument={{{!7Q9/YBVUPYmwj4QPQ6/Fxg==!}}}



Via the EDT ? What's the local pub got to do with it ?


----------



## YTC (May 16, 2017)

Basically, the ground could be better developed and utilized, and as we all expected having fuck all social housing won't be tolerated.


----------



## clog (May 16, 2017)

EDC said:


> Via the EDT ? What's the local pub got to do with it ?


EDT, EDC, EDF it's all so confusing!


----------



## Taper (May 16, 2017)

Sorry, I meant East Dulwich Forum (EDF). 

The new stadium isn't going to be approved is it!


----------



## YTC (May 16, 2017)

Taper said:


> Sorry, I meant East Dulwich Forum (EDF).
> 
> The new stadium isn't going to be approved is it!



If the developers actually gave something back to the borough, like social housing, it would have a much better chance...!


----------



## Taper (May 16, 2017)

That seemed like an afterthought in the objections.


----------



## YTC (May 16, 2017)

Taper said:


> That seemed like an afterthought in the objections.



Politically, the council would have much more leverage were decent social housing involved. May not be a golden ticket, but it's certainly gonna do more good than bad.


----------



## GregDHFC (May 17, 2017)

I mean, point 8.17 isn't wrong - I really think the current ground could be made to work with a bit of investment (especially when you see what other grounds around the league have to work with). 

The problem is, unless we find a rich benevolent philanthropist to help out, it is hard to imagine who would put the money into doing that. The current lot certainly won't.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 17, 2017)

On the one hand, if I'm honest, I think they're right really. 

On the other hand - HAHAHAHAHAHAAA at the idea of Southwark Counil giving a toss about social housing, the lying bunch of cunts.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (May 17, 2017)

GregDHFC said:


> I mean, point 8.17 isn't wrong - I really think the current ground could be made to work with a bit of investment (especially when you see what other grounds around the league have to work with).
> 
> The problem is, unless we find a rich benevolent philanthropist to help out, it is hard to imagine who would put the money into doing that. The current lot certainly won't.


 Just out of interest, how much would you see as 'a bit of investment'....and who do you think would or could invest?


----------



## editor (May 17, 2017)

I was never convinced that the extra vague plans for the new stadium offered anything better than what we have now.


----------



## YTC (May 17, 2017)

Realistically the club I think would need half a million for some re-development where it to come to it. Covered stands behind the goal, total remodel of the bar, reconfiguration of the rest of the club house etc.

I've got a 5iver if anyone else fancies chipping in.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 17, 2017)

I think it depends on what you mean by 'need' tbh. Setting aside the ownership and looking only at the ground, clearly the council aren't wrong that as far as grounds at our current level go Champion Hill is as good as most. It maybe needs a bit of patching up but it doesn't need some massive overhaul in that sense. If you're looking at the crowd growth and the potential for that to continue, and for the club to push up the leagues then I think it probably does.


----------



## Cyclodunc (May 17, 2017)

YTC said:


> Realistically the club I think would need half a million for some re-development where it to come to it. Covered stands behind the goal, total remodel of the bar, reconfiguration of the rest of the club house etc.
> 
> I've got a 5iver if anyone else fancies chipping in.



What's that half a million figure based on, out of interest?


----------



## YTC (May 17, 2017)

Cyclodunc said:


> What's that half a million figure based on, out of interest?



based on me putting my hand up into the sky, and gracefully pinching some air and thrusting it downwards towards this forum.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2017)

I reckon we could easily manage to crowdfund some really really basic covering at one or two ends. Loads of other clubs manage to offer this basic facility for their fans, and some of the constructions I've seen at other grounds have been very DIY looking (and presumably relatively cheapo to build) - but who cares what it looks like so long as it's safe, keeps you dry and helps increase crowd noise?


----------



## JTee (May 17, 2017)

Stadium solutions make a lot of stands/grounds at lower levels. Everything from small 3 step covered stands to full grounds (sloughs new ground being one).

No idea on the cost though. Sure they could come up with bespoke covering for our goal ends.

Products / Covered Standing Terraces | Stadium Solutions

They're twitter has some good snaps of the construction of the new Salford city ground, if you're into that sort of thing


----------



## YTC (May 17, 2017)

JTee said:


> Stadium solutions make a lot of stands/grounds at lower levels. Everything from small 3 step covered stands to full grounds (sloughs new ground being one).
> 
> No idea on the cost though. Sure they could come up with bespoke covering for our goal ends.
> 
> ...



These guys do seem to be the best lot around for our level. Seen some nice stuff from them!


----------



## YTC (May 17, 2017)

Looks like they did the stand we were in first half at Havant too, nice!


----------



## Taper (May 17, 2017)

Is there a realistic scenario whereby we the fans could buy out the various goons who own champion hill? I'm thinking Ivy House style. We might need some serious philanthropy into the mix and some social investment. Plus Southwark's support. But a proper crowdfunding effort, with a realistic target in mind could raise a lot. I'd put a 1000 in without caring too much if I saw it again. And I reckon quite a few of the fans could manage this.


----------



## scousedom (May 17, 2017)

Taper said:


> Is there a realistic scenario whereby we the fans could buy out the various goons who own champion hill? I'm thinking Ivy House style. We might need some serious philanthropy into the mix and some social investment. Plus Southwark's support. But a proper crowdfunding effort, with a realistic target in mind could raise a lot. I'd put a 1000 in without caring too much if I saw it again. And I reckon quite a few of the fans could manage this.



The problem would be valuation. We would put a value on it along the lines of what other football clubs at our level are worth, or if we were being more businesslike what a company making a modest profit (couple of hundred grand a year if run stonkingly well?) would be worth. Either way, not more than a couple of £million...?

They though will value it on the basis of the land value of a massive residential scheme. The profit they will make on that they would expect to be many times any valuation we'd put on it... 500 flats is it? 15% profit target on the scheme. Say the flats average £500k, makes £65k, times 500 makes £32.5million. That's what they'd say they'd be giving up by selling. They'd logically accept less for certainty. But they'd still want many times what it's worth as s football club.


----------



## EDC (May 17, 2017)

Next question.  If Meadows don't get their way, i.e. stadium move to the plastic pitch and build flats on the stadium, how safe is the clubs existence to stay where it is, is there any protection presuming they own the lease?


----------



## blueheaven (May 18, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I think it depends on what you mean by 'need' tbh. Setting aside the ownership and looking only at the ground, clearly the council aren't wrong that as far as grounds at our current level go Champion Hill is as good as most. It maybe needs a bit of patching up but it doesn't need some massive overhaul in that sense. If you're looking at the crowd growth and the potential for that to continue, and for the club to push up the leagues then I think it probably does.



Agree with the bit about crowd growth... but it seems that that issue wouldn't be solved by the new stadium anyway, as it's not planned to be significantly bigger than the existing ground.

I still don't understand why the current facility isn't sustainable, and I don't think that's ever been properly explained - evidentally the council aren't convinced by that either, otherwise they wouldn't have made the point they make in 8.17.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 18, 2017)

EDC said:


> Next question.  If Meadows don't get their way, i.e. stadium move to the plastic pitch and build flats on the stadium, how safe is the clubs existence to stay where it is, is there any protection presuming they own the lease?



Well there's a covenant on the ground, to say that it can only be used for sporting purposes iirc. There's nothing to protect the club specifically - they could just shut it down if they wanted. I think they'd view that as at best a very long term risky strategy though. Yes you can leave the ground for years in the hope that once it's a crumbling wreck the council decides there's no point resisting a development. They won't want their funds wrapped up for that long though, and there's no way of knowing how long it would take. 

If i had to guess the next step would be to sell it on at a moderate loss and someone else would have a go. That's total speculation though.


----------



## liamdhfc (May 18, 2017)

,  as a minimum


blueheaven said:


> Agree with the bit about crowd growth... but it seems that that issue wouldn't be solved by the new stadium anyway, as it's not planned to be significantly bigger than the existing ground.
> 
> I still don't understand why the current facility isn't sustainable, and I don't think that's ever been properly explained - evidentally the council aren't convinced by that either, otherwise they wouldn't have made the point they make in 8.17.



On what basis do you think it is sustainable. It is a badly designed and configured building with poor access. Frankly, if I was going back to basics then I would build a new club building housing bar, boardroom and dressing rooms next to the main stand and then franchise the rest of the building to a health club.

The business rates bill is pretty high as well.

However, assuming that wouldn't happen then my thoughts are that the gym needs investment in equipment and marketing plus its own dedicated entrance. The serving area in the bar is badly configured and new entrances to the bar need to be created plus there is no space for separate hospitality facilities, the squash courts need to be changed to another use. In fact, the upstairs could be reconfigured as business office space or classroom space in partnership with a college, and the squash courts turned to soft play. The downstairs boxing gym could be turned to community changing facilities to serve the new all weather pitch that would be essential to even begin to turn it to profit.

All this would come with a very hefty bill that will initially add to the losses.

All that is without spectator facilities being upgraded and all the seats in the stand being replaced as a minimum.

On top of that, the floodlights are at the end of their useful life.

So, just that little lot will costs a large 6 figure sum at best and then the club would need some proper full time staff tasked with filling on this space with commercial operators paying a market rent or running the whole thing.

Without it, then the club will at best stand still and realistically start going backwards as income will never match expenditure.

Just my personal opinion of course


----------



## YTC (May 18, 2017)

I'd turn the squash courts into a new bar. open it up and move the burger bar/shed.


----------



## B.I.G (May 18, 2017)

The club could never be sustainable without a long lease.


----------



## liamdhfc (May 18, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The club could never be sustainable without a long lease.


Yes, agreed. Add that to the list of many things necessary


----------



## Al Crane (Jun 19, 2017)

For those that haven't already seen it, there is a new Southwark Plan out for consultation at present. Included within the proposed site allocations is Champion Hill however, Southwark Council have failed to make any serious provision for the Football Club. The Supporters' Trust have sent in a response but it would be of help if other supporters can also send comments into Southwark Council to make our feelings known (again). Advice on how to make comments and what you may wish to include within your comments can be found here.

More details here: New Southwark Plan – Area Visions and Site Allocations: WE NEED YOUR HELP! – Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust

Any questions either respond here or email the Trust: info@dhst.org.uk


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 20, 2017)

So are the 'Hadley' plans dead in the water now, are we back to square one? Sorry confused.


----------



## Al Crane (Jun 20, 2017)

Jimbob73 said:


> So are the 'Hadley' plans dead in the water now, are we back to square one? Sorry confused.



No. This is part of Southwark Council's new local plan policies that they are currently proposing and separate to any proposals put forward by Meadow BUT the Council make specific reference to the new Southwark Plan proposals in their Statement of Case relating to the Planning Inquiry. They note that the New Southwark Plan proposals should have progressed to 'submission' stage by the time of the inquiry and therefore weight should be given to emerging policies.  

If the proposals as drafted are approved in their current form then not only will this add weight to the case against the proposed redevelopment of Champion Hill but will in effect set in place a strategy that allows redevelopment on all land except the pitch – this is a gross misunderstanding of the Club’s needs both now and for any future progression. 

As most supporters will be aware, for the Club to have no basic ancillary facilities such as changing rooms, turnstiles, bar etc. would mean that the Club would in effect be playing at County level or below. *Put simply, the Council’s lack of proper consideration for the Football Club in the proposed Plan risks the future of the Club.*


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 21, 2017)

Jimbob73 said:


> So are the 'Hadley' plans dead in the water now, are we back to square one? Sorry confused.


 No!

Firstly, there are no 'Hadley' fpans. The company that control things are Meadows Residential, these are 'Meadows' plans.

The application from them was not heard by Southwark Council, so Meadows appealed about the delay in not hearing the planning application, and it is now going to the Planning Inspectorate, which I believe is  either a government or independent thingy, which overrides the Council, and which the council must abide by.  This is due to be heard, the last I heard, starting sometime in December, at the end of this year.

The Southwark Plan is a borough wide plan, with no specific link to the Meadows plans.

Think I've got that right, happy to stand corrected.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 21, 2017)

Ok thanks, can't say I understand it all though!


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2017)

Gave it a plug on Buzz: Dulwich Hamlet urgently need your help to secure the club’s future


----------



## DHST (Sep 5, 2017)

Afternoon everyone.

Please see the article below for news of some success re: New Southwark Plan!

New Southwark Plan Update: Some success! – Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2017)

if anyone would like to write an update to this so I can spread the word on Brixton Buzz, I'd be much obliged


----------



## Latahs (Sep 5, 2017)

Main points here are:

Some cause for celebration as pressure from DHFC (committee, DHST + supporters) means that the FC's ancillary facilitates are 'in principle' being protected from re-development in Southwark's updated plan, which partially safe-guards DHFC's ability to remain playing at this level of the pyramid.

However, the council are cagey about exactly how 'much' of the area the ancillary facilities are sitting on is being protected. This might mean that they would force the football club to operate in facilities which are smaller than they are now (like we're not over-capacity on matchday's or anything!)

So we still need people to write to the council expressing their support for the club to be allowed to operate on the area it currently occupies (at the very least) and to be allowed to expand in future.


----------



## MrFouldsy (Sep 5, 2017)

What I don't understand is why Meadow don't just employ a decent lawyer and sort this out? It's in their interest.


----------



## Al Crane (Sep 6, 2017)

MrFouldsy said:


> What I don't understand is why Meadow don't just employ a decent lawyer and sort this out? It's in their interest.



Because this is a Southwark Council consultation and it's not within Meadow's power to do anything other than respond to the consultation.


----------



## Nivag (Sep 7, 2017)

There were surveyors out on the astroturf pitch this afternoon measuring various points.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 7, 2017)

Nivag said:


> There were surveyors out on the astroturf pitch this afternoon measuring various points.



The Astroturf pitch is getting done up.  Flood lights repaired, holes repaired and such so they were probably there for that.


----------



## liamdhfc (Sep 8, 2017)

Fingers said:


> The Astroturf pitch is getting done up.  Flood lights repaired, holes repaired and such so they were probably there for that.


Is it? I'm pretty sure Meadow won't spend another penny on it.


----------



## YTC (Sep 8, 2017)

perhaps the council?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Sep 8, 2017)

liamdhfc said:


> Is it? I'm pretty sure Meadow won't spend another penny on it.


There is work being done on it at the moment, Chris has told me.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 8, 2017)

liamdhfc said:


> Is it? I'm pretty sure Meadow won't spend another penny on it.



Yeah Chris told me as well. One of our younger fans approached them about it and suggested it could be fixed up and hired out to make some money. And they went along with it.


----------



## YTC (Sep 8, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Yeah Chris told me as well. One of our younger fans approached them about it and suggested it could be fixed up and hired out to make some money. And they went along with it.



Maybe that money could have kept Kottoy..


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Sep 8, 2017)

My guess, and only a guess, is that it needs to be done up back to a playing standard, as to how it roughly was under the old lease from the council...but as I say, that's a guess, which could be wide of the mark.


----------



## Latahs (Sep 11, 2017)

Was anymore light shed on this over the weekend?



Fingers said:


> The Astroturf pitch is getting done up.  Flood lights repaired, holes repaired and such so they were probably there for that.


----------



## YTC (Sep 11, 2017)

Latahs ^ see above.


----------



## Latahs (Sep 11, 2017)

OK, so it's officially being improved for the commercial reasons stated above then...



YTC said:


> Latahs ^ see above.


----------



## YTC (Sep 11, 2017)

Latahs said:


> OK, so it's officially being improved for the commercial reasons stated above then...



Thats what we'd assume! Probably a combo of having to repair them for council standards and Owners trying to make some money..


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 11, 2017)

Fingers said:


> The Astroturf pitch is getting done up.  Flood lights repaired, holes repaired and such so they were probably there for that.


We should repair the fence for a laugh.


----------



## EDC (Sep 11, 2017)

YTC said:


> Thats what we'd assume! Probably a combo of having to repair them for council standards and Owners trying to make some money..


Not to mention Health and Safety.


----------



## MrFab_JP (Oct 11, 2017)

Why the battle between developers and Southwark Council is threatening the future of Dulwich Hamlet FC


----------



## editor (Oct 11, 2017)

Haters everywhere. Now I know how Tamplin feels.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 11, 2017)

Interesting detail on the Greendale lease, I thought it had expired.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 11, 2017)

think we are heading to a crunch point with the owners

need to ensure we have a clear line from the Supporters Trust at this key point


----------



## hipipol (Nov 4, 2017)

Good luck all - lets hope the council decide to bulldoze Sainsbastards and give the land over, thought I'd stick this here coz:-
1 This thread seems anorak friendly
2 Though tangential it does exhibit mild levels of correlation
3 Its fascinating
Londons Lost Football Grounds


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Nov 4, 2017)

Sorry, I don't understand about bulldozing Sainsburys. If Sainsburys hadn't been built, the whole development including our current ground, we would simply have folded at the turn of the Nineties!

What we actually need if for some form of housing, preferably with a decent social housing level included, to be built on our current ground; which would allow a proper, adequately designed one to be built on the  Greendale wasteland next door as part of it all.


----------



## darryl (Nov 8, 2017)

Not really quite sure where to put this, but wanted to put it somewhere: this is the Land Registry record for Champion Hill, which confirms Greendale Property Company of the Isle of Man bought it for £5.75m in 2014. It doesn't have the full covenants in it.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2017)

darryl said:


> Not really quite sure where to put this, but wanted to put it somewhere: this is the Land Registry record for Champion Hill, which confirms Greendale Property Company of the Isle of Man bought it for £5.75m in 2014. It doesn't have the full covenants in it.


Slippery, offshore tax avoiding bastards. Shame on them.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Nov 8, 2017)

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?


----------



## mick mccartney (Nov 8, 2017)

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 ?


----------



## darryl (Nov 8, 2017)

Jimbob73 said:


> 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?



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.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Nov 8, 2017)

mick mccartney said:


> 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 ?


 Nick McCormack didn't own the ground. The previous owners/landlords went into administration, and that's how Hadley got involved.


----------



## cambelt (Nov 8, 2017)

darryl said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## darryl (Nov 8, 2017)

mick mccartney said:


> 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 ?



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.


----------



## dcdulwich (Nov 8, 2017)

cambelt said:


> 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.


I categorically don’t think this is true (re the Council) and I’m certainly in a better position to judge.


----------



## cambelt (Nov 8, 2017)

dcdulwich said:


> 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.


----------



## Bugpowder Dust (Nov 8, 2017)

So who received the £5.75m in 2014?


----------



## dcdulwich (Nov 8, 2017)

cambelt said:


> 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.


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”.


----------



## cambelt (Nov 8, 2017)

dcdulwich said:


> 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.


----------



## dcdulwich (Nov 8, 2017)

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.


----------



## cambelt (Nov 8, 2017)

dcdulwich said:


> 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.


----------



## dcdulwich (Nov 8, 2017)

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.


----------



## cambelt (Nov 8, 2017)

Ok, call me out then and then tell me exactly what Southwark could do to rectify the situation for the club.


----------



## crocustim (Nov 9, 2017)

darryl said:


> Not really quite sure where to put this, but wanted to put it somewhere: this is the Land Registry record for Champion Hill, which confirms Greendale Property Company of the Isle of Man bought it for £5.75m in 2014. It doesn't have the full covenants in it.



That's an awful lot for a football ground that doesn't make any money. They must be stupid.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Nov 10, 2017)

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


----------



## darryl (Nov 10, 2017)

What are you hoping Southwark Council will do, PartisanDulwich?


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Nov 10, 2017)

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


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2017)

PartisanDulwich said:


> 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!


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Nov 10, 2017)

noted


----------



## dcdulwich (Nov 10, 2017)

PartisanDulwich said:


> 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



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.


----------



## Villager (Nov 15, 2017)

dcdulwich said:


> 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.[/


----------



## B.I.G (Nov 15, 2017)

Villager said:


> Sorry, but past history seems to indicate that while Southwark and its leader will make all the right noises - especially since there's an election next year - it won't do much. I refer you to the sale of the SG Smith site in the Village where all the Labour councillors on the planning committee voted as one for the sale, despite no commitment to adequate social housing



What is your explanation for the council opposing this development then?


----------



## EDC (Nov 15, 2017)

Villager said:


> Sorry, but past history seems to indicate that while Southwark and its leader will make all the right noises - especially since there's an election next year - it won't do much. I refer you to the sale of the SG Smith site in the Village where all the Labour councillors on the planning committee voted as one for the sale, despite no commitment to adequate social housing



Surely that's down to the Dulwich Estate being a law unto themselves though?


----------



## Villager (Nov 15, 2017)

EDC said:


> 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.


----------



## Villager (Nov 15, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> What is your explanation for the council opposing this development then?


I wish I knew


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Nov 15, 2017)

Villager said:


> I wish I knew


So you've got no real basis for your coments, just your own personal supposition?


----------



## dcdulwich (Nov 15, 2017)

Villager said:


> Up to a point. It still had to go through the Council where the labour councillors on the planning committee voted as one to pass it.


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.


----------



## Villager (Nov 15, 2017)

dcdulwich said:


> 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.


Obviously I am not suggesting that. And I have edited my post to reflect that.


----------



## Villager (Nov 15, 2017)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> So you've got no real basis for your coments, just your own personal supposition?


No I wish I knew why the Council is doing this now.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 16, 2017)

Dulwich Hamlet fans pull together to ward off developer’s plans | Paul MacInnes


----------



## G Man (Nov 16, 2017)

I need to take a week off work to read all of this.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Nov 29, 2017)




----------



## Lucy Fur (Nov 30, 2017)

PartisanDulwich said:


>



Brilliant news, and well done to all that represented us, but what does this actually mean? Is it just a statement of good but hollow intent or an actual commitment to fiscal support?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Nov 30, 2017)

Lucy Fur said:


> Brilliant news, and well done to all that represented us, but what does this actually mean? Is it just a statement of good but hollow intent or an actual commitment to fiscal support?


 In truth, I'd say nobody knows...but it's got to be a good sign, and puts pressure on the American arm of Meadows to sort things out, I would have thought.

In the meantime...we desperately need the continued support for the "12th Man" fundraising, to keep the team together in the immediate future.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Nov 30, 2017)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> In truth, I'd say nobody knows...but it's got to be a good sign, and puts pressure on the American arm of Meadows to sort things out, I would have thought.
> 
> In the meantime...we desperately need the continued support for the "12th Man" fundraising, to keep the team together in the immediate future.


Agreed


----------



## dcdulwich (Nov 30, 2017)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> In truth, I'd say nobody knows...but it's got to be a good sign, and puts pressure on the American arm of Meadows to sort things out, I would have thought.
> 
> In the meantime...we desperately need the continued support for the "12th Man" fundraising, to keep the team together in the immediate future.



Agreed too.

Those of us who were able to stay to the end of the Council Assembly ended up having a chat with Peter John and other Councillors. I have no doubt at all of his genuine commitment (and that of other Councillors) to help and support the club.

How that might manifest itself in practical terms is not entirely clear yet because the situation with Meadow, and other related issues, are complicated. The key thing I think, for now, is that the club and its future will be in the front and centre of any considerations the Council may have when deciding on how best to proceed.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 30, 2017)

I'd think the main thing the council can do to help is make clear that they will never, ever get planning permission to build on the land should the football club fold. I don't know if they can make any formal commitment to that effect but I think that's what we should be pushing for. I wouldn't necessarily expect direct funding but that would be potentially more important IMO.


----------



## Roger D (Nov 30, 2017)

I suspect such a public statement would cause the council a world of pain ( you need legal grounds to block a planning application and councillors can be held personally liable under some circumstances.) Also any councillor supporting such a statement would probably be disqualified from dealing with any future planning application on the grounds they had previously expressed an opinion.

The council can unofficially make this clear to developers. Out my way I hear whispers the local council told developers hoping to build on the then Alton Town FC ground they wouldn't get permission for anything if the club weren't looked after.

The other route is for the council to review their policies and see if any can be tightened up to help give them legal grounds to block future development on the current ground.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Nov 30, 2017)

Roger D said:


> I suspect such a public statement would cause the council a world of pain ( you need legal grounds to block a planning application and councillors can be held personally liable under some circumstances.) Also any councillor supporting such a statement would probably be disqualified from dealing with any future planning application on the grounds they had previously expressed an opinion.
> 
> The council can unofficially make this clear to developers. Out my way I hear whispers the local council told developers hoping to build on the then Alton Town FC ground they wouldn't get permission for anything if the club weren't looked after.
> 
> The other route is for the council to review their policies and see if any can be tightened up to help give them legal grounds to block future development on the current ground.


 But I, for one, would welcome the right development built on our current ground if the end result was new, modern, purpose-built community ground on the Greendale wasteland.


----------



## dcdulwich (Nov 30, 2017)

Roger D said:


> The other route is for the council to review their policies and see if any can be tightened up to help give them legal grounds to block future development on the current ground.



Southwark is nearing the end of the process to update the New Southwark Plan which describes in some detail what is and isn’t permissible across the borough. In the latest version the  football pitch and surrounding facilities are defined and protected in their current form.


----------



## Roger D (Nov 30, 2017)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> But I, for one, would welcome the right development built on our current ground if the end result was new, modern, purpose-built community ground on the Greendale wasteland.



Such action from the council wouldn't necessarily block that. It gives the Council stronger legal grounds for blocking development they aren't happy with.

Given the serious possibility that Meadow could land bank the ground at the end of the lease, I'd be happy to see protection reviewed as part of the local plan re-assessment. That level of protection in the local plan is very important in what may loom. 

Failure to have an adequate local plan is seriously good news for developers.


----------



## dcdulwich (Nov 30, 2017)

dcdulwich said:


> Southwark is nearing the end of the process to update the New Southwark Plan which describes in some detail what is and isn’t permissible across the borough. In the latest version the  football pitch and surrounding facilities are defined and protected in their current form.



Here is the latest version. See pp208-209 and the final bullet point on p204:
https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/5294/NSP CAR Appendix A(i) NSP Policies.pdf


----------



## JoeBoy1959 (Jan 13, 2018)

Anyone know what's happening re stadium and Meadow.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jan 13, 2018)

see Chelsea FC are asking Hammersmith & Fulham Council to CPO a small property in order that they can redevelop Stamford Bridge and "protect the future of the club on the present site"
Islington did similar for Arsenal

The court case starts next week


----------



## EDC (Jan 13, 2018)

PartisanDulwich said:


> see Chelsea FC are asking Hammersmith & Fulham Council to CPO a small property in order that they can redevelop Stamford Bridge and "protect the future of the club on the present site"
> Islington did similar for Arsenal
> 
> The court case starts next week


What’s this to do with the Champion Hill development?


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jan 13, 2018)

maybe if the Council can help secure the long term future of Chelsea via cpo
so can Southwark


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jan 22, 2018)

TRANSLATION

New home for Altona 93!

After the stadium marienthal and the barmbeker Anfield, the next traditional sports venue is passed.

The AFC in a press release:
" with a supplementary agreement on the contract of sale on the Adolf Jäger-Kampfbahn, Altona in 93, together with the altona spar and bauverein, and the behrendt group, opened the way for the move of youth and sport - new premises in the area of diebsteich / Klaipėda Allee. This also creates the conditions for the construction of more than 300 apartments on the site of today's Adolf Jäger-kampfbahn.",


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 22, 2018)

Yes, this has been on the cards for a long time, with a new ground in the Altona area for Altona 93.

I'm surprised it's taken this long, they could have left the current ground before now...


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Feb 13, 2018)

not suggesting 3 g pitch - but interesting local council matching funding for developments


Dorchester Town start fundraising campaign for 3G pitch


----------



## ChampionHill FC (Feb 16, 2018)

PartisanDulwich said:


> not suggesting 3 g pitch - but interesting local council matching funding for developments
> 
> 
> Dorchester Town start fundraising campaign for 3G pitch



Anyone know about the fencing recently erected at the back of the ground. No access to the back turnstile (not that it was used much!). Also no access to the astroturf pitch at the back.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 16, 2018)

Absolutely no idea. It's certainly nothing to do with the Football Club. If that's on land that our landlords control then Chris Taylor, chris@dulwichhamletfc.co.uk , would be your first port of call for information.
It might be-total guesswork-some planned Southwark Council work connected to the cycle path/route that goes along there from Greendale?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 16, 2018)

PartisanDulwich said:


> not suggesting 3 g pitch - but interesting local council matching funding for developments
> 
> 
> Dorchester Town start fundraising campaign for 3G pitch


That's not uncommon. Plenty of local councils do this sort of thing.


----------



## Nivag (Feb 16, 2018)

ChampionHill FC said:


> Anyone know about the fencing recently erected at the back of the ground. No access to the back turnstile (not that it was used much!). Also no access to the astroturf pitch at the back.
> View attachment 127603 View attachment 127604


That wasn't there on Thursday when I walked past to sainsburys. 
They had locked the astroturf pitch with padlock a few weeks ago but a gap in the fence meant people still had access to walk their dogs on it.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 19, 2018)

The land to the right, from the Dog Kennel Hill end, as in the roadway, is Meadows land. The football to the left, as in the footpath is Council.

I understand the fencing has been put in place by our ground owners to prevent any access to Greendale, as the Council may want to do remedial work of some sort on it, and this will block council/ contractors getting access this way...

Happy to stand corrected if this is wrong.


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 19, 2018)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> I understand the fencing has been put in place by our ground owners to prevent any access to Greendale, as the Council may want to do remedial work of some sort on it, and this will block council/ contractors getting access this way..


What a bunch of obnoxious anti-social wankers. I would think the council could open up the fence on the far side of Greendale and gain access via the wide cycle/footpath if they really need to. 

Has the lease on the astroturf expired yet, i.e. the one that wasn't renewed earlier this season?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 19, 2018)

Meadow Residential, or whatever company name they use, no longer control the concrete pitch that has a very worn astroturf that was laid down in 1992, but never replaced by our various leaseholders!


----------



## ChampionHill FC (Feb 22, 2018)

The temporary fencing by the ground has been too easily dismantled by people and is to be replaced by a more robust 'Mexican Wall'. 
I believe it was Chris Taylor who I saw dismantling the fence. 
The lovely Meadow are determined to block access to the council owned Astroturf pitch.


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2018)

ChampionHill FC said:


> The temporary fencing by the ground has been too easily dismantled by people and is to be replaced by a more robust 'Mexican Wall'.
> I believe it was Chris Taylor who I saw dismantling the fence.
> The lovely Meadow are determined to block access to the council owned Astroturf pitch.


Scumbags.


----------



## blueheaven (Feb 22, 2018)

Does anyone know what Meadow's long term plan actually is at this stage? Other than provoking the council and making life difficult for the football club, that is. It's quite some time now since they announced they'd be back with a revised plan for the land.


----------



## Nivag (Feb 22, 2018)

I would think the fence is a health and safety issue on match days should there be a need to evacuate the ground at the Greendale end in a emergency.


----------



## Taper (Feb 23, 2018)

So we've got to this point

Revealed: Rio Ferdinand's £10m bid to save Dulwich Hamlet


----------



## Taper (Feb 23, 2018)

And the club's reaction


----------



## iamwithnail (Feb 23, 2018)

Ugh, Meadows are awful fucking people.


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2018)

iamwithnail said:


> Ugh, Meadows are awful fucking people.


They are filth. Greedy scum. They don't give a fuck about anything else apart from filling their fat wallets with even more money.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 23, 2018)

Time for a proper demonstration outside their offices, they are scum and people need to know


----------



## Crispy (Feb 23, 2018)

I have in my life met exactly *one *decent and honorable property developer.


----------



## YTC (Feb 23, 2018)

Rio Ferdinand has £10m bid to save non-league Dulwich Hamlet rejected - Mirror on it


----------



## YTC (Feb 23, 2018)

Rio Ferdinand has bid rejected for Dulwich Hamlet's home ground - Sky Sports!


----------



## iamwithnail (Feb 23, 2018)

Is there any merit to a bar boycott, if the club aren't getting the money? (This might put people's jobs at risk, though, which would be bad, so maybe not.)


----------



## Roger D (Feb 23, 2018)

Congratulations to whoever decided to hold this back to a Friday PM release. Always a good trick if you want to drive the media agenda over the weekend.as the other side struggle to comment. Seems to be working nicely.

Good work folks.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 23, 2018)

property developer scum


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 23, 2018)

Sounds like it will come to a head this summer then.


----------



## Roger D (Feb 23, 2018)

Reading between the line it could come to a head each time the wages are due, when the tax bill is due and any other bills that may yet mysteriously appear are due. 

Sadly my reading is that money seems to be needed if this is to get to the summer.


----------



## blueheaven (Feb 23, 2018)

Fully in favour of both a bar boycott and a demonstration. Fans' need to make their voices heard and keep this in the media.


----------



## blueheaven (Feb 23, 2018)

Also... is it time yet to ask when the council's promise to protect the club is actuallygoing to be acted upon?


----------



## Roger D (Feb 23, 2018)

Check out the clubs Twitter account. They tweeted a very positive message today about the support they are getting from Southwark.

I suspect there is stuff going on there that is under NDA.


----------



## Bugpowder Dust (Feb 23, 2018)

If the worst happens and we are locked out of Champion Hill next season, where would we have to look for a ground share? Nothing jumps out immediately as being a good option. And chances are that most clubs aren't looking for a ground share partner.

Are any of these possible options?

- Carshalton
- Welling 
- Tooting

Smaller teams:
- Fisher (would be an odd reversal)
- Peckham Town (with ground investments)?
- Athenlay FC 
- Millwall


----------



## Lucy Fur (Feb 23, 2018)

Bugpowder Dust the 100% unofficial rumour is Carshalton


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 23, 2018)

Bugpowder Dust said:


> Are any of these possible options?
> 
> - Carshalton
> - Welling
> ...


Welling already have Erith & Belvedere. Fisher is barely county league standard. I know Peckham Town are ambitious to improve their ground and progress to at least top division county league, but there weren't even floodlights last time I saw it and improvement works were hampered when asbestos was discovered and had to be removed. That would be the best location wise.

Carshalton Athletic has a 3G pitch so extra matches on it wouldn't be a problem, and they offered us their ground when we were threatened with being locked out for the Brightlingsea match .


----------



## darryl (Feb 24, 2018)

Is Peckham Town's ground owned by Southwark Council?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 24, 2018)

darryl said:


> Is Peckham Town's ground owned by Southwark Council?


 It used to be the Southwark Sports ground, but I don't know if it's council land or Dulwich College land.


----------



## pompeydunc (Feb 24, 2018)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> It used to be the Southwark Sports ground, but I don't know if it's council land or Dulwich College land.



It's council land.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Feb 24, 2018)

I've just posted the 12th Man fund PayPal link on the East Dulwich Forum, but I'm wondering if there's one simple link somewhere giving details of how to make a one-off donation or a regular payment. Googling hasn't unearthed one...


----------



## mx wcfc (Feb 24, 2018)

BrandNewGuy said:


> I've just posted the 12th Man fund PayPal link on the East Dulwich Forum, but I'm wondering if there's one simple link somewhere giving details of how to make a one-off donation or a regular payment. Googling hasn't unearthed one...



This seems to be for one-off payments. Not 12th man I'm guessing.  Hope it's proper.

Help raise £10000 to Help Dulwich Hamlet Football Club cover costs for player wages and to help towards the stability and future of the club.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 24, 2018)

Pink Panther has already responded to some of these...
 Are any of these possible options?

- Carshalton *all-weather pitch, so fixtures would be played when they are due to, so you could plan ahead with income.*
- Welling *Erith & Belvedere already use it.*
- Tooting *Pitch isn't the best,  games would be called off at the drop of a hat, with their games, obviously, taking a priority.*

Smaller teams:
- Fisher (would be an odd reversal) *Would not meet the gradings for our level. But all weather pitch.*
- Peckham Town (with ground investments)? *With HUGE ground investments. Pitch waterlogs easily as well. Might be an option if we wanted to drop down to non-floodlit Kent county League Step Seven football, we are currently Step Three. Might just be brought up to Step Five level, in a year or two.*
- Athenlay FC *A junior football ground used for children's football, basically a field hemmed in by housing. Would never be allowed to be* *developed into a football ground, even if there was the will and the money.*
- Millwall *This would cost us a huge rental fee, much more than hiring any non-league ground at our level anywhere in London.*

Basically, very worrying times ahead....I genuinely fear for the future of our grand old Club.


----------



## NPDHFC (Feb 24, 2018)

Yes the justgiving page was set up by a fan with funds going directly to the 12th Man scheme 

You can donate to them via PayPal, or set up a standing order for a regular payment. Details on the attached:

 

To set up a standing order use the following bank details:


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 24, 2018)

mx wcfc said:


> This seems to be for one-off payments. Not 12th man I'm guessing.  Hope it's proper.
> 
> Help raise £10000 to Help Dulwich Hamlet Football Club cover costs for player wages and to help towards the stability and future of the club.


 No idea, it won't open on my work computer. Does it have someone's name behind it?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 24, 2018)

And whilst we're talking about donating money...still no news from the Supporters' Trust on balloting their members. If this isn't a crisis where help is needed what is the point of the Supporters' Trust?


----------



## mx wcfc (Feb 24, 2018)

Try going to Just Giving and searching "Louise DHFC"

I think I found it through a link on fb


----------



## YTC (Feb 24, 2018)

mx wcfc said:


> This seems to be for one-off payments. Not 12th man I'm guessing.  Hope it's proper.
> 
> Help raise £10000 to Help Dulwich Hamlet Football Club cover costs for player wages and to help towards the stability and future of the club.



This is legit and set up by the McGetrick's with money going direct to the 12th man.


----------



## B.I.G (Feb 24, 2018)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> And whilst we're talking about donating money...still no news from the Supporters' Trust on balloting their members. If this isn't a crisis where help is needed what is the point of the Supporters' Trust?



Maybe they spent the money all the other times you called for them to spend it and there is none left?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 24, 2018)

B.I.G said:


> Maybe they spent the money all the other times you called for them to spend it and there is none left?


 No a quick search will tell you that's not the case....so no need for a fishing expedition with me.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Feb 24, 2018)

Saturday night reading tweets on plight of the Hamlet
and getting angrier and angrier


rest now deleted because of comments elsewhere.................


----------



## EDC (Feb 24, 2018)

PartisanDulwich said:


> Saturday night reading tweets on plight of the Hamlet
> and getting angrier and angrier
> 
> How about we just get ladders and bunk in at the next game (and donate to 12th man
> ...


Direct Action.  I’m all for it.


----------



## StephenMac (Feb 24, 2018)

Question is whether you want to score points against each other or against Meadow. See the confidential posts.


----------



## EDC (Feb 24, 2018)

StephenMac said:


> Question is whether you want to score points against each other or against Meadow. See the confidential posts.


Point taken.  I’d forgotten that sub forum existed, no excuses.


----------



## StephenMac (Feb 24, 2018)

EDC said:


> Point taken.  I’d forgotten that sub forum existed, no excuses.


Wasn't aimed at you or anyone else. Just it's time to try and take care of business.


----------



## G Man (Feb 25, 2018)

Not much I can do here from thousands of miles away as a member of the Dulwich expat club but I'll make a donation. As they say, every little helps. If I was there in south London I'd fight those evil bastards with but best I can do is offer my moral support. Hopefully see you guys at Champion Hill in the near future for a game.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Mar 8, 2018)

.


----------



## ThoughtfulGuy (Mar 8, 2018)

Going back to the ground share option:

These clubs were put forward earlier
- Carshalton
- Welling
- Tooting
- Fisher (would be an odd reversal)
- Peckham Town (with ground investments)?
- Athenlay FC
- Millwall

So many questions...

Are there any other teams at Dulwich Hamlet's level with good facilities that are in a parallel league perhaps?

Anyone know who the x3 clubs are who were being looked at yesterday were and if there has been any progress for the next home game on 17th or looking to next season and what is the furthest the core support would travel for DHFC?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Mar 8, 2018)

Just hold your thoughts, I am pretty sure the Club will announce the venue in the next few days...


----------



## blueheaven (Mar 8, 2018)

ThoughtfulGuy said:


> Going back to the ground share option:
> 
> These clubs were put forward earlier
> - Carshalton
> ...



Given Millwall's vocal support of the club's predicament - https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/...wall-come-support-beleaguered-dulwich-hamlet/ - is there any opportunity for perhaps trying to play one home game at their ground and attempting to make a big event of it, asking supporters of Millwall, Palace and other clubs to come and back us and give us a big crowd? Appreciate there'd be lots of obstacles in the way of this but just wondered if it might be a possibility worth considering.


----------



## Nivag (Mar 8, 2018)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Just hold your thoughts, I am pretty sure the Club will announce the venue in the next few days...


Will there be a collection for jumpers for goalposts?


----------



## mickydoodle (Mar 17, 2018)

Update from the Pitchero Non-league site: Latest On Dulwich Hamlet`s Champion Hill Situation...... - Pitchero Non-League


----------



## Jimbob73 (Mar 19, 2018)

Did I hear a rumour that Meadow and the council had a meeting planned for today or did I dream it? Any news on if this is happening?


----------



## Pink Panther (Mar 19, 2018)

Jimbob73 said:


> Did I hear a rumour that Meadow and the council had a meeting planned for today or did I dream it? Any news on if this is happening?


I think that came from Jack Pitt-Brooke of the Independent. No idea how accurate it is, as Meadow are proven liars who can't be trusted to deliver on anything they've said they will.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Mar 19, 2018)




----------



## PartisanDulwich (Mar 19, 2018)




----------



## PartisanDulwich (Mar 20, 2018)




----------



## PartisanDulwich (Mar 26, 2018)

"The Hacienda doesn't exist. The Hacienda must be built."


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Mar 29, 2018)




----------



## Pink Panther (Mar 29, 2018)

PartisanDulwich said:


>



McDaniel & Bennison won't care about that. They don't make money out of 5 year olds because 5 year olds don't buy exclusive inner city flats.


----------



## HELVETICVS (Mar 29, 2018)

PartisanDulwich said:


>




That's...that's...pretty bad...


----------



## crocustim (May 31, 2018)

Save Dulwich Hamlet campaign sneaks into national  "news" story Rail firm in Poundland chocolate row


----------



## Jonti (Jun 4, 2018)

And the issue reaches Private Eye #1470 ...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 13, 2018)

Debt written off, but they still want the astroturf..

Landlords write-off Dulwich Hamlet’s debt – South London News


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Debt written off, but they still want the astroturf..
> 
> Landlords write-off Dulwich Hamlet’s debt – South London News


Fucking bullshitting cunts. The existence of the 'debt' was all in their scheming minds and now they think that everyone should be grateful to them for removing the fantasy owed payment and let their money-spinning development go ahead.

Meadow Residential. I shit on you. Thrice. After a hot curry.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Aug 12, 2018)

Liam's programme notes yesterday contained an update about Champion Hill:
"... I am pleased to confirm that Meadow have agreed to meet with the club's Directors in September. I am also verbally advised, and have been promised a letter, that all the money owed to them shown in our accounts has been written off..."
"... the club is a victim of a stand-off between the council and Meadow, both of whom don't want to blink. They can't even seem to agree that they want arbitration."

I'm not sure about this last point. I appreciate that Liam will know a lot more about the situation than those of us 'on the outside', but it seems to me that there's not much that the council can currently do with regard to Meadow, apart from looking to pursue potential compulsory purchase. The situation is that Meadow withdrew their planning appeals (for the planning application and the overturning of the covenants) and ceded the lease on Green Dale back to the council. So as far as the council is concerned, what have they currently got to talk about with Meadow? There was that artist's impression thing from Meadow the other month which went along with a promise of a new planning application, but before that happens, the council have got nothing to go on, as it were. A 'pre-planning application letter' is about as useless as a 'memorandum of understanding' as far as I'm concerned...
Of course, I expect the council to be active in talking to the club about what it can do to help, but that doesn't directly relate to the 'stand-off' with Meadow.
As fans, is there anything we can do to help try to get matters resolved?


----------



## Pink Panther (Aug 12, 2018)

BrandNewGuy said:


> Liam's programme notes yesterday contained an update about Champion Hill:
> "... I am pleased to confirm that Meadow have agreed to meet with the club's Directors in September. I am also verbally advised, and have been promised a letter, that all the money owed to them shown in our accounts has been written off..."
> "... the club is a victim of a stand-off between the council and Meadow, both of whom don't want to blink. They can't even seem to agree that they want arbitration."
> 
> I'm not sure about this last point. I appreciate that Liam will know a lot more about the situation than those of us 'on the outside', but it seems to me that there's not much that the council can currently do with regard to Meadow, apart from looking to persue potential compulsory purchase.


Maybe he's just being diplomatic in not apportioning the blame entirely to Meadow? There's no point right now in the club doing or saying anything that might complicate the formal writing off of the alleged debt or jeopardise the possibility of getting back to Champion Hill without having to wait for a CPO.

Meadow seem to have a Trump-like combination of bullying aggression and reacting with petulance and spite to anyone who dares to criticise or stand up to them. Dealing with them seems a bit like having to outwit a difficult child by saying or doing the things that will achieve the desired result rather than just following your instincts and saying what you really think.


----------



## Pink Panther (Aug 12, 2018)

Just to add to my previous post, reading between the lines, I suspect Meadow realise they've backed themselves into a corner, seriously pissed off a lot of people as well as turning the neutrals against them, that their name is mud, and are now willing to compromise in order to manoeuvre their way out as long as they don't lose too much face.

Of course they won't have the humility to come clean, hold their hands up, and admit that. I personally will always regard them with utter contempt, as will most of our supporters I'm sure. However, as long as we don't stick the boot into them I suspect it may be possible to find a way of getting back to Champion Hill within months rather than years. Maybe that will entail a housing development on the car park in conjunction with Meadow? My first instinct is to tell them to go to hell and stick it out at Mitcham for as long as it takes, but if we have to massage their ego a little to get back home sooner ....

None of this is based on conversion with anyone within the club, it's pure conjecture from digesting what has been put into the public domain.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Aug 12, 2018)

That's exactly what I've felt since their plans fell apart. Meadow needs an 'exit strategy' that sees them not losing face — they are ruthless people who rely on reputation and front. Having said which, they could have taken the offer involving Rio and made themselves a tidy profit, if what was publicised was approximately the case. My feeling also is that they gambled on the club going under very soon after being evicted. That hasn't happened and, fingers crossed, with the new investor money coming through and the generosity of our fellow clubs, it won't happen. And a stand-off is the last thing they needed.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 14, 2018)

All sensible points above. 

I think one thing that is worth thinking about is what our response will be in the event Meadow come back with some sort of revised plan still combining a ground at Champion Hill and flats. If that is their thinking then they will definitely try and leverage fans support - do we wait and see the details or do we think they've totally lost any credibility now? I'd find it hard to support anything they put forward tbh whatever they promised.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 14, 2018)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> All sensible points above.
> 
> I think one thing that is worth thinking about is what our response will be in the event Meadow come back with some sort of revised plan still combining a ground at Champion Hill and flats. If that is their thinking then they will definitely try and leverage fans support - do we wait and see the details or do we think they've totally lost any credibility now? I'd find it hard to support anything they put forward tbh whatever they promised.


Would that be a Committee decision? Indeed would there be any attempt to canvas supporters votes. I would find it nigh on impossible to trust anything meadows has to offer in the future, but I'm not sure if my opinion will actually count for anything.


----------



## iamwithnail (Aug 14, 2018)

Vehemently against working with or supporting anything meadows does, unless it's walking away and giving us the ground back. Once a basket of snakes, always a basket of snakes.


----------



## Latahs (Aug 14, 2018)

Indeed, I'm as keen as anyone to get back to CH but what's to stop an exact repeat of the nonsense with cleaners' bills, rent and bar takings etc. etc. - surely it'd be back to square one. That's in the short term, as the stadium offered in the new proposal was also well short of what we need.

Given the last two games could we project exactly how sustainable are we at Tooting? Could we lose say 5%, 10% or 15% of gate takings- based on the previous seasons- and still be sustainable? and over what period?


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Aug 14, 2018)

Quite apart from losing all credibility with the club, DHST and the fans, they no longer have any say over Green Dale, which is back in the council's control. So all they can do – as they did in that 'pre-planning' letter they wrote recently – is suggest that the council might like to put the stadium there. Which is not going to happen as it was the main reason for the failure of the original planning application.

All that this new 'proposal' does compared to the previous planning application is increase the number of 'affordable' units, by increasing the size of the development and reducing the size of the units. But it still doesn't address the covenants which protect the current pitch site from being used for anything other than sport and recreation. Nor will it address the question of 'massing' which the council also objected to in terms of the development's sheer size. So their latest suggestions offer absolutely nothing to the council, the club or the local area. I can only think they're going down this path just to string everything out as long as possible.


----------



## liamdhfc (Aug 14, 2018)

Latahs said:


> Indeed, I'm as keen as anyone to get back to CH but what's to stop an exact repeat of the nonsense with cleaners' bills, rent and bar takings etc. etc. - surely it'd be back to square one. That's in the short term, as the stadium offered in the new proposal was also well short of what we need.
> 
> Given the last two games could we project exactly how sustainable are we at Tooting? Could we lose say 5%, 10% or 15% of gate takings- based on the previous seasons- and still be sustainable? and over what period?



I think it is fair to say that without significant investment from outside that we are not sustainable in The National League at Tooting.


----------



## blueheaven (Aug 14, 2018)

Latahs said:


> Indeed, I'm as keen as anyone to get back to CH but what's to stop an exact repeat of the nonsense with cleaners' bills, rent and bar takings etc. etc. - surely it'd be back to square one. That's in the short term, as the stadium offered in the new proposal was also well short of what we need.



I've been thinking this too - if Meadow and the club meet in September and, hypothetically, Meadow say they're willing to let the club come back and play at Champion Hill, is that really an offer the club could accept without a huge amount of suspicion? We could so easily end up back in the situation with Meadow inventing debts etc. And again it would only take another falling out for them to close the gates on us once again. To me it seems inconceivable that the club could possibly go back to CH for as long as Meadow are still there - the club would be existing with a noose around its neck that Meadow could tighten at any time it chooses.

What I'd like to know is:
- Why has the Government's promise of mediation not happened, and what can we do as fans to make this happen?
- Given that the council's offer to Meadow was quite some time ago now, and Meadow continues to ignore it, why has the council not put the wheels in motion for a CPO?

One thing I'm sure of is that, as a fan, there is absolutely zero chance I will ever support any proposal Meadow come forward with. They cannot be trusted under any circumstances.


----------



## Pink Panther (Aug 14, 2018)

blueheaven said:


> I've been thinking this too - if Meadow and the club meet in September and, hypothetically, Meadow say they're willing to let the club come back and play at Champion Hill, is that really an offer the club could accept without a huge amount of suspicion? We could so easily end up back in the situation with Meadow inventing debts etc. And again it would only take another falling out for them to close the gates on us once again. To me it seems inconceivable that the club could possibly go back to CH for as long as Meadow are still there - the club would be existing with a noose around its neck that Meadow could tighten at any time it chooses.


It would certainly need some very watertight legally binding guarantees regarding our security of tenure and right to manage our own matchday arrangements, i.e. Meadow run the bars and we manage everything else.  We can't have them calling all the shots and moving the goalposts every other week like they did before.



blueheaven said:


> What I'd like to know is:
> - Why has the Government's promise of mediation not happened, and what can we do as fans to make this happen?
> - Given that the council's offer to Meadow was quite some time ago now, and Meadow continues to ignore it, why has the council not put the wheels in motion for a CPO?


I think we'd all like some more clarity on this front.



blueheaven said:


> One thing I'm sure of is that, as a fan, there is absolutely zero chance I will ever support any proposal Meadow come forward with. They cannot be trusted under any circumstances.


I will certainly never support any further Meadow proposal that involves demolishing the current ground.  If there's a chance of coming to an arrangement to develop the car park as per Southwark Council's CPO proposal and Meadow sell the freehold to the Council or whatever as part of that, great, but I won't be signing any petitions or writing letters of support as I and many other supporters did at the outset of the Hadley/Meadow era.

At the end of the day I want us back at Champion Hill ASAP, but it has to be on terms that are favourable and beneficial to our club without leaving us in limbo again.

*Meadow OUT.*


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2018)

I refused to sign any petitions or write any letters of support for Meadow because I know what property developers are like. They'll say anything to fill their fat pockets with more cash.


----------



## Pink Panther (Aug 14, 2018)

editor said:


> I refused to sign any petitions or write any letters of support for Meadow because I know what property developers are like. They'll say anything to fill their fat pockets with more cash.


I was always sceptical about Meadow's pitch that the club couldn't survive financially in the current ground and it was essential to have the proposed new one.  I somewhat half-heartedly lent support on an "ends justify the means" basis and now feel like I've been well and truly "had".  I won't make the same mistake again.

It's not the flawed design, lack of reinvestment under previous regimes and large overheads of the current ground that are the problem.  It's the bastards who've used the club and lied to us for the last four years who are the problem.  With a secure lease and the freehold in the hands of responsible people who don't have an ulterior motive I'm sure we would be fine.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Aug 14, 2018)

Lucy Fur said:


> Would that be a Committee decision? Indeed would there be any attempt to canvas supporters votes. I would find it nigh on impossible to trust anything meadows has to offer in the future, but I'm not sure if my opinion will actually count for anything.


Get anything in writing and legally binding this time.... There was no agreement in writing regarding them having options on shares, the only signed thing, I think, was the Trust's Memoradum of Understanding, or whatever it was called, as fas as I'm aware.
The Club (as in Limited Company) are much more savvy this time, and have top notch legal representation, which has forced Meadow to back down on a number of things, so I think things will be much more in the club's favour when they finally get sorted.


----------



## pitchfork (Aug 19, 2018)

Sound familiar!

World's oldest village cricket green under threat from developers, club says


----------



## Pink Panther (Aug 19, 2018)

pitchfork said:


> Sound familiar!
> 
> World's oldest village cricket green under threat from developers, club says


How sadly ironic that this should occur only a six-hit from where the Hamlet have been forced to play.

Incidentally Burnett Wedlake Bullock was the father of Bunny Bullock, a Hamlet player in the 1950s. Burn Bullock was probably a sort of Mitcham CC equivalent to our own Edgar Kail in the 1920s, although he just played a few games for Surrey as opposed to winning a few England caps


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Aug 21, 2018)

Someone's just posted on the East Dulwich Forum that the pitch at Champion Hill is being mowed. No idea if there's any significance to this.


----------



## EDC (Aug 21, 2018)

Getting the hay ready before it’s too late?


----------



## pitchfork (Sep 13, 2018)

Right what is going on? We’ve had the protesting, support from government, local and national and now what? 

It feels like it is just drifting, no word from Southwark, Meadow or the Sports Minister. 

When is the meeting taking place between the club and Meadow and what is the agenda for that meeting?


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2018)

pitchfork said:


> Right what is going on? We’ve had the protesting, support from government, local and national and now what?
> 
> It feels like it is just drifting, no word from Southwark, Meadow or the Sports Minister.
> 
> When is the meeting taking place between the club and Meadow and what is the agenda for that meeting?


This is exactly what those prize cunts Meadow want.  We need to organise something to ramp up the pressure. Even a big photogenic banner at the next home games would help.


----------



## alcopop (Sep 13, 2018)

editor said:


> This is exactly what those prize cunts Meadow want.  We need to organise something to ramp up the pressure. Even a big photogenic banner at the next home games would help.


How about a chant?


----------



## Lucy Fur (Sep 13, 2018)

alcopop said:


> How about a chant?


got any suggestions?


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2018)

alcopop said:


> How about a chant?


Troll this forum at your peril.


----------



## B.I.G (Sep 13, 2018)

Talking of chants - whoever started the chant at half time in the playoff final should be very pleased with themselves. A very emphatic denouncement of Meadow.


----------



## alcopop (Sep 13, 2018)

Lucy Fur said:


> got any suggestions?


Hey hey
Ho ho
Meadow has got to go

(Repeat)

How’s that?


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2018)

alcopop said:


> Hey hey
> Ho ho
> Meadow has got to go
> 
> ...


I've got a better one: 

Hey Trollin'  Chuck
Off you fuck. 

*poster now banned from this thread


----------



## Cyclodunc (Sep 13, 2018)

what for?


----------



## B.I.G (Sep 14, 2018)

Cyclodunc said:


> what for?



Being a prick interloper that isn’t interested in DHFC.


----------



## Matt The Cab (Sep 14, 2018)

B.I.G said:


> Being a prick interloper that isn’t interested in DHFC.



Careful, you've be warned about your behaviour & and abusive language before


----------



## B.I.G (Sep 14, 2018)

Matt The Cab said:


> Careful, you've be warned about your behaviour & and abusive language before



Used a less abusive word  plus this one isn’t being helpful.


----------



## pitchfork (Sep 26, 2018)

So, the end of September is upon us and still no news. Surely we need an update from those involved? If possible can we have a response to the following questions:

1) Has the club held a meeting with Meadow?

1a) if the club has held a meeting what was discussed and what were the action points from the meeting?

2) Have Meadow offered to let us back into CH ,as some suggest, if they have has this offer been turned down and why? 

3) What is the progress of the appointed council member to negotiate on behalf of the council to buy the lease

4) When will the compulsory purchase order be set in motion or has it started already?

5) What is happening with the promised mediation from the Sports Minister?


----------



## Pickers (Sep 26, 2018)

On the non league podcast last week there was an interview with Gavin who suggested conversations were happening / about to happen.

I am sure that there is a lot of things going on behind the scenes which can’t be talked about.

However an update of what has happened (even if nothing if it’s nothing as it can’t be talked about) is probably worth an update.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Sep 27, 2018)

I note that YTC liked the above post. Well if he liked it could he explain the situation, without breaking sensitive confidentialities, as a DHFC Limited company director?


----------



## YTC (Sep 27, 2018)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> I note that YTC liked the above post. Well if he liked it could he explain the situation, without breaking sensitive confidentialities, as a DHFC Limited company director?



There will be a statement soon, but as previously explained, lots we can't make public. Thanks again for respecting anonymity on here, Mishi.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Sep 27, 2018)

Is there anything else we, as normal fans, can do to help at the momment?
It's really frustrating. I just want to go and piss all over Meadows office. Just say the word and I'm on it.


----------



## YTC (Sep 27, 2018)

Jimbob73 said:


> Is there anything else we, as normal fans, can do to help at the momment?
> It's really frustrating. I just want to go and piss all over Meadows office. Just say the word and I'm on it.



If you think I've not been tempted after a few pints in soho you'd be sorely mistaken. Nothing at the moment, we've done quite enough as a collective to raise our issues. Hoping to have something out there by the end of next week (but don't hold me to it as things change very quickly in this landscape!)


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Sep 27, 2018)

YTC said:


> There will be a statement soon, but as previously explained, lots we can't make public. Thanks again for respecting anonymity on here, Mishi.


Anonymity is fine....there is more than one company director...I didn't name who you are. And besides, I think the vast majority of Hamlet regulars know who you are 'in real life' anyway...
It wasn't a deliberate/spiteful thing on my part, I merely mentioned it because I knew you would be best qualified to respond.


----------



## blueheaven (Sep 27, 2018)

Jimbob73 said:


> Is there anything else we, as normal fans, can do to help at the momment?



I've been wondering that too. Is there anyone in particular who we should be attempting to put some pressure onto on social media? The various politicians who were helping us a while back, for example, seem to have gone very quiet. Is there more we could be doing as regular fans to keep some momentum going and keep this in the public eye?

In the meantime, the likes of Blake Morgan and Kevin Rye continue to behave on social media as if nothing has ever happened.


----------



## clog (Sep 27, 2018)

blueheaven said:


> I've been wondering that too. Is there anyone in particular who we should be attempting to put some pressure onto on social media? The various politicians who were helping us a while back, for example, seem to have gone very quiet.



of course they have, there's no election on now.


----------



## Dirty South (Sep 27, 2018)

Am up for the pissing too if all else fails.


----------



## WillClunas (Sep 27, 2018)

Dirty South said:


> Am up for the pissing too if all else fails.



Piss on this, piss on that, it's your answer to everything


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2018)

blueheaven said:


> In the meantime, the likes of Blake Morgan and Kevin Rye continue to behave on social media as if nothing has ever happened.


I've just dropped Douchey Rye another line on Twitter.


----------



## pitchfork (Sep 27, 2018)

YTC said:


> There will be a statement soon, but as previously explained, lots we can't make public. Thanks again for respecting anonymity on here, Mishi.


This is not the secret service. I don’t understand why my questions can’t be answered. I’ll try again.

1) Have you met with Meadows? Yes or No

2) Have they said we can use CH? Yes or No

3) Has any offer been made by Southwark Council for the lease? Yes or No

4) Has the process of starting the CPO started? Yes or No

5) Has the Sportsminster appointed a mediator? Yes or No


----------



## StephenMac (Sep 27, 2018)

pitchfork said:


> This is not the secret service. I don’t understand why my questions can’t be answered. I’ll try again.
> 
> 1) Have you met with Meadows? Yes or No
> 
> ...


Maybe you should calm down a little.


----------



## dcdulwich (Sep 27, 2018)

blueheaven said:


> I've been wondering that too. Is there anyone in particular who we should be attempting to put some pressure onto on social media? The various politicians who were helping us a while back, for example, seem to have gone very quiet.





clog said:


> of course they have, there's no election on now.


Responding in a personal capacity. 

I think it is fair to say that ‘various politicians’ became publicly engaged in the process because they were encouraged to do so by those people within the club who felt that it would be helpful for them to do so at the time.

It may therefore be reasonable to assume that those same people do not feel that it would necessarily be helpful for them to do so publicly at this time.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Sep 28, 2018)

dcdulwich said:


> Responding in a personal capacity.
> 
> I think it is fair to say that ‘various politicians’ became publicly engaged in the process because they were encouraged to do so by those people within the club who felt that it would be helpful for them to do so at the time.
> 
> It may therefore be reasonable to assume that those same people do not feel that it would necessarily be helpful for them to do so publicly at this time.


A 'personal capacity' of what? Without your 'real name' it will be hard to judge who you are, or what 'your capacity' is...


----------



## Pink Panther (Sep 28, 2018)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> A 'personal capacity' of what? Without your 'real name' it will be hard to judge who you are, or what 'your capacity' is...


Someone has offered a personal opinion. It doesn't really matter whether I know who he is.  I can take it or leave it.


----------



## Pink Panther (Sep 28, 2018)

StephenMac said:


> Maybe you should calm down a little.


----------



## dcdulwich (Sep 28, 2018)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> A 'personal capacity' of what? Without your 'real name' it will be hard to judge who you are, or what 'your capacity' is...


For the benefit of those who know who I am, and the position I hold, I was not, in my posting above, speaking on behalf of that organisation but in a ‘personal capacity’ - as in it was my personal opinion.
For people who don’t know who I am it is, obviously for them, just the opinion of a random person on the forum.


----------



## MrFouldsy (Sep 28, 2018)

If someone is talking in a personal capacity, do they have to disclose any other capacities they discharge to show they are not discharging that capacity?

I am genuinely interested in this philosophically.

I have no fucking idea who I am. Does anyone, really?

 In fact there are probably many different versions of me - the one I perceive and the many variations that others have constructed of me from their own perception. All of these interpretations of my self will have been influenced by the values and experiences of those who form them.

I'm probably a cnut.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Sep 28, 2018)

MrFouldsy said:


> If someone is talking in a personal capacity, do they have to disclose any other capacities they discharge to show they are not discharging that capacity?
> 
> I am genuinely interested in this philosophically.
> 
> ...



“Mr Fouldsy” sounds like a made up name to me.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2018)

Cyclodunc said:


> “Mr Fouldsy” sounds like a made up name to me.


He's a friend of Messrs Creasy and Crumpled.


----------



## MrFouldsy (Sep 28, 2018)

MrFouldsy said:


> If someone is talking in a personal capacity, do they have to disclose any other capacities they discharge to show they are not discharging that capacity?
> 
> I am genuinely interested in this philosophically.
> 
> ...


No, I'm now an "active member" - sounds about right


----------



## Pink Panther (Sep 28, 2018)

Cyclodunc said:


> “Mr Fouldsy” sounds like a made up name to me.


He sounds like one of the Mister Men. Mr Happy, Mr Uppity, Mr Messy, Mr Fouldsy.

Mr Tickle was my favourite Mister Man, followed by Mr Strong because he was a square shape, wore a trilby and ate cheese.


----------



## dcdulwich (Sep 28, 2018)

That’s better! A proper Friday afternoon thread...


----------



## EDC (Sep 28, 2018)

Pink Panther said:


>


----------



## EDC (Sep 28, 2018)

Pink Panther said:


> It sounds like one of the Mister Men. Mr Happy, Mr Uppity, Mr Messy, Mr Fouldsy.
> 
> Mr Tickle was my favourite Mister Man, followed by Mr Strong because he was a square shape, wore a trilby and ate cheese.



My fave was:


----------



## clog (Sep 28, 2018)

Pink Panther said:


> It sounds like one of the Mister Men. Mr Happy, Mr Uppity, Mr Messy, Mr Fouldsy.
> 
> Mr Tickle was my favourite Mister Man, followed by Mr Strong because he was a square shape, wore a trilby and ate cheese.


Mr Tickle was my favourite too


----------



## Lucy Fur (Sep 28, 2018)




----------



## MrFouldsy (Sep 28, 2018)

Pink Panther said:


> It sounds like one of the Mister Men. Mr Happy, Mr Uppity, Mr Messy, Mr Fouldsy.
> 
> Mr Tickle was my favourite Mister Man, followed by Mr Strong because he was a square shape, wore a trilby and ate cheese.


Sir, I am not an "it".


----------



## Cyclodunc (Sep 28, 2018)

EDC said:


> View attachment 148282
> 
> My fave was:



John terry?


----------



## dcdulwich (Sep 28, 2018)

Cyclodunc said:


> John terry?


He’s Mister Final as well - and dresses exactly the same for both.


----------



## Pink Panther (Sep 28, 2018)

MrFouldsy said:


> Sir, I am not an "it".


Sorry, grammatical error. Edited.


----------



## Latahs (Sep 28, 2018)

Mr Hitler...

Who did he think he was kidding.....?


----------



## pompeydunc (Sep 28, 2018)

MrFouldsy said:


> I have no fucking idea who I am. Does anyone, really?



You are Mr Fouldzi.


----------



## WillClunas (Sep 28, 2018)

Latahs said:


> Mr Hitler...
> 
> Who did he think he was kidding.....?



is this thing on


----------



## EDC (Sep 28, 2018)

Cyclodunc said:


> John terry?


The pitch gave way.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Oct 11, 2018)

This just in from Campaign News

_On the morning of our fundraiser against Crystal Palace FC, Southwark Council have issued the following statement regarding their negotiations with Meadow Residential:


Southwark Council has renewed its call to property developers, Meadow, to let Dulwich Hamlet FC back into its stadium at Champion Hill.


The request comes as the club continues to suffer as a result of being forced to play its home games in Tooting.


It is now over six months since Meadow shut DHFC out of their Champion Hill stadium ending 125 years of the club’s playing history in the East Dulwich area.


Cllr Johnson Situ, Cabinet Member for Growth, Development and Planning said: “It is entirely within Meadow’s gift to end this unhappy period in DHFC’s history and give them the prospect of continuing as a viable football club. Meadow kicked DHFC out of Champion Hill, they must now let them back in so that they can finish this season at their proper home.”


Meadow have said that they will only let the club back into Champion Hill if the council grant a lease to the club on the neighbouring astroturf at Greendale and commit to not pursuing a CPO. The Council does not think either is necessary for the club to return, but is prepared to do all it can to help break the deadlock, and so has today written to Meadow to confirm that there is no formal resolution for the CPO and to offer terms for the reoccupation of the astroturf.


Cllr Situ added: “We have responded positively to Meadow’s demands, now they must respond positively to the club and let them back in to Champion Hill. We remain ready and willing to talk to Meadow about any policy compliant planning application that they want to pursue at the site.”_

So Meadow are persisting with their farcical idea that the club can build a stadium on the astroturf. They know that that is not going to happen. CPO now.


----------



## editor (Oct 11, 2018)

Buzzed as well: Southwark Council tell landlords Meadow to give Dulwich Hamlet their ground back


----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 11, 2018)

BrandNewGuy said:


> This just in from Campaign News


So basically the CPO - as it stands - is just a threat and is no closer to being implemented than when it was first suggested 6 months ago. 

Does the club actually want a lease on the Greendale astroturf? It's useless in its current state and planning permission won't be given for building on it.

This just sounds like more bullshit and spoiling tactics from Meadow.


----------



## Christian Burt (Oct 11, 2018)

I don't trust anyone on Southwark Council to be honest.
They've approved more gentrification for the Elephant & Castle (albeit on improved numbers of "affordable" (LOL) housing)

One of the worst offenders for turfing people out and moving the rich in.
And yes, I know the central Government are bastards first and foremost, but Labour Councils in Lambeth and Southwark make me want to join Class War at times.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 11, 2018)

Christian Burt said:


> I don't trust anyone on Southwark Council to be honest.
> They've approved more gentrification for the Elephant & Castle (albeit on improved numbers of "affordable" (LOL) housing)
> 
> One of the worst offenders for turfing people out and moving the rich in.
> And yes, I know the central Government are bastards first and foremost, but Labour Councils in Lambeth and Southwark make me want to join Class War at times.



Absolutely. 

I think the council have decided that from a PR point of view it's good for them to be supporting DHFC. From the point of view of a supporter that's obviously a good thing but it doesn't mean they're a good council or acting for good reasons.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Oct 11, 2018)

To be fair to the council, their agreed procedure post-eviction was first to see if progress could be made in discussions with Meadow, then secondly if that reached deadlock to have an independent mediator appointed by the Minister for Sport, then thirdly, if there was still deadlock, the council would look to implement a CPO. I think we're now at the end of the first of these three steps, so perhaps the pressure now should be on the Westminster politicians to get a mediator in place asap.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 11, 2018)

A cpo would take years, the priority has to be getting dhfc back at champion hill before that. I would wait to see what kind of lease we can get, if we get the bar money etc.


----------



## SaveDHFC (Oct 11, 2018)

BrandNewGuy said:


> To be fair to the council, their agreed procedure post-eviction was first to see if progress could be made in discussions with Meadow, then secondly if that reached deadlock to have an independent mediator appointed by the Minister for Sport, then thirdly, if there was still deadlock, the council would look to implement a CPO. I think we're now at the end of the first of these three steps, so perhaps the pressure now should be on the Westminster politicians to get a mediator in place asap.



Yes we are currently on step one.  If step one fails we will be pushing for Westminster to move on step 2.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 11, 2018)

I think to Council is still doing all it can, The Council have limited options and the CPO is its last (if only) card and as stated would still take years to take effect,  2-3 at best

It's whether we can afford to stay away from Champion hill and the local community for 2 or 3 more years or try to negotiate a return, which would undoubtedly require compromises

That said, I would not like to see the Council give up a commitment to action a CPO if required - its the only thing Meadows are scared of

But I am sure like many things there are detailed negotiations going on which we are not party to and require confidentiality


----------



## Son of Roy (Oct 12, 2018)

What? Lying, vindictive, bastard property developer wants it's opponents to make and keep promises? That's rich. How about the council promise not to CPO, Dulwich get back to playing at Champion Hill and then the council secretly CPOs the ground anyway!

How about us fans draw up a list of our terms for Meadow?
(1) I'd like Bennison to attend a meeting with the fans and explain why they thought they would trademark the club's name and strangle it out of existence. Nobody believed the original condescending bollocks! What an arsehole!


----------



## Cyclodunc (Oct 13, 2018)

Longer list needed


----------



## Lucy Fur (Oct 13, 2018)

Been thinking about this a lot of late. In my opinion, it's highly unlikely we are going to see ourselves back at Champion Hill anytime soon. Meadows are in no hurry to progress things, they've probably already underwritten it with other projects and are happy to bide their time till they have a more sympathetic council. The council notoriously work slowly, and as for Crouch bringing in a mediator, I suspect that's pretty low down on her list of priorities at the moment. So what can we do in the meantime?

I suggest lets make the most of our exile at Imperial Fields. I first started coming to Champion Hill when I lived in Streatham. Our crowds were significantly lower then. Over a period of time a concerted effort was made to build up our fan base. We need to do that all over again, but targeting the area local to Imperial fields. Some ideas off the top of my head,

1. Free tickets to local schools to Imperial Fields.
2. Discounted vouchers handed out at Mitchum Tram on a Thursday at rush hour for a dated game to try and get people local to Tooting and Mitcham interested in the game.
3. Obviously no chance of having a train special, but what about a bus. Could we get TfL to run an express double decker from Champion Hill to the ground and back. They could keep the fares, but no one from the club would have the ball ache of organising / financing it. Maybe  Catherine Rose could advise on who to speak to, maybe even her.

It strikes me that theres not much we can do in terms of Government / Council / Meadows at a grass roots level, that's for the Club / Committee / Trust to continue, but what we can do is maybe try to address the shortfall of people attending. Weve done it before, lets do it again, and not let Meadows put us out of business.

If people would like to get together and have a chat about this lets arrange a meeting and get active, probably under the "Save Dulwich Hamlet" banner.

Ev.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 13, 2018)

Think we could be offering Hamlet shirt to local primary schools to put in their Christmas Fete raffles
to keep our profile high


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Oct 15, 2018)

Lucy Fur said:


> Been thinking about this a lot of late. In my opinion, it's highly unlikely we are going to see ourselves back at Champion Hill anytime soon. Meadows are in no hurry to progress things, they've probably already underwritten it with other projects and are happy to bide their time till they have a more sympathetic council. The council notoriously work slowly, and as for Crouch bringing in a mediator, I suspect that's pretty low down on her list of priorities at the moment. So what can we do in the meantime?
> 
> I suggest lets make the most of our exile at Imperial Fields. I first started coming to Champion Hill when I lived in Streatham. Our crowds were significantly lower then. Over a period of time a concerted effort was made to build up our fan base. We need to do that all over again, but targeting the area local to Imperial fields. Some ideas off the top of my head,
> 
> ...


No idea where I read it, but the general return rate on blind flyering is about 2%...

Much as I don't like our landlords I'm not too keen on the idea of encroaching onto their 'territory' by trying to nab fans. It's the sort of work THEY should be doing for THEIR games.

I think our efforts would be much better put into trying to get our lapsed fans to travel over, bringinga friend or two with them.


----------



## toby kempton (Oct 15, 2018)

Half price admission to Dulwich residents?


----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 16, 2018)

Lucy Fur said:


> Been thinking about this a lot of late. In my opinion, it's highly unlikely we are going to see ourselves back at Champion Hill anytime soon. Meadows are in no hurry to progress things, they've probably already underwritten it with other projects and are happy to bide their time till they have a more sympathetic council. The council notoriously work slowly, and as for Crouch bringing in a mediator, I suspect that's pretty low down on her list of priorities at the moment. So what can we do in the meantime?
> 
> I suggest lets make the most of our exile at Imperial Fields. I first started coming to Champion Hill when I lived in Streatham. Our crowds were significantly lower then. Over a period of time a concerted effort was made to build up our fan base. We need to do that all over again, but targeting the area local to Imperial fields. Some ideas off the top of my head,
> 
> ...





Dulwich Mishi said:


> No idea where I read it, but the general return rate on blind flyering is about 2%...
> 
> Much as I don't like our landlords I'm not too keen on the idea of encroaching onto their 'territory' by trying to nab fans. It's the sort of work THEY should be doing for THEIR games.
> 
> I think our efforts would be much better put into trying to get our lapsed fans to travel over, bringinga friend or two with them.


It's good to throw a few ideas around.  Whether or not to promote ourselves in the Mitcham area is a difficult subject for me.  It feels like settling in for the medium term, much like AFCW did at Kingsmeadow, which probably cost Kingstonian a generation of potential new supporters.  I've no idea whether Tooting have any similar initiatives, and if not you could argue that it's not going to harm them if we reach out to potential supporters they're ignoring, but I think any such initiative would need to be done jointly by both clubs.

I bet we have picked up a few locals because we're playing at a higher level with a better standard of football than Tooting, and the much bigger crowds make it feel like a bigger occasion than an Isthmian D1 game in front of 200 or less.  At the East Thurrock game two young-ish blokes walked out of the ground ahead of me and straight into one of the houses between the ground and the tramstop.  They may be Tooting fans, they may just be curious locals, but it would be a surprising coincidence if they were regulars at Champion Hill before we were evicted.

The TFL express bus is a good suggestion and surely worth asking about.



PartisanDulwich said:


> I think to Council is still doing all it can, The Council have limited options and the CPO is its last (if only) card and as stated would still take years to take effect,  2-3 at best
> 
> It's whether we can afford to stay away from Champion hill and the local community for 2 or 3 more years or try to negotiate a return, which would undoubtedly require compromises
> 
> ...


Meadow are such devious and deceitful bastards I can't see them allowing us back in while they still control the ground.  Ultimately I feel the CPO is our only hope of getting back there, and they'll try to delay that for as long as possible in the hope that the club will grow weaker in the meantime and opposition to them will diminish before they make another attempt to gain planning permission to redevelop the ground.


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 16, 2018)

Edited


----------



## Lucy Fur (Oct 16, 2018)

blueheaven said:


> Edited


Good idea hackbridgeharry any thoughts?


----------



## Lucy Fur (Oct 16, 2018)

Why the change of mind blueheaven ?


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 16, 2018)

Lucy Fur said:


> Why the change of mind blueheaven ?



Sorry - I edited because I noticed that Pink Panther had said the same thing as me about doing it jointly! But my point was basically that DHFC and TMUFC could perhaps look at promoting matches together, e.g, with posters around Mitcham showing all matches happening at the stadium in that month, rather than just promoting one of the clubs. I think that was the crux of it!


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 16, 2018)

I'm a bit worried about the latest noises from the council in which they seem to be going along with some of Meadow's nonsense. If they go ahead with the whole "give us the Greendale lease and promise not to CPO us, and we'll let DHFC back in", will the council see that as a resolution to the issue? Because in my eyes what will then happen is: yes, we'll be back playing at Champion Hill which would be great, but we'd also be right back at the stage of living under landlords who will eventually revert to doing what they can to strangle the club and make life difficult. To me it seems totally untenable that the club could go back to playing at Champion Hill with Meadow still there.

There would also remain the issue of Meadow presumably still having the end goal of getting planning permission to build flats on the stadium... would the council soften to that idea if the problem seemed superficially resolved?

Also: for those of us who have got a bit confused by some of this, could someone provide a simple explanation as to why the lease of the Greendale astroturf is so important to Meadow and what they want it for?


----------



## Nivag (Oct 16, 2018)

blueheaven said:


> Also: for those of us who have got a bit confused by some of this, could someone provide a simple explanation as to why the lease of the Greendale astroturf is so important to Meadow and what they want it for?


The astroturf was where they was going to build the new stadium, which would free up the current one for development.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 16, 2018)

Nivag said:


> The astroturf was where they was going to build the new stadium, which would free up the current one for development.



It's a weird one isn't it because although that does seem to be the plan, getting a new lease on the astroturf obviously doesn't get their new flats built, it just gets them a lease on a crappy old bit of astroturf. 

It looks like all they have is trying the exact same approach again and hoping for a different outcome. And if the club did get back into Champion Hill during that process, I guess we could expect the same outcome again at the point where they're told (again) where to stick it.


----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 16, 2018)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It's a weird one isn't it because although that does seem to be the plan, getting a new lease on the astroturf obviously doesn't get their new flats built, it just gets them a lease on a crappy old bit of astroturf.


What annoys me is that they say "the club" should be given the lease for the astroturf, as if DHFC is on board with their plans. It's like Mugabe agreeing to "powersharing" with the MDC. It's just a nauseating political spin to keep the upper hand for themselves.


----------



## billbond (Oct 16, 2018)

its sad but i do know a few Dulwich fans on the maturer side who have not gone since the forced move.
i think it is down to the "messing about" as they called it to travel there and possibly the extra expense.
I do think a coach(s) may be a idea but i know this is not as easy as it sounds and also has its problems 
Just a idea.
Also the ground must be getting in a right state now , when the club move back all this will have to be sorted out to prepare it for use again to get it up to a certain standard
I wonder if meadow would allow  some people in to possibly clean it up a bit every so often, surely in their interests as well.
I know this obviously would involve talking with the bar stewards, maybe might even be able to talk a few around.
I have not been back since the lock up dont even know if it is under security control.
Also is the bar still being used ?
The great thing with Dulwich for so many being a club in the inner city as such was the closeness of travel
East Dulwich station especially loads of links and turn to your left nice minutes stroll in the little park and you are there.
its all so sad
Oh yes one other thing just throwing this out to see the reaction(personally i have never seen this mentioned) what would people feel if the club had to move out slightly if nothing could be found groundwise in the Dulwich area ?
100% No, Maybe, possibly, long as its not too far out, as long as we have a club etc
Personally i dont think it will happen, just wondered what others think
Good post above as well Lucy Fur


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 17, 2018)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It's a weird one isn't it because although that does seem to be the plan, getting a new lease on the astroturf obviously doesn't get their new flats built, it just gets them a lease on a crappy old bit of astroturf.
> 
> It looks like all they have is trying the exact same approach again and hoping for a different outcome. And if the club did get back into Champion Hill during that process, I guess we could expect the same outcome again at the point where they're told (again) where to stick it.



Sorry if I'm being dense here, but if it's only a lease they're looking for and they don't actually want to buy the astroturf land, how can they include it in their development plans?  And even if they can, I'm assuming it's been communicated to them that their proposed "stadium" for that land is unsuitable for the club's needs, so the club wouldn't want it anyway, which the council presumably know, so how can it possibly be used as any sort of bargaining chip? I just don't get what it's importance is to Meadow.

Is the astroturf pitch still actually used, or is it fenced off?


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 17, 2018)

Sorry for the multi-quotes below, just a few different thoughts on what you posted (great post incidentally)...



billbond said:


> its sad but i do know a few Dulwich fans on the maturer side who have not gone since the forced move.
> i think it is down to the "messing about" as they called it to travel there and possibly the extra expense.



So there are fans who didn't even go to the play-off matches, just because the transport's a bit of a minor faff? That's so disappointing but unfortunately also not 100% surprising.



billbond said:


> I do think a coach(s) may be a idea but i know this is not as easy as it sounds and also has its problems
> Just a idea.



Got to be worth a try for a couple of home games, at least? I wonder if there's any chance a sponsor could help with the funding of this? Whatever happened to the discussions that were said to be happening with Adidas?



billbond said:


> Also the ground must be getting in a right state now , when the club move back all this will have to be sorted out to prepare it for use again to get it up to a certain standard
> I wonder if meadow would allow  some people in to possibly clean it up a bit every so often, surely in their interests as well.
> I know this obviously would involve talking with the bar stewards, maybe might even be able to talk a few around.



I thought the club had had a meeting with Meadow in September, but as far as I know nothing more has been said about this. Presumably, though, the condition of the ground is something that would have been discussed?



billbond said:


> Oh yes one other thing just throwing this out to see the reaction(personally i have never seen this mentioned) what would people feel if the club had to move out slightly if nothing could be found groundwise in the Dulwich area ?
> 100% No, Maybe, possibly, long as its not too far out, as long as we have a club etc
> Personally i dont think it will happen, just wondered what others think
> Good post above as well Lucy Fur



Personally I'd still go to as many matches as I could, provided the club was still playing in the general Southwark/Lewisham-ish area. But that would have to be absolute worst-case scenario. I've moved out of Dulwich to Sydenham now anyway, and I'm sure there must be a lot of other fans who come to matches from surrounding areas and don't all live in the immediate vicinity of Champion Hill, so it's not as if people aren't doing fiddly bits and pieces of travel anyway.

Question for those who know more about this than I do: could there be any opportunity to attempt to develop the ground currently used by Peckham Town, for the use of both clubs? I assume that land is owned by the council? I know it would be a big, expensive job, but is it something with any possibility as a long-term Plan B? The other place that springs to mind is the stadium in Crystal Palace Park, but presumably that's just too big to maintain and would involve an expensive rent?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 17, 2018)

blueheaven said:


> Sorry if I'm being dense here, but if it's only a lease they're looking for and they don't actually want to buy the astroturf land, how can they include it in their development plans?  And even if they can, I'm assuming it's been communicated to them that their proposed "stadium" for that land is unsuitable for the club's needs, so the club wouldn't want it anyway, which the council presumably know, so how can it possibly be used as any sort of bargaining chip? I just don't get what it's importance is to Meadow.



Good question...I'm no expert but it looks to me like they can't, as evidenced by the fact that they've already been told so once. 

My best guess as to the thinking is that by renewing the lease on the astroturf they can at least keep together some semblance of the idea of the whole as a single site to be considered as one. If the astroturf is dug up and incorporated into Greendales then they've no chance. Looks like straw clutching to me though.


----------



## Nivag (Oct 17, 2018)

blueheaven said:


> The other place that springs to mind is the stadium in Crystal Palace Park, but presumably that's just too big to


I know it was mentioned when the club was homeless.
I walked past there yesterday and they had goal posts setup on the field.


----------



## darryl (Oct 17, 2018)

Nivag said:


> I know it was mentioned when the club was homeless.
> I walked past there yesterday and they had goal posts setup on the field.



It's in too poor condition to use, I think (can't find the news story that quoted Liam on it).


----------



## WillClunas (Oct 17, 2018)

.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 23, 2018)

Dulwich Hamlet Football Club and Dulwich Hamlet Supporters’ Trust announce the club’s return to Champion Hill - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club

We're going home!!!


----------



## DanBrown (Oct 23, 2018)

Massive news this


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 23, 2018)

Well done to all involved .


----------



## B.I.G (Oct 23, 2018)

Does that mean no more Dip 'N' Flip


----------



## Voley (Oct 23, 2018)

Nice one DHFC. Very pleased to hear this.


----------



## Al Cunningham (Oct 23, 2018)

Great news. It would be great to be back for Torquay game on 1 Dec.........but they may have FA Cup commitments


----------



## EDC (Oct 23, 2018)

Fucking hell, the container has only just been moved.


----------



## StephenMac (Oct 23, 2018)

B.I.G said:


> Does that mean no more Dip 'N' Flip


Back to Meat Liquor. Maybe they can introduce dipping gravy.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Oct 23, 2018)

Party on the roundabout!


----------



## pitchfork (Oct 23, 2018)

Oh yes! Well done everyone who has worked tirelessly behind the scenes! Never thought I would be thanking a Tory!!!!! Strange world we live in!!!


----------



## Scolly (Oct 23, 2018)

EDC said:


> Fucking hell, the container has only just been moved.



I had a feeling as soon as we moved it.. it was only for a short time!! 



BrandNewGuy said:


> Party on the roundabout!



On our way to EDT


----------



## editor (Oct 23, 2018)

Fuck yes!


----------



## mx wcfc (Oct 23, 2018)

'king excellent.  I think I should come to the first fixture back.  Seriously delighted for all at DHFC.


----------



## EDC (Oct 23, 2018)

""The new lease of Greendale would *allow DHFC to use the AstroTurf pitch for all its sporting requirements including any match day use* and such other community and sporting uses as DHFC may undertake from time to time."

Interesting.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Oct 23, 2018)

EDC said:


> ""The new lease of Greendale would *allow DHFC to use the AstroTurf pitch for all its sporting requirements including any match day use* and such other community and sporting uses as DHFC may undertake from time to time."
> 
> Interesting.


Obviously brilliant news, and well done everyone, but this, can someone confirm we will playing on our grass pitch?


----------



## editor (Oct 23, 2018)

Lucy Fur said:


> Obviously brilliant news, and well done everyone, but this, can someone confirm we will playing on our grass pitch?


I hope so...


----------



## EDC (Oct 23, 2018)

To the Dartford fan trying to impress his mates Saturday that if Dulwich charged £14 to get in they'd be able to pay the rent.  Up yours.


----------



## Son of Roy (Oct 23, 2018)

Do we need a combine harvester to cut the grass?


----------



## gnar182 (Oct 23, 2018)

can’t wait. no more fuckkking trams.


----------



## barnsleydulwich (Oct 23, 2018)

Birkbeck to East Dulwich on the train is 19 mins. We're back! That first home game back will be electric.


----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 23, 2018)

barnsleydulwich said:


> Birkbeck to East Dulwich on the train is 19 mins. We're back! That first home game back will be electric.


To be fair Birkbeck to Mitcham on the tram is also electric, albeit slightly longer than 19 minutes journey time.


----------



## barnsleydulwich (Oct 23, 2018)

Pink Panther said:


> To be fair Birkbeck to Mitcham on the tram is also electric, albeit slightly longer than 19 minutes journey time.


 approx 37 minutes but it's just not the same. Looking forward to a crap view from behind the goal but at least it's our goal.


----------



## billbond (Oct 23, 2018)

BRILLIANT . sorry caps ha Just heard , well done everybody.
All the people who have never given up, Editor for this message board as a outlet for the fans and to keep the pressure on  and well pleased for some of the older fans Mishi Mr Dulwich and others must be so happy
A little word of thanks for Tooting  as well for being good hosts for while.
Good to have a base back in the old nest back on the  manor "oooohhhh gone all sarf London"
No very happy , a little surprised at the timing of it thought it may take a little longer but hey who cares
Small steps to get to the newer ground but this is a giant one to get the club back on track for now.
Edgar Kail  will be looking down with a little smile on his face today.
Come on you pink and Blues


----------



## billbond (Oct 23, 2018)

First song to be played on the return perhaps, at the first "home" game back


----------



## iamwithnail (Oct 23, 2018)

I'm very happy we're back, but I've seen a lot of "at least the story has a happy conclusion" on social media. This isn't the end. This is a halfway house, a restoration of where we were before these awful scumbags started deliberately fucking with us. It ends when we get them out of our club, our ground and out of our collective lives entirely.  Super happy to be back, but it's not the end.


----------



## Pickers (Oct 23, 2018)

Great News but the statement released is slightly ambiguous about the future. 

My opinion only but it sounds like there is still a lot of work to be done behind the scenes to resolve this properly.

All the talk about the Astro turf (which is actually just a waste of space currently) seems to me to suggest there is potentially a bigger plan and the shorter lease term with rolling contract is giving time for all parties to negotiate without antagonising each other.

Anyway. Everyone just needs to starting going many back to the ground as quickly as possible.

Thank you Tooting


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2018)

Pleased to hear this, a long exile is never good for a club.


----------



## Christian Burt (Oct 24, 2018)

The amount of effort behind the scenes must have been incredible.
Well done all!


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 24, 2018)

iamwithnail said:


> I'm very happy we're back, but I've seen a lot of "at least the story has a happy conclusion" on social media. This isn't the end. This is a halfway house, a restoration of where we were before these awful scumbags started deliberately fucking with us. It ends when we get them out of our club, our ground and out of our collective lives entirely.  Super happy to be back, but it's not the end.



That's pretty much how I feel - Im a bit concerned that this will be seen as a resolution to a situation that is nowhere near resolved. Delighted to see the club returning home obviously... but is anyone else a bit worried about what the long-term scenario going to be played out here is? By agreeing to this Meadow have managed to get the council to lift the threat of the CPO, which I'd guess was probably the one thing they were scared of? Do the council now think everything is fixed? Because surely we're still in a situation where we're playing in a ground owned by a company who ultimately want to destroy it and build flats? Presumably they're not giving up on that - so what is their end game? Do they still want the club to move to the astroturf, even though that's not viable for the club? And I still don't get all the constant focus on the lease of the astroturf anyway - it's barely more than a piece of wasteland (I understand that Meadow want to use it for their development of course, but if it's only a lease rather than ownership then how does that really help them). 

Don't want to seem like I'm putting a downer on this and obviously it's a short-term win at the very least as it was becoming very apparent that games in Mitcham were unsustainable . . . and that first match back at CH is going to be electric . . . and I think everyone involved in making this happen has done a sensational job . . . but . . . I. Do. Not. Trust. Meadow.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 24, 2018)




----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 24, 2018)

I am sure we do as stated above have a long long way to go to secure our future
However, we were undoubtedly getting into difficulties at KNK re attendances and so it was a priority to return asap
It's really important IMO that we set agenda and the return to Champion hill is a joyful and celebratory moment in our history
Lets have some time for our fans to enjoy and savour the moment

ps what to do with 250 yellow ribbons with Dulwich Hamlet FC - Champion Hill on #LOL (12th Man still yours)


----------



## Blitzwalker (Oct 24, 2018)

This is obviously fantastic news and should ensure that we start getting decent crowds again on Saturdays. Thanks are due to all those behind the scenes who have made this happen. There is now going to be lots of hard work required by both volunteers and others to get the ground up to scratch. Match days are also going to require lots of help going forward-I for one will be up for that and I’m sure many others will be as well. 

I do have concerns about Meadow going forward-they’re still landlords and presumably they will still want to ultimately build on the land. Hopefully the difference now is that they know they’re being scrutinised very closely and they know that we as a club won’t roll over and die. We’ve also got the attention of local and national political figures. The next ambition has to be to get Meadow out of our club and ensure the future of Champion Hill as a football venue.

In the meantime, it’s a major step forward for the club and let’s enjoy it!


----------



## Xmotownx (Oct 24, 2018)

If we are actually back early Dec, I'm claiming as a Chaunakah miracle.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2018)

This was posted in the comments on the Buzz article. Anyone fancy responding there (and here)? 


> I’m sorry, but while this seems to be good news for DHFC as you present it, it is probably not good news for other users of the public land (the ‘astroturf’) and for the wider public – or for DHFC! Statutory legislation (The Law) seems to state this land can only be administered by Southwark Council to maintain public access as an open space (see s10 OSA 1906 below); and that members of the public can’t be charged for use of this land, which they will have to be for DHFC to succeed as a football club on this public land (see the 1967 order below).
> 
> So, while it may seem good news that DHFC are back at their old ground, in fact this solution is very temporary. It seems that after 18 months they will be thrown out again and have to tough it out with the wider public – including past, current and future users of the public land (the ‘astroturf’), other local people and anyone else interested in preservation of London’s green spaces.
> 
> ...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 24, 2018)

^ We had a lease on this land previously...


----------



## Roger D (Oct 24, 2018)

It's fairly clear that this is unlikely to be the end. The logical next step is for Meadow to bring forward a new development proposal. Until they do it - or steps are taken to limit public access - it's difficult to comment. I would suggest Southwark's lawyers will have surely been all over the agreement and are comfortable it is legal 

I seem to remember the DHFC car park is identified in the local plan as a potential housing site. This may yet prove to be significant.

What seems clear is that the club was unlikely to survive at its current level in exile for too long. We have survived and are standing and are in a surprisingly strong position to be taken into consideration in any redevelopment. Note also Southwark have only temporatily withdrawn the threat of a CPO and have effectively reserved the right to act if certain conditions are not met.

It is also clear that the coalition of people and bodies that have supported our return will probably fracture if a redevelopment is submitted. The Friends of Green Dale probsbly won't back that. Sadiq Khan probably won't back anything that encroaches on MOL. Given the current economic climate would the local public support any resultant CPO? I know of a DHFC fan who was in a union / employer meeting when the union rep raised the issue of a potential £10m "to buy a football club":at a time of cutbacks.

This story probably isn't over but the club is still standing and part of the scenario. That's a pretty impressive achievement. 

Must pop over to Kevin Rye's site to see what he has to say about such a successful bit of fan engagement......


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 24, 2018)

editor said:


> I’m sorry, but while this seems to be good news for DHFC as you present it, it is probably not good news for other users of the public land (the ‘astroturf’) and for the wider public – or for DHFC! Statutory legislation (The Law) seems to state this land can only be administered by Southwark Council to maintain public access as an open space (see s10 OSA 1906 below); and that members of the public can’t be charged for use of this land, which they will have to be for DHFC to succeed as a football club on this public land (see the 1967 order below).
> 
> So, while it may seem good news that DHFC are back at their old ground, in fact this solution is very temporary. It seems that after 18 months they will be thrown out again and have to tough it out with the wider public – including past, current and future users of the public land (the ‘astroturf’), other local people and anyone else interested in preservation of London’s green spaces.
> 
> This is not a good solution for DHFC or for the wider public. This seems to be a land-grab that will benefit DHFC in the short term, but only Meadows in the long run. This is wrong.



It seems this person is referring mainly to the astroturf... who are "the other users" of the astroturf? Isn't it currently fenced off and unusable? And it was previously available for hire, so the idea that the public can't be charged for its use seems unlikely. If they're talking about its eventual use as a stadium - I'd think the fact that it's nowhere near big enough for an actual stadium to fit the club's needs would be the main hurdle to overcome, surely?



Roger D said:


> It is also clear that the coalition of people and bodies that have supported our return will probably fracture if a redevelopment is submitted. The Friends of Green Dale probsbly won't back that. Sadiq Khan probably won't back anything that encroaches on MOL. Given the current economic climate would the local public support any resultant CPO? I know of a DHFC fan who was in a union / employer meeting when the union rep raised the issue of a potential £10m "to buy a football club":at a time of cutbacks.



...which makes me wonder, not for the first time, what Meadow are actually hoping to realistically achieve. They must be as aware of the above as anyone. They're unlikely to get planning permission, a CPO may never happen, so they could be stuck as they are for a long time - why didn't they just accept the Rio Ferdinand offer and get themselves out of this when they could?

For what it's worth I agree that we shouldn't be building stadiums on MOL - I was uncomfortable with using my Trust membership to back that proposal last time; if the question came up again I'd vote against it, and in fact I'd vote against anything proposed by Meadow because they are unethical and untrustworthy.

Quick question on a slightly different topic: will Meadow be able to set the entry prices, impose their security guards etc as before? Basically, what's to stop them from interfering and squeezing the club and making the situation untenable all over again?


----------



## EDC (Oct 24, 2018)

blueheaven said:


> It seems this person is referring mainly to the astroturf... who are "the other users" of the astroturf? Isn't it currently fenced off and unusable? And it was previously available for hire, so the idea that the public can't be charged for its use seems unlikely. If they're talking about its eventual use as a stadium - I'd think the fact that it's nowhere near big enough for an actual stadium to fit the club's needs would be the main hurdle to overcome, surely?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The astro/Greendale is technically fenced off - It is along the footpath leading from behind the Toilets Opposite up to the Greendale cycle path which is also fenced (with an open gate, so is the area behind the flats also with an open gate at the corner of Sainsbury's.  What there isn't is a self contained fence around the astro, hence it's shocking state.  

With the club now receiving bar income, I presume the guards won't be needed any longer as their sole existence seemed to be to stop people bringing their own booze in and were quite useless at everything else.  Hopefully the general manager got the heave ho too and won't be required when the club returns.  The cleaner on £40k too.


----------



## Effra Eyes (Oct 24, 2018)

billbond said:


> First song to be played on the return perhaps, at the first "home" game back



Already added to my playlist if my request for the 'ten songs for a tenner' on the first game back is granted..


----------



## 59robbery (Oct 24, 2018)

EDC said:


> Fucking hell, the container has only just been moved.



No need to move it again lads - just leave it there as a lasting momento, thank you and reminder to your favourite neighbours


----------



## 59robbery (Oct 24, 2018)

59robbery said:


> No need to move it again lads - just leave it there as a lasting momento, thank you and reminder to your favourite neighbours



PS I'll give you a fiver for it. Probably the profit we made on you guys sharing our lovely ground with us


----------



## B.I.G (Oct 24, 2018)

Lots of nice things were said about us on the Tooting forum  especially the bit about attacking their stewards. Was that the fat one that attacked children or are they talking about another time?


----------



## 59robbery (Oct 24, 2018)

Haha, long memories probably and I'm sure you will probably enjoy resuming usual hostilities. That said, do you think the pitch and general facilities are in a better or worse state than when you arrived? Maybe I was one of the few who felt it was absolutely the right decision to invite you guys in - and still do. It clearly wasn't about the money - and I'm sure you would agree we didn't strike a hard bargain.

My only regret is that the ground didn't get some of the much needed improvements as a result of our love-in.


----------



## B.I.G (Oct 24, 2018)

59robbery said:


> Haha, long memories probably and I'm sure you will probably enjoy resuming usual hostilities. That said, do you thing the pitch and general facilities are in a better or worse state than when you arrived? Maybe I was one of the few who felt it was absolutely the right decision to invite you guys in - and still do. It clearly wasn't about the money - and I'm sure you would agree we didn't strike a hard bargain.
> 
> My only regret is that the ground didn't get some of the much needed improvements as a result of our love-in.



People, not me (obv) did some tidying up of the ground. The pitch seems in the same condition as when we arrived. Tooting the football club, however, seems in a far worse state, and that's nothing to do with us, and I'm sure you don't want or need my advice on how to improve things.


----------



## 59robbery (Oct 24, 2018)

All a matter of perspective. The pitch is crap compared with this time last year and our lot don't drink enough to block up the urinals


----------



## billbond (Oct 24, 2018)

charming

TheBogEnd » HAMLET


----------



## 59robbery (Oct 24, 2018)

You'd be like that too if you had to travel to Egham and FC Romania to watch your team. Have some pity, please 

Forget the screaming masses:






*Official TMUFC*

3 hrs ·
PRESS RELEASE ISSUED TODAY BY TOOTING & MITCHAM UTD FC

"TOOTING AND MITCHAM UNITED FC WERE DELIGHTED TO HEAR THE NEWS THAT DULWICH HAMLET FC HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONCLUDE NEGOTIATIONS THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO RETURN TO THEIR HOME, CHAMPION HILL. IT HAS BEEN A DELIGHT TO HOST THEM AT IMPERIAL FIELDS DURING THEIR ‘HOMELESS’ SPELL. TM UNITED’S DECISION TO SUPPORT DULWICH CAME FROM THE HEART AND GAVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSIST ANOTHER CLUB DURING THEIR DIFFICULT TIMES. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NON-LEAGUE CLUBS AND THEIR LOCAL COMMUNITIES ARE TOO EASILY LOST. I LIKE TO FEEL THAT BETWEEN OURSELVES AND DULWICH WE HAVE UNDERLINED THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS BOND

WE WISH DULWICH EVERY SUCCESS FOR THE REST OF THE SEASON AND WE WILL GIVE THEM SUPPORT WHEREVER THEY NEED IT IN THE FUTURE. WE HAVE GREAT MEMORIES OF THEIR TIME AT IMPERIAL FIELDS"

STEVE ADKINS
CHAIRMAN

Somebody still loves you . Time for the bond of animosity to resume - you know it makes sense.


----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 24, 2018)

billbond said:


> charming
> 
> TheBogEnd » HAMLET


It's one person, and one other backing him up. Let's not get drawn into a tit-for-tat slanging match. It doesn't mean "they're all scum", as those one or two individuals would have it.


----------



## 59robbery (Oct 24, 2018)

Pink Panther said:


> It's one person, and one other backing him up. Let's not get drawn into a tit-for-tat slanging match. It doesn't mean "they're all scum", as those one or two individuals would have it.



Absolutely right Clouseau - some people are never happy. Give 'em Bostik South Central football and what do you get? Ungrateful buggers - I expect they'll all be complaining when we're watching Combined Counties football - any players fancy a loan for a month or two


----------



## 59robbery (Oct 24, 2018)

Oh. And about that container! Try to move it again and we'll do you for trespass. Well that's what Meadow told us to say .


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 24, 2018)




----------



## mx wcfc (Oct 24, 2018)

The pitch looks OK in that - needs a trim, but not overgrown with weeds or anything.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Oct 24, 2018)

I don't think it's possible to tell the condition of the pitch from that tbh


----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 24, 2018)

Cyclodunc said:


> I don't think it's possible to tell the condition of the pitch from that tbh


I walked across it today. I'm no expert but I'd say it needs rather more than "a bit of a trim". A lot surely depends on what state the irrigation system is in after 8 months of neglect. I understand the groundsman will begin remedial works tomorrow. There's also the issue with mechanical and electrical services throughout the ground, which were probably in need of a thorough overhaul before we got thrown out.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 24, 2018)




----------



## GregDHFC (Oct 24, 2018)

I'd suggest we should be nice to tooting - there still seems to be the chance we'll be back there in 18 months!

Great work to everyone who got us back. It is a crucial step to keep the club alive. But as other posters have said, we're not safe until meadow is gone.

Hopefully we will be home for the christmas games!


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 25, 2018)

For The Record - EXILE

DHST Statement 7th March 2018

On 5 March 2018 Meadow Residential (acting through a connected licensor company) purported to terminate Dulwich Hamlet Football Club’s (DHFC Ltd) licence to play at Champion Hill, with immediate effect.

A few days before, a statutory demand was served on the Club for £121k in backdated rent and other charges, said to have been accrued since the 2013-14 season (predominantly, therefore, during the period in which Meadow and its predecessor controlled DHFC Ltd).

On 6 March Blake Morgan LLP, solicitors representing “Greendales IP LLC” (a Delaware corporation assumed to be connected to Meadow) informed DHFC Limited that Greendales had (last October) registered the words “Dulwich Hamlet Football Club”, “DHFC” and “The Hamlet” as trademarks, and demanded that the Club immediately cease using these words “on any printed literature and any online activity including websites and twitter”.

These bizarre and punitive moves effectively leave our 125 year-old club homeless and nameless


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 25, 2018)

Friday 9th November 2018 will mark
250 days in exile for Dulwich Hamlet FC

1st December (Torquay United) would mark 272 days in exile
29th December (Slough Town) would mark 300 days in exile


----------



## iamwithnail (Oct 25, 2018)

That itv report suggests the council have dropped the CPO route as a threat as part of the deal, anyone know if there's any truth in that?


----------



## Roger D (Oct 25, 2018)

The Council have agreed not to CPO to facilitate this deal. They have retained the right to do so in the future if circumstances change.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 25, 2018)




----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 25, 2018)

PartisanDulwich said:


> Friday 9th November 2018 will mark
> 250 days in exile for Dulwich Hamlet FC
> 
> 1st December (Torquay United) would mark 272 days in exile
> 29th December (Slough Town) would mark 300 days in exile


There's also a fixture at home to Eastbourne Borough on Boxing Day and a potential FA Trophy home tie on 15th December, when we currently have no league fixture. We enter the Trophy at the 3rd Qualifying Round stage on 24th November, which is just within the 4-6 week timeframe for returning, but obviously at this stage there's no guarantee the necessary work will be completed by then. 

The Torquay game will be postponed if they beat Woking to reach the 2nd Round of the FA Cup.


----------



## SW12 to S18 (Oct 25, 2018)

Congratulations to all concerned, at least the first step has been taken to get The Hamlet back to Champion Hill.
As someone who has only been to the very occasional match and so is not over familiar with the stadium footprint, what/where is this Astro turf pitch which is mentioned and what is it’s significance in the saga?
Keeping my fingers well and truly crossed for all concerned to an eventual happy ending.


----------



## iamwithnail (Oct 25, 2018)

I guess, on the note of work taking time - is there anything that we can volunteer to help with?  I suppose it depends how much of it is skilledstuff, and how much is just clearing out/general recovery of neglect.


----------



## darryl (Oct 25, 2018)

Can't add much more to what has been written above, but it's a relief to see the Hamlet coming home; and well done to YTC and dcdulwich and everyone else for getting something sorted. Still can't trust Meadow, but at least the short-term future is a little bit more secure. Onwards!


----------



## blueheaven (Oct 25, 2018)

There's a pretty good summary on everything from Jack Pitt-Brooke at the Independent: Dulwich Hamlet to return home after eight months of exile

The part about the astroturf is interesting. The lease of the astroturf land has been given to the football club, not to Meadow. Is that something the football club even wants? If it's Meadow who want the astroturf, why not give the lease to them instead of the football club? The article says "Now that it has been returned, Meadow can confidently pursue a new planning application." I'd love to be able to read a clear explanation of this somewhere. For what reason would a planning application stand any better chance now than it would have last week?


----------



## editor (Oct 25, 2018)

I've got a horrible feeling that those cunts Meadow are going to get more or less what they want at the end of all this.


----------



## pitchfork (Oct 25, 2018)

Pitch work continues!


----------



## EDC (Oct 25, 2018)

One man went to mow...... etc.


----------



## billbond (Oct 25, 2018)




----------



## Roger D (Oct 25, 2018)

blueheaven said:


> what reason would a planning application stand any better chance now than it would have last week?



If they put in the same application it would almost certainly be rejected again. If they come up with a scheme that doesn't touch MOL, looks after DHFC and meets Southwark's planning criteria it has a realistic chance of getting through.

Meadow are very unlikely to be fighting so hard to retain the land just to get a few bob in rent from us. They probably have a plan. Southwark and DHFC may or may not have an inkling, the rest of us will have to wait and see.


----------



## MrFouldsy (Oct 25, 2018)

Roger D said:


> If they put in the same application it would almost certainly be rejected again. If they come up with a scheme that doesn't touch MOL, looks after DHFC and meets Southwark's planning criteria it has a realistic chance of getting through.
> 
> Meadow are very unlikely to be fighting so hard to retain the land just to get a few bob in rent from us. They probably have a plan. Southwark and DHFC may or may not have an inkling, the rest of us will have to wait and see.



My advice is to trust in the people who have kept this club alive.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 25, 2018)

First game at Champion Hill

Might be symbolic to retrace the route of the march from Goose Green to Champion Hill on 17th March 2018 - this time we get to go in
but sure lots of practical reasons why not

Really need to look (and I am sure people are) at ensuring we maximise all opportunities to raise money for the 12th man, 50/50, DHST membership and programme sales

signed shirts and balls raffled - soft drinks sold separately (as at East Thurrock)  etc


----------



## Noss (Oct 26, 2018)

Today’s Long Read in The Guardian Dulwich Hamlet: the improbable tale of a tiny football club that lost its home to developers – and won it back


----------



## Noss (Oct 26, 2018)

Noss said:


> Today’s Long Read in The Guardian Dulwich Hamlet: the improbable tale of a tiny football club that lost its home to developers – and won it back



Warning: contains photo of Scolly carrying an inflatable palm tree

I think it’s an extraordinary, excellent article for a daily broadsheet despite some minor niggles (I found referring to Gavin as Gav somewhat jarring). And the H-word not mentioned once.


----------



## crocustim (Oct 26, 2018)

"No one knows us..."


----------



## Lucy Fur (Oct 26, 2018)

PartisanDulwich said:


> First game at Champion Hill
> 
> Might be symbolic to retrace the route of the march from Goose Green to Champion Hill on 17th March 2018 - this time we get to go in
> but sure lots of practical reasons why not
> ...


Excellent idea, would be happy to help organise.


----------



## darryl (Oct 26, 2018)

Noss said:


> Today’s Long Read in The Guardian Dulwich Hamlet: the improbable tale of a tiny football club that lost its home to developers – and won it back



It's great to see liamdhfc get the recognition he deserves.


----------



## darryl (Oct 26, 2018)

Noss said:


> Warning: contains photo of Scolly carrying an inflatable palm tree
> 
> I think it’s an extraordinary, excellent article for a daily broadsheet despite some minor niggles (I found referring to Gavin as Gav somewhat jarring). And the H-word not mentioned once.



It could probably lose 1,000 words and not lose any meaning or style. But that's long reads for you  Enjoyed the assumption that Met Police are still off-duty coppers...


----------



## clog (Oct 26, 2018)

darryl said:


> It could probably lose 1,000 words and not lose any meaning or style. But that's long reads for you  Enjoyed the assumption that Met Police are still off-duty coppers...



There were a few minor things like that that I assume were included for effect. I loved the ending.

Onwards to the next chapter.


----------



## iamwithnail (Oct 26, 2018)

That was really interesting. Even though I've been following it, I had no real idea about the depth of work that went in from Liam and Tom and others. Obviously that work went on, but it's great to see it properly out there and people be credited. Everyone involved should be properly proud of what they've done for the club and us. Definitely underappreciated.


----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 26, 2018)

Noss said:


> I think it’s an extraordinary, excellent article for a daily broadsheet despite some minor niggles (I found referring to Gavin as Gav somewhat jarring). And the H-word not mentioned once.


I could never have envisaged how bloody irritating that "Gav Rose" thing could be until I'd read the entire article.  It was like something Armando Iannucci would do for satirical effect.



darryl said:


> It's great to see liamdhfc get the recognition he deserves.


"Crimson cheeked business analyst"!

On the whole a very good article and a lot of effort has gone into producing it.  Once again huge thanks to Liam & Tom for piloting the club through the past twelve months, to Gav*in* & Junior for holding it all together on the field and earning promotion, and everyone else who has actively supported and assisted all of them.

I did enjoy the image of McDaniel briefly making an unexpected appearance to dislodge a jammed sliding door and getting sprinkled with dust.


----------



## hendo (Oct 26, 2018)

Terrific piece. Hickey is an utter hero.


----------



## EDC (Oct 26, 2018)

I wish the story about Adidas cancelling the photo shoot had been mentioned.  That was a truly great victory.


----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 26, 2018)

EDC said:


> I wish the story about Adidas cancelling the photo shoot had been mentioned.  That was a truly great victory.


It was. Although with hindsight if the ground had continued to be used for ad hoc lettings such as that it might have been fit for Hamlet to make a more immediate return right now. 

Persuading Adidas to cancel certainly felt right at the time though, and thanks to those who applied pressure and to Adidas for responding favourably.


----------



## chris gil (Oct 26, 2018)

Pink Panther said:


> It was. Although with hindsight if the ground had continued to be used for ad hoc lettings such as that it might have been fit for Hamlet to make a more immediate return right now.
> 
> Persuading Adidas to cancel certainly felt right at the time though, and thanks to those who applied pressure and to Adidas for responding favourably.



For me that was a real pivotal thing , made me think that people were really listening to us and cared


----------



## Nivag (Oct 26, 2018)

chris gil said:


> For me that was a real pivotal thing , made me think that people were really listening to us and cared


Same for me and I bet it made Meadow start to take us seriously as well.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 26, 2018)

would be good to have a article in the first programme back at Champion hill on plight of other non league clubs and restating our fight is not over by a long way

also important to remember those teams who after the immediate eviction came to our aid - I am thinking T&M, Carlshalton, Hendon,  Needham Market - some as I recall split the gate or made donations from their 50/50 raffles


----------



## billbond (Oct 26, 2018)

Excellent article, one of the best ive ever seen on Dulwich hamlet infact
Well done everybody mentioned 
As a aside i thought liam hickey was the chairman of the club but i was told the other day by a fan he is not now
who is the chairman of the club now


----------



## dcdulwich (Oct 26, 2018)

billbond said:


> Excellent article, one of the best ive ever seen on Dulwich hamlet infact
> Well done everybody mentioned
> As a aside i thought liam hickey was the chairman of the club but i was told the other day by a fan he is not now
> who is the chairman of the club now


John ‘Primo’ Leahy


----------



## magneze (Oct 26, 2018)

Noss said:


> Today’s Long Read in The Guardian Dulwich Hamlet: the improbable tale of a tiny football club that lost its home to developers – and won it back


"We're in the Guardian". A new song, to the tune of "We're in the Army now"?


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 26, 2018)




----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 26, 2018)

must be a better quality bbc version available on you tube but cannot find (all respect to Andy)


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 26, 2018)




----------



## iamwithnail (Oct 26, 2018)

Re-added promotion roundabout on Google maps. "Awaiting verification" apparently...


----------



## Cyclodunc (Oct 26, 2018)

iamwithnail said:


> Re-added promotion roundabout on Google maps. "Awaiting verification" apparently...



I did that too


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Oct 26, 2018)

I’m not going to type loads of stuff as it’s very cumbersome doing so on a small iPhone. But doesn’t the agreement say we have 18 months then rolling over year by year, or have I read it wrong? I also would still support a new ground next door whoever builds it, as I genuinely believe that’s the only way to secure our long-term future. And correct me if I’m wrong but to can build sports facilities on Metropolitan Open Land? I believe the ground where we are sharing is built on that? Much as I despise Meadow  I wouldn’t care who developed a new ground


----------



## Roger D (Oct 26, 2018)

No you can't automatically build sports facilities on MOL. Cray Wanderers proposed new stadium was blocked by the current Mayor as it involved building a sports stadium on MOL. Labour have an electoral mandate to block such developments.

Edited to say, from memory, such development is also against Southwark planning policy.


----------



## peckhamasbestos (Oct 27, 2018)

There is a presumption against development on MOL, which imho is why the original applications were flawed from their outsets.  I am beyond delighted, to the point of tears, that DHFC have negotiated (with the help of so many) a return to Champion Hill, but do feel that it is a temp reprieve.  

Until we have secured a long term lease on a secure home we will always be at the mercy/whim of others with deeper pockets, who are motivated by profit more than community benefit and alturism. 

However, what the events of the last 8 months show, is that there is a motivated groundswell of public opinion that can bring influence to bear on such opposition.  

Simply, it's not about the money, it is about so much more than that, and we know that's worth fighting for to safeguard.

Can't wait for tomorrow, I travel to Billericay so much more invigorated, enthusiastic, enlivened and hopeful.

#DHFC #forzahamlet


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 28, 2018)




----------



## EDC (Oct 28, 2018)

I’ve just walked through Greendale wasteland.  Lots of synthetic landscaping going on destroying the precious ecology?


----------



## EDC (Oct 28, 2018)




----------



## Pink Panther (Oct 28, 2018)

EDC said:


> View attachment 150968 I’ve just walked through Greendale wasteland.  Lots of synthetic landscaping going on destroying the precious ecology?


Think of the newts!


----------



## EDC (Oct 28, 2018)

Exactly !


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Oct 28, 2018)

EDC said:


> Exactly !


The only newts I want to see when we return are our fans pissed as newts.


----------



## Nivag (Nov 1, 2018)

Tracey Crouch resigns..
Minister Crouch resigns over betting 'delay'


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Nov 1, 2018)

We always said one of the most important elements of the campaign to save Dulwich Hamlet was, not only to recognise it was a political campaign, but also to ensure it was a cross party campaign. Tracey Crouch was as good as her word re her commitments to call Meadows in and I am sure the meeting she organised was pivotal in our return to Champion hill

Her stand on fixed odds betting machines is welcome and comes at a high personal cost - a stance that many of us (not all) are proud that Dulwich Hamlet FC shares regarding betting and its destructive consequences on individuals and society when it is not properly regulated. Football betting advertising encroaches into every element of football in the UK - just glad Dulwich Hamlet has taken a stand (maybe generally unnoticed, but a principled stand nevertheless)


----------



## Son of Roy (Nov 1, 2018)

BBC1 Question Time on Thursday 8th November will be in Dulwich. It would be good to have supporters in the audience wearing DHFC shirts who might get the opportunity to ask the panel if any of the political parties are going help DHFC play at Champion Hill permanently? Apply via the BBC website.
Obviously not suggesting BIG should be on television


----------



## Pink Panther (Nov 2, 2018)

Son of Roy said:


> Obviously not suggesting BIG should be on television


Why not? It might liven up one of television's most tedious programmes.


----------



## Son of Roy (Nov 2, 2018)

mmmm


----------



## pitchfork (Nov 4, 2018)

Works goes on on the pitch, it’s coming home!


----------



## YTC (Nov 4, 2018)

Glad to see the irrigation system has been fixed over the weekend!


----------



## Paula_G (Nov 5, 2018)

Supporters might be interested to note that QPR have been give planning permission to build their new training complex at Warren Farm in Southall. This despite a campaign from locals which appears to be based on “Thou Shalt Not Build on Metropolitan Open Land” argument QPR get green light for new Warren Farm training ground


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2018)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> Supporters might be interested to note that QPR have been give planning permission to build their new training complex at Warren Farm in Southall. This despite a campaign from locals which appears to be based on “Thou Shalt Not Build on Metropolitan Open Land” argument QPR get green light for new Warren Farm training ground


I still predict cunty Meadow will still get what they want eventually and fill their fat greedy pockets with all the dosh they crave.


----------



## Pink Panther (Nov 5, 2018)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> Supporters might be interested to note that QPR have been give planning permission to build their new training complex at Warren Farm in Southall. This despite a campaign from locals which appears to be based on “Thou Shalt Not Build on Metropolitan Open Land” argument QPR get green light for new Warren Farm training ground


That report doesn't make clear how extensive the facilities will be, i.e. stands, floodlights, ancillary buildings. It may be quite different to any proposed new stadium on Greendale, not that I feel it's essential to build a new stadium for the club to survive. I think that has been exposed as propaganda by Meadow to win the backing of Hamlet supporters and I will not be actively supporting any further plans of theirs after the way they have treated the club.


----------



## EDC (Nov 6, 2018)

Warren Farm was my old school sports ground.  Huge and windy.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Nov 6, 2018)

Played a number of Supporters Team games there back in the day, so agree with that.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Nov 9, 2018)

missed that banner of solidarity from Italian Whitehawk fans


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Nov 9, 2018)




----------



## PartisanDulwich (Nov 9, 2018)

That Guardian article on radio (Podcast) sounds great (but be warned still refers to Gav)

Dulwich Hamlet: the improbable tale of a tiny football club that lost its home to developers, and won it back – podcast


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Nov 18, 2018)




----------



## Cat Daisy (Nov 19, 2018)

PartisanDulwich said:


>




Maybe it was premature wishful thinking but a vote of thanks at some point is in order.


----------



## Blitzwalker (Nov 19, 2018)

EDC said:


> Warren Farm was my old school sports ground.  Huge and windy.



Played cricket here a few times as well. Huge, windy and cold place with horrible changing rooms and usually non-functioning showers! It used to be owned by Ealing Council. 

The only redeeming factor was there was a decent Fullers pub just down the road - The Hare & Hounds.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Nov 20, 2018)

Any idea when a decision about the Torquay game venue might be made? What still need to happen to get it back at Champion Hill?


----------



## EDC (Nov 20, 2018)

Temperatures up in the 80’s and a lot of sunshine would go a long way to helping.


----------



## YTC (Nov 21, 2018)

Jimbob73 said:


> Any idea when a decision about the Torquay game venue might be made? What still need to happen to get it back at Champion Hill?



By the end of the week latest.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Nov 23, 2018)

Any news? I'm so excited I could crush a grape.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Nov 23, 2018)

Statement later, I believe


----------



## Cyclodunc (Nov 23, 2018)

Boxing day. 

Dulwich Home For Christmas  - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club


----------



## iamwithnail (Nov 23, 2018)

Woo.  Anyone coming in from bexley/sidcup way that wants to split a cab or similar?  At the in-laws and it's a two hour bus trip...


----------



## EDC (Nov 23, 2018)

I’m away ☹️


----------



## Jimbob73 (Nov 23, 2018)

Can't wait! Great Xmas present!


----------



## DonkeyAssessor (Dec 1, 2018)

Great news for Cray wanderers, with the acceptance of their flamingo park , Sidcup planning application.    a step to end their45 years of homelessness.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 5, 2018)

I never read the Kingstonian forum  but apparently Meadow have bought something in Tolworth. 

Forum - Kingstonian FC


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Dec 7, 2018)

B.I.G said:


> I never read the Kingstonian forum  but apparently Meadow have bought something in Tolworth.
> 
> Forum - Kingstonian FC


The opening post on that thread says: "It's been bought by Meadow, the company that owns Dulwich Hamlet? maybe they'll build us a stadium on the roof."

They do not own Dulwich Hamlet & never did...they had an option to buy it, or so we thought. Even the DHST thought so, as they signed a Memorandum of Understanding based on that.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 7, 2018)

B.I.G said:


> I never read the Kingstonian forum  but apparently Meadow have bought something in Tolworth.
> 
> Forum - Kingstonian FC



I like the bit about the new development potentially meaning plenty of new fans. I'm sure they'll be very welcome when they come and not met by that lot grumping about them being the wrong sort of fans.


----------



## pompeydunc (Dec 22, 2018)

So we're back to exactly where we were this time in 2015! Although, this time they want to build even more flats. That's not necessarily the main issue though...

What length of lease does Meadow have on the AstroTurf on Greendale? And how would the transfer of the facility to the club happen. This remains a critical element of these plans being in the club's interest. And then there is a list of about 100 other questions that need satisfying...

I look forward to hearing more from the club and Trust in new year on this... 

Meadow/Hadley's PR has been beyond abysmal, so will want to hear from them as well as to why any dhfc fan should contemplate supporting their plans after the events of last year and a bit. I'm sure they will quickly return to "you have no choice", but this is not good enough.

Stadium and housing details revealed as Dulwich Hamlet prepare for return to Champion Hill home


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 22, 2018)

pompeydunc said:


> So we're back to exactly where we were this time in 2015! Although, this time they want to build even more flats. That's not necessarily the main issue though...
> 
> What length of lease does Meadow have on the AstroTurf on Greendale? And how would the transfer of the facility to the club happen. This remains a critical element of these plans being in the club's interest. And then there is a list of about 100 other questions that need satisfying...
> 
> ...



I’d rather go back to Tooting than let Meadow build flats and a new stadium.


----------



## dcdulwich (Dec 22, 2018)

pompeydunc said:


> What length of lease does Meadow have on the AstroTurf on Greendale?
> Stadium and housing details revealed as Dulwich Hamlet prepare for return to Champion Hill home


As the article correctly makes clear, it is the club that has a lease on Green Dale from the Council and it has a lease on the stadium from Meadow.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Dec 22, 2018)

To be frank, I couldn’t care less what Meadow build on our current ground... I shudder to think how many tens of thousands of pounds have been spent over the last few months just to bring it back to the most basic of safety requirements over the last few weeks. A new ground next door will be much more sustainable with presumably a lease from the Council then we will be shot of Meadows for good. If they are not allowed to develop  I think it will signal the beginning of the end for us, if they hold onto the land, which they can clearly afford to do. I wouldn’t support Meadows, but .. I WILL SUPPORT A NEW GROUND NEXT DOOR which will allow us to break free of our current landlords and secure the long term future of our great Club. As for ‘rather groundharing at tooting’ .. we wouldn’t have lasted this season there the way things were going, never mind having a future there...


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 22, 2018)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> To be frank, I couldn’t care less what Meadow build on our current ground... I shudder to think how many tens of thousands of pounds have been spent over the last few months just to bring it back to the most basic of safety requirements over the last few weeks. A new ground next door will be much more sustainable with presumably a lease from the Council then we will be shot of Meadows for good. If they are not allowed to develop  I think it will signal the beginning of the end for us, if they hold onto the land, which they can clearly afford to do. I wouldn’t support Meadows, but .. I WILL SUPPORT A NEW GROUND NEXT DOOR which will allow us to break free of our current landlords and secure the long term future of our great Club.
> As for ‘rather groundharing at tooting’ .. we wouldn’t have lasted this season there the way things were going, never mind having a future there...



Care to explain why we wouldn’t have survived?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Dec 22, 2018)

B.I.G said:


> Care to explain why we wouldn’t have survived?


Simple... there was literally no money left, the players & management wouldn’t have been paid, we would have got relegated, crowds would have shrunk even further... an ever viscous downward spiral... As an aside, if we stayed groundsharing  we wouldn’t be DULWICH would we... So to turn your question back at you B.I.G how long do you think we could  have conceivably continued away from our Dulwich heartland?


----------



## dcdulwich (Dec 22, 2018)

B.I.G said:


> Care to explain why we wouldn’t have survived?


I know nobody involved in this discussion would want to do any damage to the club. The deal that has been done was a difficult one and I am sure that the club’s directors and trust board members will be happy to answer any questions to the extent that they feel able to. But there are constraints and the current situation remains one where it is incumbent upon anyone with an interest in the club to take care about what they say on a public forum.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 22, 2018)

There's only really one way out of it, which is Meadow walking away with a profit and us ending up with a place to play.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 22, 2018)

How long is the lease for?


----------



## GregDHFC (Dec 22, 2018)

I think it's ridiculous that the article doesn't mention that the whole reason we've got this homecoming game is because meadow kicked us out in the first place. They are allowed a quote alongside DHFC's that looks like they are supportive of us returning home. 

I know this is an article "written" from a press release, but any coverage should be asking them why they tried to destroy DHFC and why we shouldn't oppose everything they do, not just ignoring the past.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 22, 2018)

pompeydunc said:


> So we're back to exactly where we were this time in 2015! Although, this time they want to build even more flats. That's not necessarily the main issue though...
> 
> What length of lease does Meadow have on the AstroTurf on Greendale? And how would the transfer of the facility to the club happen. This remains a critical element of these plans being in the club's interest. And then there is a list of about 100 other questions that need satisfying...
> 
> ...



More flats, new ground, and no building on MOL. Can't  see any issues there.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 22, 2018)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Simple... there was literally no money left, the players & management wouldn’t have been paid, we would have got relegated, crowds would have shrunk even further... an ever viscous downward spiral... As an aside, if we stayed groundsharing  we wouldn’t be DULWICH would we... So to turn your question back at you B.I.G how long do you think we could  have conceivably continued away from our Dulwich heartland?



How long did Hendon survive?

I’m not commenting on the fact that there was “literally no money left”.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 22, 2018)

Meadow had their chance.


----------



## editor (Dec 22, 2018)

GregDHFC said:


> I think it's ridiculous that the article doesn't mention that the whole reason we've got this homecoming game is because meadow kicked us out in the first place. They are allowed a quote alongside DHFC's that looks like they are supportive of us returning home.
> 
> I know this is an article "written" from a press release, but any coverage should be asking them why they tried to destroy DHFC and why we shouldn't oppose everything they do, not just ignoring the past.


In every Buzz article I do my best to remind people what a bunch of utter fucking shitehawk cunts Meadow are.


----------



## crocustim (Dec 25, 2018)

GregDHFC said:


> I think it's ridiculous that the article doesn't mention that the whole reason we've got this homecoming game is because meadow kicked us out in the first place. They are allowed a quote alongside DHFC's that looks like they are supportive of us returning home.
> 
> I know this is an article "written" from a press release, but any coverage should be asking them why they tried to destroy DHFC and why we shouldn't oppose everything they do, not just ignoring the past.


Also says we haven't played at CH since the play off final. We haven't played there for longer than that too! We are achieved promotion despite Meadow's best efforts and I won't forget that!


----------



## dcdulwich (Dec 25, 2018)

GregDHFC said:


> They are allowed a quote alongside DHFC's that looks like they are supportive of us returning home.


Not wishing to state the bleedin’ obvious here but they are supportive of us returning home, otherwise it wouldn’t have happened. Southwark has also been very supportive of us returning home and is, of course, very keen to get the club back into the heart of the community where it has always been based. As mentioned above, it’s been a very difficult deal to secure and prudence is the watchword for all involved.


----------



## blueheaven (Dec 28, 2018)

Leaves a pretty nasty taste in the mouth to see McDaniel suddenly speaking in the media again after his months of silence. I, for one, will never believe anything with his name attached, and will never support any of his plans.


----------



## editor (Dec 28, 2018)

dcdulwich said:


> Not wishing to state the bleedin’ obvious here but they are supportive of us returning home, otherwise it wouldn’t have happened.


But they were the fucking cunts that kicked us out in the first place, in a needless and unnecessary Lord Snooty toys/pram ejecting tempter tantrum because they couldn't bully the council into getting exactly what they wanted. And then they tried to finish us off for good by trying to trademark our name and strip us of our commercial and traditional identity.

I loathe the company and dream of the day the cunts at the top get their long-overdue comeuppance.


----------



## Pink Panther (Dec 28, 2018)

blueheaven said:


> Leaves a pretty nasty taste in the mouth to see McDaniel suddenly speaking in the media again after his months of silence. I, for one, will never believe anything with his name attached, and will never support any of his plans.





editor said:


> But they were the fucking cunts that kicked us out in the first place, in a needless and unnecessary Lord Snooty toys/pram ejecting tempter tantrum because they couldn't bully the council into getting exactly what they wanted. And then they tried to finish us off for good but trying to trademark our name and strip us of our commercial and traditional identity.
> 
> I loathe the company and dream of the day the cunts at the top get their long-overdue comeuppance.


Whilst those are pretty much my own feelings, the bottom line is that we're now back home on much more favourable terms than those we endured before we were kicked out.  Meadow have massively lost face as far as i can see, and have had to make significant concessions in order to keep their development plans alive.  I'm sure there must be details that haven't been publicly disclosed.  I'm not naive enough to believe that everything has been resolved and our long term future is now secure, but I do trust those who have guided the club from where we were before to where we are now and I'm thankful that their powers of diplomacy and negotiation are greater than mine.  I certainly wouldn't have been capable of sitting down in the same room as McDaniel and Bennison while this deal was brokered.


----------



## tasty_snacks (Jan 1, 2019)

^^^^^^
Nail on head. 

Yes, Meadow are massive c units, and yes they did try to fuck over the club and the hold the council to ransom, but that strategy backfired. The resistance was stronger than they anticipated, and they've been forced back to the table. 

Nothing is ever binary. Concessions must be made on all sides. History is there to be learnt from, not to bear grudges that prevent any forward movement.


----------



## jmbwd (Jan 2, 2019)

.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jan 2, 2019)

Vague at the moment but hopefully more details soon!

Champion Hill - Our Proposals for a mixed-use scheme


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2019)

I'm not one to get carried away, but "a new community stadium facility with capacity for up to 4,000 fans" with - presumably zero space for future growth - may prove limiting for the club, no?



> The new stadium has a minimum capacity of 3,000 spectators and the potential to increase the capacity to 4,000.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jan 2, 2019)

editor said:


> I'm not one to get carried away, but "a new community stadium facility with capacity for up to 4,000 fans" with - presumably zero space for future growth - may prove limiting for the club, no?


That is the minimum standard for our current level. I believe you need *potential* to go up to a minimum capacity of 5,000 to meet the criteria for the National Division, which the current ground has due to the amount of flat space that could be built up with further terracing. It sounds like we would get a tighter ground with a smaller footprint, and that's not really good enough.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> Vague at the moment but hopefully more details soon!
> 
> Champion Hill - Our Proposals for a mixed-use scheme


Christ, they could start by sorting the grammar out.


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> That is the minimum standard for our current level. I believe you need *potential* to go up to a minimum capacity of 5,000 to meet the criteria for the National Division, which the current ground has due to the amount of flat space that could be built up with further terracing. It sounds like we would get a tighter ground with a smaller footprint, and that's not really good enough.


I expect nothing but the _absolute bare minimum required_ from Meadow who have already conclusively proved that they don't give a flying fuck for our club, and if they could find a way to get what they wanted that meant we were dumped in the shit, they would do so in a heartbeat.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 2, 2019)

3000 capacity is too small. It needs to be 4,000 capacity.

If we hit the limit already it needs to be 4,000 with potential to 5,000.

Why should the fans accept less, they should have built it before if they wanted to get away with claiming it would be big enough,


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jan 2, 2019)

Anyone know exactly where the MOL actually starts and /ends, is it the near edge of the current AstroTurf pitch?


----------



## Pink Panther (Jan 2, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> 3000 capacity is too small. It needs to be 4,000 capacity.


Minimum. With potential to increase further.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 2, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> 3000 capacity is too small. It needs to be 4,000 capacity.
> 
> If we hit the limit already it needs to be 4,000 with potential to 5,000.
> 
> Why should the fans accept less, they should have built it before if they wanted to get away with claiming it would be big enough,



Sorry if PP liked while I was still editing.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 2, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> Minimum. With potential to increase further.



Yeah but we would have to pay for it. We need 4,000 now with 5,000 later. They just need to dig deeper.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 2, 2019)

The only image on that page clearly shows the pitch on the astroturf (that's Sainsbury's roof on the left)



From the previous planning application, it is clear that the MOL _includes_ all the astroturf:


(from the document "GLA open space response")

The new website also proposes 235 homes, compared to the previous 155.

Therefore, I don't see how on earth they can claim that "The stadium will sit outside the MOL". Maybe the main East stand will (as it also did in the previous scheme), but the pitch would remain within MOL. If this new scheme does pass, then any sort of development on the MOL part of the stadium would likely be impossible. Roofing, seated areas, toilets etc. would be limited to the East stand only.

They've softened on "affordable" housing, and have probably rotated the stadium a bit to lessen the encroachment on MOL, but Southwark/GLA's fundamental objection will still remain. A stadium, with hard terracing and a perimeter wall, is Development. No Development On Metropolitan Open Land.


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2019)

Never. Trust. A. Developer.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 2, 2019)

editor said:


> Never. Trust. A. Developer.



We don’t even need to worry about trusting them. They already evicted us once. Where is my personal apology from them?

Where is my compensation?


----------



## Cat Daisy (Jan 2, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> That is the minimum standard for our current level. I believe you need *potential* to go up to a minimum capacity of 5,000 to meet the criteria for the National Division, which the current ground has due to the amount of flat space that could be built up with further terracing. It sounds like we would get a tighter ground with a smaller footprint, and that's not really good enough.



Yes, you need a minimum of 4000 at the next level (& potential to go to 5000). 
http://www.thefa.com/-/media/thefac...9/ground-grading/grade-a-july-2018.ashx?la=en
Have the actual dimensions been specified? Why isn't there a roof (or better banked terracing) behind the goal? Did Meadow just dream all this lot up without any consultation?

I like how 40% of the housing will be "affordable" - so the other 60%?!


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2019)

Cat Daisy said:


> I like how 40% of the housing will be "affordable" - so the other 60%?!


The thing to always remember is that if developers could get away with providing zero social/affordable units in their developments, they gladly would. Every time.

The only reason why there's any affordable units - laughable though the 'affordable' notion is anyway - is because they're being compelled to do so in order for their profit raking development to go ahead. 

But if there's any way they can wriggle out of their commitment to affordable homes once planning permission is granted, they'll be right on it, like the profiteering scumbags they are.

e.g. Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton. Please sign the petition.


----------



## dcdulwich (Jan 2, 2019)

Perhaps it would be more constructive to focus any ire on whoever sold our stadium to a developer?

Our only way out of this and the only way for the club to retain a permanent presence within the local community - and a much more positive and constructive one at that - is to get the best we possibly can out of the current situation.


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2019)

dcdulwich said:


> Perhaps it would be more constructive to focus any ire on whoever sold our stadium to a developer?
> 
> Our only way out of this and the only way for the club to retain a permanent presence within the local community - and a much more positive and constructive one at that - is to get the best we possibly can out of the current situation.


Of course. But even if I try to forget the shitty shenigans of the past, the stadium they're proposing is very much inadequate for the club and its supporters.

It's always worth remembering that developers have a very, very long history of falling back on their promises and failing to deliver things they pledged once they get planning permission. I don't think there's anything wrong with people keeping these depressing facts in their thoughts.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 2, 2019)

dcdulwich said:


> Perhaps it would be more constructive to focus any ire on whoever sold our stadium to a developer?
> 
> Our only way out of this and the only way for the club to retain a permanent presence within the local community - and a much more positive and constructive one at that - is to get the best we possibly can out of the current situation.



Which is all well and good. Maybe they should have thought about that before they evicted us. 

If they give me what I want then I’m all for it. And I want a stadium that is built properly (unlikely) and fit for purpose (3000 is not fit for purpose).


----------



## dcdulwich (Jan 2, 2019)

editor said:


> Of course. But even if I try to forget the shitty shenigans of the past, the stadium they're proposing is very much inadequate for the club and its supporters.
> 
> It's always worth remembering that developers have a very, very long history of falling back on their promises and failing to deliver things they pledged once they get planning permission. I don't think there's anything wrong with people keeping these depressing facts in their thoughts.


Entirely understand re your last sentence. Very few things are made worse by greater transparency and better accountability.


----------



## Matt The Cab (Jan 2, 2019)

I can't remember who made the point earlier but it looks as if they were correct. 

The ref is clearly not going to allow Ash to take a quick free kick.


----------



## Al Cunningham (Jan 2, 2019)

Need a 4,000 capacity at least from the start. New Stadium in Vanarana Nat or South will sell out for many games if only 3,000


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2019)

Matt The Cab said:


> I can't remember who made the point earlier but it looks as if they were correct.
> 
> The ref is clearly not going to allow Ash to take a quick free kick.


They're using sugar to mark out the lines too!


----------



## Cyclodunc (Jan 2, 2019)

"sugar"


----------



## iamwithnail (Jan 2, 2019)

Bit billericay that


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2019)

Cyclodunc said:


> "sugar"



If you consumed enough sugar (or similar white powder) perhaps you might think that you can trademark the name of a 125 year old club that has got fuck all to do with your shitty cunty company stuffed full of cunts being cunty.


----------



## iamwithnail (Jan 2, 2019)

"ate"


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 2, 2019)

editor said:


> If you consumed enough sugar (or similar white powder) perhaps you might think that you can trademark the name of a 125 year old club that has got fuck all to do with your shitty cunty company stuffed full of cunts being cunty.



And then build a stadium that’s worse than the existing one.


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> And then build a stadium that’s worse than the existing one.


On public land you have no permission to build on.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 2, 2019)

editor said:


> On public land you have no permission to build on.



To be fair. I’m not so bothered about that.


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> To be fair. I’m not so bothered about that.


But you would have to be pretty out of your box to turn up with a trowel and start building a house there without permission.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 2, 2019)

editor said:


> But you've had to be pretty out of your box to turn up with a trowel and start building a house there without permission.



Did we speak on saturday then?


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jan 3, 2019)

The plan of where the stadium is looks almost identical to the previous plan. The main stand rotated 90 degrees and along where the Greendale Terrace end is now. The difference seems to be that the opposite side will have a removable wall opening onto Greendale. As Crispy said, this means the claim its not on MOL suggests that there are no permanent structures (stand, roofs, toilets, food stall etc) on any other part other than the main stand. Also any future development or expansion would be impossible.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> The plan of where the stadium is looks almost identical to the previous plan. The main stand rotated 90 degrees and along where the Greendale Terrace end is now. The difference seems to be that the opposite side will have a removable wall opening onto Greendale. As Crispy said, this means the claim its not on MOL suggests that there are no permanent structures (stand, roofs, toilets, food stall etc) on any other part other than the main stand. Also any future development or expansion would be impossible.



After all this time the minimum anyone should expect from Meadow is a vaguely plausible plan that they would dilute later. 

They cant even do that properly. Absolute amateur hour.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jan 3, 2019)

editor said:


> But you would have to be pretty out of your box to turn up with a trowel and start building a house there without permission.


I find it surprisingly easy to imagine B.I.G doing just that!

I'm not going to keep banging on about Meadow here, it's great to be back at Champion Hil for the forseeable future, it just looks like there are still many obstacles to overcome before the Club's future is secure.  Regardless fo teh MOL issue, you would think Southwark Council has given Meadow some sort of indication that this new proposal is worth pursuing.  Meadow has addressed the quota of "affordable housing" that pretty much doomed their initial plans; surely the next logical question would be "is there any chance of this new football ground gaining the necessary approval?"  If not surely they'd have been better off playing the long game and leaving us to battle on at Mitcham?


----------



## blueheaven (Jan 3, 2019)

So other than the number of flats/affordable homes increasing, what has actually changed here?

They still want to use MOL in their plan so why should they be given permission to do that now when they weren't before? And in all honesty what sort of message would it send out to other developers if Meadow actually got their way after everything they've done?

I don't believe or trust a word of this.


----------



## takkforalt (Jan 3, 2019)

Would be keen to see a picture looking the other way, to see exactly what this retractable side looks like...


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> The difference seems to be that the opposite side will have a removable wall opening onto Greendale.


Sounds like a really shit bodge that will leave us with a deeply unsatisfactory ground, probably worse than what we have now.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 3, 2019)

MOL is and can be an issue, but as I understand it...it's certainly not impossible to build on MOL by a long chalk. And most of the facilities on the proposed new ground would be outside what is classed as MOL. The development wasn't thwarted because of MOL last time...it was because the lack of reaching the, was it 35%, thresh hold, for affordable housing in the previous application.

If this were to go through I would love it. Meadows would no longer be our landlord, & it is a totally different ball game now, with people from our end leading the process from a Football Club perspective, who are much more business minded and who won't accept second best.

If Meadow don't get their development it leaves our future much more in the balance than if they do, as far as I am concerned.

If it falls through they will still be our landlord...and who knows what will happen again then?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 3, 2019)

blueheaven said:


> So other than the number of flats/affordable homes increasing, what has actually changed here?
> 
> They still want to use MOL in their plan so why should they be given permission to do that now when they weren't before? And in all honesty what sort of message would it send out to other developers if Meadow actually got their way after everything they've done?
> 
> I don't believe or trust a word of this.



Yeah it looks the same doesn't it. Presumably there's been some movement behind the scenes which most of us don't know about but it's hard to see what that might be at the moment.

Given it's similarity I think it looks very likely to come back down that same route as before, and that will include them asking the club and fans to support a development. Can anyone do that in good conscience really? I was dubious the first time tbh.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 3, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yeah it looks the same doesn't it. Presumably there's been some movement behind the scenes which most of us don't know about but it's hard to see what that might be at the moment.
> 
> Given it's similarity I think it looks very likely to come back down that same route as before, and that will include them asking the club and fans to support a development. Can anyone do that in good conscience really? I was dubious the first time tbh.


Let us not forget...this is an outline drawing. Until an actual detailed planning application goes in to the Council we are all only guessing. The only people who will be able to answer from a Club perspective at the moment will be the Directors.  And I would suspect if it would probably be at the 'behind closed doors business confidential' stage if they are involved, so would be unlikely to divudge here at the present time...hopefully sooner rather than later a public meeting with supporters could be held to keep everyone informed in the near(ish) future.

To be honest I'm surprised anyone could have been naive enough to think everything would be hunky dory once we got back to Champion Hill, and that the ground is fit for purpose for us, and Meadow would be perfectly happy to let us stay as tenants with no return for their investment...


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 3, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yeah it looks the same doesn't it. Presumably there's been some movement behind the scenes which most of us don't know about but it's hard to see what that might be at the moment.
> 
> Given it's similarity I think it looks very likely to come back down that same route as before, and that will include them asking the club and fans to support a development. Can anyone do that in good conscience really? I was dubious the first time tbh.


I certainly would if it means a new ground for us, which is what I wanted all along...


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> To be honest I'm surprised anyone could have been naive enough to think everything would be hunky dory once we got back to Champion Hill, and that the ground is fit for purpose for us, and Meadow would be perfectly happy to let us stay as tenants with no return for their investment...


I'm surprised you're inventing such a daft position that no one has ever stated, ever.


----------



## blueheaven (Jan 3, 2019)

editor said:


> Sounds like a really shit bodge that will leave us with a deeply unsatisfactory ground, probably worse than what we have now.



Yep - the removable wall just sounds bizarre (when would it be removed/opened? Surely a permanent wall/boundary is required for security?) and the restriction on developing around the pitch presumably means three sides of the ground will have no appropriate sloping terracing. It's fine saying it'll be big enough for 4,000 people, but how many of those 4,000 would actually be able to see the match?



Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Given it's similarity I think it looks very likely to come back down that same route as before, and that will include them asking the club and fans to support a development. Can anyone do that in good conscience really? I was dubious the first time tbh.



Same here. I wasn't happy about supporting the development on MOL before, but I did in the end because from everything I read it felt like it was for the best, partly because we were told that there was a desperate need for a new stadium (which I now feel was a lie). I struggle to see myself backing a Meadow scheme again - they are liars and bullies and even if they promised a fantastic stadium I wouldn't trust them to deliver it.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> I certainly would if it means a new ground for us, which is what I wanted all along...



The last new ground built for us certainly delivered great stability. 

Its on Meadow to win back the fans and their latest shitshow is yet another negative. 

They couldnt even promise the world properly. Lets alone build it. 

Time for them to let someone else have a go at evicting us.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Jan 3, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> MOL is and can be an issue, but as I understand it...it's certainly not impossible to build on MOL by a long chalk. And most of the facilities on the proposed new ground would be outside what is classed as MOL. The development wasn't thwarted because of MOL last time...it was because the lack of reaching the, was it 35%, thresh hold, for affordable housing in the previous application.



The affordable housing criterion was actually the fifth of five reasons Southwark Council gave when they set out to the Planning Inspectorate the five reasons why they would have turned down the application (see below). The MOL issue was the first of these five reasons. Apologies for quoting at length, but I think it's important to get these details in now before the application is made.

"Summary of Key Issues in relation to Appeal APP/A5840/W/16/3164823

Impact on Metropolitan Open Land
8.1 The Council will submit evidence to support its case that the development is inappropriate on land designated as MOL. If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:
“The proposed football ground with its associated boundary treatment, terracing and floodlighting is an inappropriate development which would fail to preserve the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) within which it would be located. Insufficient ‘Very special circumstances’ have been demonstrated by the application to justify inappropriate development on MOL. As such it is contrary to Policies 3.25 `Metropolitan Open Land' of the Saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 11 ‘Open Spaces and Wildlife’ of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 7.17 ‘Metropolitan Open Land’ of the London Plan (2016)”.

Development on Other Open Space
8.5 …  If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:“The residential blocks and stadium building would be located on land designated as Other Open Space (OOS). The development is not ancillary to the enjoyment of the OOS, is not small in scale, would detract from the prevailing openness of the site and fails to positively contribute to the setting and quality of the open space. Land of equivalent or better size and quality would not be secured and the development would therefore be contrary to policy 3.27 ‘Other Open Space’ of the saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 11 ‘Open Spaces and Wildlife’ of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 7.18 ‘Protecting Open Space and Addressing Deficiency’ of the London Plan (2016)”.

Reduction in sports facilities
8.8…  If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:“The proposed development would involve a reduction in sports facilities across the site. As such, it would fail to contribute to the health and well-being of borough residents contrary to saved policies 2.1 ‘Enhancement of community facilities’ of the Southwark Plan 2007, Strategic policies 4 ‘Places for learning, enjoyment and healthy lifestyles’ and 11 ‘Open spaces and wildlife’ of the Core Strategy 2011, and Policy 3.19 ‘Sports facilities’ of the London Plan 2016.”

Height, scale and massing of the residential development
8.11… If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:“The proposed residential blocks, by reason of their height, scale and massing would result in an overly dominant and visually intrusive development which would be out of character with the prevailing built form of the locality. It would be overbearing when viewed from the adjacent open spaces and appear as an alien form within the local townscape. It would therefore be contrary to saved Policies 3.11 ‘Efficient Use of Land’, 3.12 ‘Quality in Design’, 3.13 ‘Urban Design’, and 3.27 ‘Other Open Space’ of the Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policies 11 ‘Open spaces and wildlife’ and 12 ‘Design and Conservation’ of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 7.4 ‘Local Character’, and 7.6 ‘Architecture’ of the London Plan (2016)”.

Affordable Housing
8.14 This proposal would provide 16% affordable housing when measured by habitable rooms. This is significantly below the 35% expected under Core Strategy policy 6, and the mix of affordable homes does not include the social rented homes required by that policy… Therefore, if the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused planning permission for the following reason:-
“The development fails to contribute the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing to meet the needs of the Borough, London and the UK as a whole. The development has not demonstrated that it could not support the expected level of affordable housing whilst remaining viable. It is therefore contrary to Policy 4.4 ‘Affordable Housing’ of the saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 6 ‘Homes for people on different Incomes’ of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 3.12 ‘Negotiating Affordable Housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes’ and 3.13 ‘Affordable Housing Thresholds’ of the London Plan (2016)”."

As I'm sure many of you will remember, I have a foot in the Green Dale camp, being an active member of Friends of Green Dale. And as before, I see nothing in these new proposals to make me support them. Without wishing to pick a scrap, I'm hoping this time that the fans and DHST are not so trusting of the developers and their intentions.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2019)

BrandNewGuy said:


> The affordable housing criterion was actually the fifth of five reasons Southwark Council gave when they set out to the Planning Inspectorate the five reasons why they would have turned down the application (see below). The MOL issue was the first of these five reasons. Apologies for quoting at length, but I think it's important to get these details in now before the application is made.
> 
> "Summary of Key Issues in relation to Appeal APP/A5840/W/16/3164823
> 
> ...



Who was trusting of them though? What will the friends of Greendale do for us when we get evicted AGAIN?

Will they keep pretending we can stay at Champion Hill like they did last time?

The council should build council houses on this shithole piece of Greendale and give us a 1000 year lease on our stadium.

And they should borrow the money to do so as it will end up making a profit.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Jan 3, 2019)

Who was trusting of them?
The Memorandum of Understanding for one thing, which wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Plus many fans believing all their vague figures about how massively indebted the club was.

The Friends of Green Dale doesn't exist to help the club because it's, well, the Friends of Green Dale. Last time around, suggesting to the club that there should be a Plan B to an pplication that was almost bound to fail was helpful, even though the suggestion was ignored.

Will they keep pretending we can stay at Champion Hill like they did last time?
There was (and is) every possibility of staying at Champion Hill and profitably redeveloping some of the land around the actual stadium. The proposal that Rio Ferdinand's group put together showed that to be the case.

That 'shithole piece of Greendale' is protected as MOL, so your or my opinion on that is worthless.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2019)

BrandNewGuy said:


> Who was trusting of them?
> The Memorandum of Understanding for one thing, which wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Plus many fans believing all their vague figures about how massively indebted the club was.
> 
> The Friends of Green Dale doesn't exist to help the club because it's, well, the Friends of Green Dale. Last time around, suggesting to the club that there should be a Plan B to an pplication that was almost bound to fail was helpful, even though the suggestion was ignored.
> ...



Classic Friends of Greendale evasion.

What future do we have at Champion Hill without a lease? The answer is none.

Without a new owner or development what hope is there of a new lease?

And if Friends of Greendale cared about anything other than house prices, I would hope that the wasteland was redeveloped in a way in keeping with MOL, a 4G football pitch perhaps 

We will see, how long Southwark and the government care about MOL, I remember a time when the green belt was hard to build on.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Jan 3, 2019)

I don't see anything evasive about what I've written. 

"And if Friends of Greendale cared about anything other than house prices..." No idea what that means.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2019)

BrandNewGuy said:


> I don't see anything evasive about what I've written.
> 
> "And if Friends of Greendale cared about anything other than house prices..." No idea what that means.



If Friends of Greendale want to pretend they care about the existence of the football club they should explain how the football club is going to have a sustainable future on a piece of land they don't own and don't have a long term lease on.

And its my contention that Friends of Greendale does not care about preserving the land as its a shithole, but merely about preventing houses being built.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Jan 3, 2019)

First point, I already mentioned the offer made by Rio Ferdinand that would have given Meadow a profit on their dealings but which they turned down. That's one way. What about you? Just agree to whatever Meadow want?

And your second point is bollocks.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 3, 2019)

editor said:


> I'm surprised you're inventing such a daft position that no one has ever stated, ever.


I love it...like you've never done that before...!


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2019)

BrandNewGuy said:


> First point, I already mentioned the offer made by Rio Ferdinand that would have given Meadow a profit on their dealings but which they turned down. That's one way. What about you? Just agree to whatever Meadow want?
> 
> And your second point is bollocks.



And how do we force Meadow to sell? All Friends of Greendale is pie in the sky stuff.

And if the Friends love the land so much why has it been covered in rubbish for so long?


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Jan 3, 2019)

Nobody can force Meadow to sell. What's that got to do with Friends of Green Dale?

It hasn't been "covered in rubbish for so long". We did plenty with volunteers to keep it tidy while Meadow did nothing about it, despite it being written into their lease that they keep it free of rubbish. When Southwark got the lease back, they became responsible for litter collection, but the Friends continue to liaise with the Council to keep it as tidy as possible.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 3, 2019)

Just one question for Friends of Greendale: Will they ever acknowledge that the land HAS been built up in the past, when there was a football ground on the land, fully enclosed, with a grandstand & changing rooms, that held crowds of up to 10,000 spectators for big games?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Just one question for Friends of Greendale: Will they ever acknowledge that the land HAS been built up in the past, when there was a football ground on the land, fully enclosed, with a grandstand & changing rooms, that held crowds of up to 10,000 spectators for big games?



I doubt they will, same reason they are "supportive" of the club, like how prior to us getting evicted they claimed there was no reason to worry about eviction.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Jan 3, 2019)

To Mishi, not on what's now Green Dale MOL there wasn't.

To B.I.G., at no point did I ever say there was no reason to worry about eviction.

If you two are going to resume your having a pop at a small group of local volunteers, could I suggest you'd be better off turning your attentions as to the actual reasons Meadow failed in their previous application and why they are more than likely to fail again?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 3, 2019)

EDIT: incorrect information


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2019)

BrandNewGuy said:


> To Mishi, not on what's now Green Dale MOL there wasn't.
> 
> To B.I.G., at no point did I ever say there was no reason to worry about eviction.
> 
> If you two are going to resume your having a pop at a small group of local volunteers, could I suggest you'd be better off turning your attentions as to the actual reasons Meadow failed in their previous application and why they are more than likely to fail again?



Let's see 

If I was a friend of Greendale I'd be very suspicious 

And when it comes to a small group of local volunteers what makes them to special to save them from having a pop, is it their self appointed, middle class bullshit, claiming to care about the club, when if it was a choice between the club and their little bit of land, they would sell the club out everytime, just the same as Meadow.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 3, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Let's see
> 
> If I was a friend of Greendale I'd be very suspicious
> 
> And when it comes to a small group of local volunteers what makes them to special to save them from having a pop, is it their self appointed, middle class bullshit, claiming to care about the club, when if it was a choice between the club and their little bit of land, they would sell the club out everytime, just the same as Meadow.


The picture that the picture you have illustrated is the former Champion Hill, which was home for Dulwich Hamlet Football Club from 1931 until 1991. I would politely suggest you look at where Dulwich Hamlet Football Club played between 1912 and 1931.


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Jan 3, 2019)

This was 1930:
Britain From Above


----------



## Crispy (Jan 3, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> The picture that the picture you have illustrated is the former Champion Hill, which was home for Dulwich Hamlet Football Club from 1931 until 1991. I would politely suggest you look at where Dulwich Hamlet Football Club played between 1912 and 1931.


Having trouble googling it. Could you help us out?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 3, 2019)

It was on the site where the disused all weather pitch is now.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 3, 2019)

Ah yes. This old OS map shows it. Outlined in red below, with the subsequent (and current) stadium site outlined in blue.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 3, 2019)

BrandNewGuy said:


> To Mishi, not on what's now Green Dale MOL there wasn't.
> 
> To B.I.G., at no point did I ever say there was no reason to worry about eviction.
> 
> If you two are going to resume your having a pop at a small group of local volunteers, could I suggest you'd be better off turning your attentions as to the actual reasons Meadow failed in their previous application and why they are more than likely to fail again?


Could you please tell me where I have 'resumed having a pop...'


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Could you please tell me where I have 'resumed having a pop...'



He was talking to me Mishi about having a pop because the friends of Greendale are duplicitous when they say they care about the club but have a fantasy about how we will get a lease, which is why they said and did nothing when we were homeless.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jan 3, 2019)

BrandNewGuy said:


> This was 1930:
> Britain From Above


I can't see that image clearly on a tiny screen, but the Hamlet played on a pitch on the site of the current astroturf from 1912-31, in a fully enclosed ground with a stand and terraces that accommodated crowds of up to 10,000, and that's a fairly well known historical fact. Remnants of the banking for the terraces in that ground still exist beyond the northern and western edges of the astroturf. Those aren't geological phenomena, they're part of a previous football stadium. If that ground isn't visible on the linked photo then its date is wrong.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 3, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> He was talking to me Mishi about having a pop because the friends of Greendale are duplicitous when they say they care about the club but have a fantasy about how we will get a lease, which is why they said and did nothing when we were homeless.


No, he clearly stated 'you two'...


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> No, he clearly stated 'you two'...



Ha! You are right I just wanted all the credit.

But no point engaging with local NIMBYs, all they care about is their own little world.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Jan 3, 2019)

Just found this setting on google maps that gives you a 3D overhead view and it is pretty good (and quite addictive)


----------



## Cyclodunc (Jan 3, 2019)

Wasn't a concrete path recently laid on the greendale site leading to the west side of the astro-turf?


----------



## dcdulwich (Jan 3, 2019)

Cyclodunc said:


> Wasn't a concrete path recently laid on the greendale site leading to the west side of the astro-turf?


Not sure what the material is but, essentially, yes.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jan 3, 2019)

Cyclodunc said:


> Wasn't a concrete path recently laid on the greendale site leading to the west side of the astro-turf?


Not sure of the exact materials used, it might be woodchip or some such, but the Council have definitely been carrying out some sort of pathway/access works. I think there are notices outlining the works involved attached to the fencing along the cycle/footpath bordering the southern edge of the site.


----------



## EDC (Jan 4, 2019)

Gravel resin, like you see around tree bases.


----------



## Matt The Cab (Jan 4, 2019)

Draws up chair for multiplayer urban message board royal rumble.... 

Something to watch now the Sky dates has finished & before the BBC darts starts


----------



## dcdulwich (Jan 4, 2019)

EDC said:


> Gravel resin, like you see around tree bases.


Ah, the stuff that starts to break up come the first frost of the season when used in a situation where people actually walk on it. 

Still in Canada then, I hope, given the time of your posting? Otherwise you’re seriously missing out on your beauty sleep!


----------



## EDC (Jan 4, 2019)

dcdulwich said:


> Ah, the stuff that starts to break up come the first frost of the season when used in a situation where people actually walk on it.
> 
> Still in Canada then, I hope, given the time of your posting? Otherwise you’re seriously missing out on your beauty sleep!


Yep.


----------



## blueheaven (Jan 4, 2019)

BrandNewGuy said:


> Who was trusting of them?
> The Memorandum of Understanding for one thing, which wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Plus many fans believing all their vague figures about how massively indebted the club was.



Possibly, but what else could the fans have done? At the time it seemed like there was very little choice other than to support the plans and hope we got the new stadium - I wouldn't equate that to saying we all universally trusted Hadley/Meadow.



BrandNewGuy said:


> The Friends of Green Dale doesn't exist to help the club because it's, well, the Friends of Green Dale. Last time around, suggesting to the club that there should be a Plan B to an pplication that was almost bound to fail was helpful, even though the suggestion was ignored.



The lack of a 'Plan B' will, I suspect, rear its head again - but what option for a Plan B is there really? So much hinges on what Meadow's planned next step will be when (I'd say 'if' but I think it's 'when') their new plan is rejected. Will they try again? Will they look to sell up? Will they evict the club and sit on the land? Is there any hope of having them actually communicate this to the club?



BrandNewGuy said:


> That 'shithole piece of Greendale' is protected as MOL, so your or my opinion on that is worthless.



I agree with you on MOL. It's there for a reason and we shouldn't be building on it. Whether or not it's a shithole, or mismanaged, or needs improvement, is a different argument. The fact is there is a perfectly usable football stadium already right next to the MOL, so why should Meadow be given permission to move it onto MOL just to allow them to make a profit? It's not a community need - it's a corporate one.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2019)

blueheaven said:


> Possibly, but what else could the fans have done? At the time it seemed like there was very little choice other than to support the plans and hope we got the new stadium - I wouldn't equate that to saying we all universally trusted Hadley/Meadow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is a community need for Dulwich to have a lease. So unless someone buys the land for reasons other than commercial moving the stadium is the best option no?


----------



## Al Cunningham (Jan 4, 2019)

Looking at the financial situation is the biggest difference from before (at CH) that we keep the gate and bar monies since the move back rather than before when the money went to Meadows and they gave us a budget.


----------



## Scottfield (Jan 20, 2019)

Opportunity to "drop in" at the Club Bar on 1st and 2nd Feb to see the latest plans for redevelopment. I'm guessing you'll all have already seen this as it is all over the internet, twitter, the usual channels but just in case you hadn't, details are here: Champion Hill - Exhibition


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 20, 2019)

Hopefully they are being charged for the space in the bar.


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2019)

Scottfield said:


> Opportunity to "drop in" at the Club Bar on 1st and 2nd Feb to see the latest plans for redevelopment. I'm guessing you'll all have already seen this as it is all over the internet, twitter, the usual channels but just in case you hadn't, details are here: Champion Hill - Exhibition


I'll put up a post on Buzz in the morning. It's quite hard to be polite about Meadow given their loathsome behaviour and the fact that less than a year ago they were doing their utmost to destroy the club forever.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Jan 21, 2019)

Can one buy a flat at this event?


----------



## Pink Panther (Jan 21, 2019)

editor said:


> I'll put up a post on Buzz in the morning. It's quite hard to be polite about Meadow given their loathsome behaviour and the fact that less than a year ago they were doing their utmost to destroy the club forever.


If any Meadow lackeys attempt to engage me in conversation about the proposals I think I'll be struggling to remain calm and polite.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 21, 2019)

Sure we had one of these before...


----------



## YTC (Jan 21, 2019)

Incase anyone wants to come and hear from us about this and a lot of other stuff in and around the club, come say hello!


----------



## editor (Jan 21, 2019)

I tried to be nice: 
Meadow to show off their planning proposals for Dulwich Hamlet’s Champion Hill ground, Fri 1st – Sat 2nd Feb 2019


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jan 21, 2019)

"Most of what Brixton Buzz thinks of Meadow as a company is pretty much unprintable, but we will endeavour to keep an open mind when we attend these drop in sessions."


----------



## editor (Jan 21, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> "Most of what Brixton Buzz thinks of Meadow as a company is pretty much unprintable, but we will endeavour to keep an open mind when we attend these drop in sessions."




Judging by their illustration, the proposed stadium is awful. It has zero cover on three sides of the pitch, the sightlines look no better than they are now (i.e. terrible unless you're in the stand) and the capacity is far too small.

We attract a lot of young families and it's simply unacceptable not to offer decent cover for them and everyone else and the new ground needs to provide facilities in line with a club now attracting regular 3,000+ crowds (and turning away hundreds more).


----------



## EDC (Jan 21, 2019)

Is that a basketball court on the roof of the main stand ?


----------



## Pink Panther (Jan 21, 2019)

editor said:


> Judging by their illustration, the proposed stadium is awful. It has zero cover on three sides of the pitch, the sightlines look no better than they are now (i.e. terrible unless you're in the stand) and the capacity is far too small.
> 
> We attract a lot of young families and it's simply unacceptable not to offer decent cover for them and everyone else and the new ground needs to provide facilities in line with a club now attracting regular 3,000+ crowds (and turning away hundreds more).


We basically need something like Dartford, which has proper terraces, is entirely covered, with a lot of environmentally friendly features and doesn't intrude upon the surrounding landscape.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 21, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Hopefully they are being charged for the space in the bar.


Why would we charge them? It is in the best interests of the Club to get a new ground...


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 21, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Why would we charge them? It is in the best interests of the Club to get a new ground...



Was it in their best interests to charge us everytime for everything?

Is it in the best interests of the club to support the current proposals in your opinion?


----------



## dcdulwich (Jan 21, 2019)

EDC said:


> Is that a basketball court on the roof of the main stand ?


A ‘MUGA’ is the term I believe: Multi Use Games Area but essentially, yes.


----------



## pettyboy (Jan 21, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> It is in the best interests of the Club to get a new ground...



Not if it isn't fit for purpose (as their current proposal appears to be)


----------



## EDC (Jan 21, 2019)

dcdulwich said:


> A ‘MUGA’ is the term I believe: Multi Use Games Area but essentially, yes.


Looks like a prison courtyard.


----------



## dcdulwich (Jan 21, 2019)

EDC said:


> Looks like a prison courtyard.


Pronounced ‘mooger’ rather than ‘mugger’.


----------



## barnsleydulwich (Jan 21, 2019)

I won't be supporting this.


----------



## editor (Jan 21, 2019)

barnsleydulwich said:


> I won't be supporting this.


Me neither. To not be able to provide sufficient cover and sightlines is an insult to the fans, and a 3,000/4,000 capacity is clearly insufficient.

And given Meadow's past, I'm sure they'd do everything in their power to cut corners if they get planning permission.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 21, 2019)

It's mad. They couldn't even pretend to build a good enough stadium.


----------



## EDC (Jan 21, 2019)

Couldn’t even draw one let alone build it.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 21, 2019)

EDC said:


> Couldn’t even draw one let alone build it.



Maybe we will get a muriel of a stadium on the solitary poor person’s tiny flat.


----------



## EDC (Jan 21, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Maybe we will get a muriel of a stadium on the solitary poor person’s tiny flat.


This isn’t Essex you know.  We do street art around here.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 21, 2019)

EDC said:


> This isn’t Essex you know.  We do street art around here.



Like that bit of bed that got dumped up your street?


----------



## Cyclodunc (Jan 21, 2019)

#michaelswatching


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jan 22, 2019)

It Theresa May a consultant for Meadow? This doesn't look  like a new plan, B it's plan A again but louder!
Hope when we get full details it's better but from the little bits so far looks like a disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## blueheaven (Jan 22, 2019)

Absolutely no chance I'll support this. That stadium looks like it's been designed by someone who has never been to a football match before. Or designed anything before, come to think of it.


----------



## dcdulwich (Jan 22, 2019)

Can I suggest it might at least be worth listening to what the directors have to say at the meeting they have called for next Monday? Ben Clasper has also said - on Twitter yesterday - that the intention is to make such meetings a regular thing which is welcome.

The illustration of the stadium is literally just that - no detailed design work has been undertaken as far as I understand. I’m sure that the directors will be doing all they can to make sure that the stadium, for which planning permission is eventually applied, is in line with what the club needs. 

I can certainly say that the Trust will be doing all we can to support the directors and work with them to achieve that aspiration. We will also, of course, be seeking to represent the views of our members and the wider fan base as the plans develop.​


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 22, 2019)

dcdulwich said:


> Can I suggest it might at least be worth listening to what the directors have to say at the meeting they have called for next Monday? Ben Clasper has also said - on Twitter yesterday - that the intention is to make such meetings a regular thing which is welcome.
> 
> The illustration of the stadium is literally just that - no detailed design work has been undertaken as far as I understand. I’m sure that the directors will be doing all they can to make sure that the stadium, for which planning permission is eventually applied, is in line with what the club needs.
> 
> I can certainly say that the Trust will be doing all we can to support the directors and work with them to achieve that aspiration. We will also, of course, be seeking to represent the views of our members and the wider fan base as the plans develop.​



Fair enough to call to wait and see, but isn't it odd that a group that already had planning permission submitted and rejected have not done any detailed design work on a stadium.


----------



## dcdulwich (Jan 22, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Fair enough to call to wait and see, but isn't it odd that a group that already had planning permission submitted and rejected have not done any detailed design work on a stadium.


I don’t want to pre-empt or second guess what might come up on Monday B.I.G. Anyway, I’m looking forward to the meeting and to being able to discuss these issues in our own club bar.


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Fair enough to call to wait and see, but isn't it odd that a group that already had planning permission submitted and rejected have not done any detailed design work on a stadium.


Or even asked the fans for their feedback and opinions until this late date...


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 22, 2019)

editor said:


> Or even asked the fans for their feedback and opinions until this late date...



They definitely evicted us and cost me a lot of money, they definitely did that though!


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> They definitely evicted us and cost me a lot of money, they definitely did that though!


As a gesture of their undoubted goodwill, they should compensate the fans who were forced to travel to Tooting and back because of their evil actions.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 22, 2019)

editor said:


> As a gesture of their undoubted goodwill, they should compensate the fans who were forced to travel to Tooting and back because of their evil actions.



Or a 10 year lease as a minimum!


----------



## iamwithnail (Jan 22, 2019)

Missed a zero off that.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 22, 2019)

iamwithnail said:


> Missed a zero off that.



I meant while they are awaiting planning permission, clearly they intend to evict us again if they don't get their way.


----------



## iamwithnail (Jan 22, 2019)

Fair!


----------



## liamdhfc (Jan 22, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> I meant while they are awaiting planning permission, clearly they intend to evict us again if they don't get their way.


I am sure the way leases are constructed that they can't do that but it's something that the Directors will be able to clarify at Monday's meeting.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 23, 2019)

editor said:


> As a gesture of their undoubted goodwill, they should compensate the fans who were forced to travel to Tooting and back because of their evil actions.


Kept all your receipts did you? Get real!


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> I meant while they are awaiting planning permission, clearly they intend to evict us again if they don't get their way.


Probably, which is why it’s important that we get a new stadium & they, or any other oropety developers are our landlords.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Keetall your receipts did you? Get real!


1. I was hardly being serious, but...
2. Amazingly, there's this keraaaazy technology where you can pay for your travel with a contactless card and guess what? It keeps a record of every single payment, so you don't need to 'keep' receipts because they're automatically added to your bank statement.

And now you look a little bit silly, doncha?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 23, 2019)

editor said:


> 1. I was hardly being serious, but...
> 2. Amazingly, there's this keraaaazy technology where you can pay for your travel with a contactless card and guess what? It keeps a record of every single payment, so you don't need to 'keep' receipts because they're automatically added to your bank statement.
> 
> And now you look a little bit silly, doncha?


Actually not really , because whilst that applies for most people, I purchase an annual Zones 1-3 zones travel card which covers buses, trains, tubes & trams . It’s called a Gold Card & it’s made of paper, so no... not feeling silly at all.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 23, 2019)

I’m serious. Why should Meadow get richer and I get poorer. If they want the support of the all the fans, let’s see a bit of sharing.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> I’m serious. Why should Meadow get richer and I get poorer. If they want the support of the all the fans, let’s see a bit of sharing.


The best way to get rid of Meadow is for their development to be approved by the Council, we get a new ground & a new landlord and we never have to deal with them again.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 23, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> The best way to get rid of Meadow is for their development to be approved by the Council, we get a new ground & a new landlord and we never have to deal with them again.



Yes. That was what everyone said last time but then they evicted us and now all I care about is them not getting what they want.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Yes. That was what everyone said last time but then they evicted us and now all I care about is them not getting what they want.


All I care about is a long term secure future for our Club. I believe that can only realistically happen if we get a new stadium on the site of our former home next door on Greendale.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 23, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> All I care about is a long term secure future for our Club. I believe that can only realistically happen if we get a new stadium on Tge site of our former home next door on Greendale.



I know. I will feel bad for you if you get a new stadium and Meadow have built one not fit for purpose. 

Luckily neither you or I have to take responsibility for the consequences.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 23, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> All I care about is a long term secure future for our Club. I believe that can only realistically happen if we get a new stadium on Tge site of our former home next door on Greendale.



Meadow could sell to someone that wants to knock down and rebuild on the same area.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Meadow could sell to someone that wants to knock down and rebuild on the same area.


if they wanted to do that they would have done so by now.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> I know. I will feel bad for you if you get a new stadium and Meadow have built one not fit for purpose.
> 
> Luckily neither you or I have to take responsibility for the consequences.


Don’t feel bad for me, the current ground isn’t fit for purpose, it will be very difficult to get anything worse, or less sustainable than we already have...


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 23, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Don’t feel bad for me, the current ground isn’t fit for purpose, it will be very difficult to get anything worse, or less sustainable than we already have...



I will feel bad for you if that proves to be incorrect. 

Nothing like cheap 4g that needs replacing at cost to the club. Insufficient capacity. Or lack of cover or seats. 

But we will see....


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 23, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> if they wanted to do that they would have done so by now.



Why? They can’t change their mind or hold out for a better price. 

I don’t care what they do anyway. Provided they never make any money out of their development of the Champion Hill site.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 23, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi 

Will you acknowledge that you supported the Meadow development of the site last time and that their development intentions resulted in us getting evicted last time?


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jan 23, 2019)

I'm 45, Meadow actually made me cry! they need to give us something fucking amazing or they can shove it where the sun don't shine (and I don't mean Tooting)


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Dulwich Mishi
> 
> Will you acknowledge that you supported the Meadow development of the site last time and that their development intentions resulted in us getting evicted last time?


You've massively over simplified that. The situation now is not as it was, and it was not their development intentions that led to us being evicted, but the refusal of their intentions.

That said, I cannot see myself supporting, as I did do the last time, this proposal.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 23, 2019)

Lucy Fur said:


> You've massively over simplified that. The situation now is not as it was, and it was not their development intentions that led to us being evicted, but the refusal of their intentions.
> 
> That said, I cannot see myself supporting, as I did do the last time, this proposal.



I’ve actually simplified it even more. They screwed me. I want them dead.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> I’ve actually simplified it even more. They screwed me. I want them dead.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> I will feel bad for you if that proves to be incorrect.
> 
> Nothing like cheap 4g that needs replacing at cost to the club. Insufficient capacity. Or lack of cover or seats.
> 
> But we will see....


‘Cheap 4G’ The top grade pitches are quality surfaces that allow local facilities to be in used all week, all year round, provide genuine community focus for a club, and are also a great revenue stream. I have seen plenty of games on the best local non league surfaces at the likes of Bromley, Sutton United & Carshalton Athletic and firmly believe they are part of the sustainable future for clubs such as ours. The only problem arises is when money put aside for refurbishment is spent elsewhere, as is what happened at support owned Merthyr Town, causing their meltdown last season. With regard to lack of cover, we hardly have much anyway, the most important part for me is getting a ground similar to what we have at the very least, & I have faith in our current directors to work for a new ground that will match & improve what we currently have on land where we will have more long term protection with the Council becoming our landlords.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Why? They can’t change their mind or hold out for a better price.
> 
> I don’t care what they do anyway. Provided they never make any money out of their development of the Champion Hill site.


But even if they sell it off to a developer that will be more favourable to you they will still have made money regardless, so your hope of them not making money is simply not going to happen.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Dulwich Mishi
> 
> Will you acknowledge that you supported the Meadow development of the site last time and that their development intentions resulted in us getting evicted last time?


To be honest I will treat your usual poor attempt to put words in my mouth with the contempt it deserves and politely tell you to stop spouting such nonsense...


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 23, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> ‘Cheap 4G’ The top grade pitches are quality surfaces that allow local facilities to be in used all week, all year round, provide genuine community focus for a club, and are also a great revenue stream. I have seen plenty of games on the best local non league surfaces at the likes of Bromley, Sutton United & Carshalton Athletic and firmly believe they are part of the sustainable future for clubs such as ours. The only problem arises is when money put aside for refurbishment is spent elsewhere, as is what happened at support owned Merthyr Town, causing their meltdown last season. With regard to lack of cover, we hardly have much anyway, the most important part for me is getting a ground similar to what we have at the very least, & I have faith in our current directors to work for a new ground that will match & improve what we currently have on land where we will have more long term protection with the Council becoming our landlords.



I don’t trust the council to be our landlords either and I didn’t like Whytleafe’s 4g. 

I’m sure Meadow will give us the best of everything,  they after all are 100 percent reliable.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 23, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> To be honest I will treat your usual poor attempt to put words in my mouth with the contempt it deserves and politely tell you to stop spouting such nonsense...



Words in your mouth? Did you support the development last time and did we get evicted?

If you want to argue for this development why don’t you acknowledge what happened last time. 

I supported Meadow in their redevelopment plans and they evicted us. 

Never again!


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 23, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> But even if they sell it off to a developer that will be more favourable to you they will still have made money regardless, so your hope of them not making money is simply not going to happen.



The land might lose money and they might go out of business if their funding is pulled. 

But if they make money and I get a decent stadium. I will just have to cope. I’m sure I can still wish them ill.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> The land might lose money and they might go out of business if their funding is pulled.
> 
> But if they make money and I get a decent stadium. I will just have to cope. I’m sure I can still wish them ill.


To be honest your views are yours, mine are mine... we’re clearly not going to agree on everything related to this. Please continue to post on here all day, it’s a day off work today, annual leave, & whilst I may not have much better to do, I have no real desire to go round in circles batting messages back and forth with you on here all day. Happy to chat in person at the next game we’re both at, regardless of when that is... & I hope you attend the meeting at the ground next Monday. I certainly want to find out more, I hope you do too. As for wanting people dead... I bet my list’s far longer than yours, and that- if our Football Club were to ever die- at least I’d have the bollocks to make it a reality... would you?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 23, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> To be honest your views are yours, mine are mine... we’re clearly not going to agree on everything related to this. Please continue to post on here all day, it’s a day off work today, annual leave, & whilst I may not have much better to do, I have no real desire to go round in circles batting messages back and forth with you on here all day. Happy to chat in person at the next game we’re both at, regardless of when that is... & I hope you attend the meeting at the ground next Monday. I certainly want to find out more, I hope you do too. As for wanting people dead... I bet my list’s far longer than yours, and that- if our Football Club were to ever die- at least I’d have the bollocks to make it a reality... would you?



Have a nice day. No one has more to lose than you when it comes to the club.


----------



## blueheaven (Jan 23, 2019)

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but is it not the case Meadow can't offer us a decent, fit-for-purpose stadium even if they want to, because anything that involves built-up or roofed terracing will be unacceptable on MoL so they'll have even less chance of getting planning permission than the slim chance they have currently?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2019)

blueheaven said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but is it not the case Meadow can't offer us a decent, fit-for-purpose stadium even if they want to, because anything that involves built-up or roofed terracing will be unacceptable on MoL so they'll have even less chance of getting planning permission than the slim chance they have currently?


That's my understanding. Also, the available strip of land around a pitch on the MoL is so narrow, you'd never be able to increase capacity.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2019)

There's no way I'm going to back this shit ground. But then I didn't back the last one either. 

I'm extremely confident that if this shitty scheme goes ahead, the ground will end up even worse than what's been proposed because reneging on their promises is what developers always do.

Never. Trust. A. Property. Developer.


----------



## YTC (Jan 23, 2019)

Come along on Monday, and we'll be able to openly discuss this, and everything else going on at the club, in detail.


----------



## StephenMac (Jan 23, 2019)

YTC said:


> Come along on Monday, and we'll be able to openly discuss this, and everything else going on at the club, in detail.


Fingers crossed attendees actually enter into the spirit of it rather than the usual Urban grandstanding.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2019)

StephenMac said:


> Fingers crossed attendees actually enter into the spirit of it rather than the usual Urban grandstanding.


Could you define this mysterious "spirit"?

I'll go along to the drop in meeting - like I've done so many times before to see proposed new developments - with as much of an open mind as I can muster.

However, whatever I see and hear will quite rightly be tempered by all my previous experiences of going along to such meetings, and also how Meadow have acted in the past. It would be foolish not to show extreme caution and suspicion. After all, it wasn't that long ago they did all they could to put us out of business forever.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jan 23, 2019)

I'm still cynical about Meadow delivering what we need (at least without a lot more pressure being applied upon them to do so), but I trust the directors and other people within the club who have guided us through the period since Meadow ceased covering our overheads to where we are now.


----------



## StephenMac (Jan 23, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> I'm still cynical about Meadow delivering what we need (at least without a lot more pressure being applied upon them to do so), but I trust the directors and other people within the club who have guided us through the period since Meadow ceased covering our overheads to where we are now.


Exactly.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Jan 24, 2019)

editor said:


> There's no way I'm going to back this shit ground.





editor said:


> I'll go along to the drop in meeting... with as much of an open mind as I can muster.



So not an open mind then?


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2019)

Cyclodunc said:


> So not an open mind then?


My mind is open that the final design won't be as fucking shit and as completely unsuitable for the club as the initial illustrations reveal. 

Perhaps you like what you've seen so far?


----------



## Cyclodunc (Jan 24, 2019)

Not particularly. Why would you think I did?


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2019)

Cyclodunc said:


> Not particularly. Why would you think I did?


Just a question. Relax.


----------



## Son of Roy (Jan 24, 2019)

So should we start to list the questions for the directors to answer at the public meeting here? There will be agreements about the lease of the ground and the use of the clubhouse that the directors can explain. There are also likely to be questions about the Meadow planning application and proposed new stadium that cannot be answered. I am sceptical that our directors know what Meadow are really up to!
Speaking personally if someone tries fuck me over they never get chance to do it again! I realise in this situation we have to work with them.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jan 24, 2019)

editor said:


> My mind is open that the final design won't be as fucking shit and as completely unsuitable for the club as the initial illustrations reveal.


If that's the case I trust the Club won't back it, hopefully neither will the Council, then Meadow will have to do better.


Son of Roy said:


> So should we start to list the questions for the directors to answer at the public meeting here?


I'd say just ask them at the meeting. This has a long way to run yet.


----------



## Al Crane (Jan 24, 2019)

On the subject of Q&A’s, Oliver Ash (Maidstone) has provided some insightful info on life in the National League below:

replies to questions, comments and fake news about Maidstone Utd and the business of football – Oliver N J Ash


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2019)

Al Crane said:


> On the subject of Q&A’s, Oliver Ash (Maidstone) has provided some insightful info on life in the National League below:
> 
> replies to questions, comments and fake news about Maidstone Utd and the business of football – Oliver N J Ash


Really good read that.


----------



## liamdhfc (Jan 24, 2019)

Son of Roy said:


> So should we start to list the questions for the directors to answer at the public meeting here? There will be agreements about the lease of the ground and the use of the clubhouse that the directors can explain. There are also likely to be questions about the Meadow planning application and proposed new stadium that cannot be answered. I am sceptical that our directors know what Meadow are really up to!
> Speaking personally if someone tries fuck me over they never get chance to do it again! I realise in this situation we have to work with them.



I think you'll find that the Directors are very aware of Meadow and their plans but you can make your own mind up when you get a chance to ask questions on Monday


----------



## Paula_G (Jan 24, 2019)

Wonder if someone could clear up where it states that the ends cannot be covered as from what I read these will be protected by solid barriers as only the Western Wall will have openable shuttering. Don’t see we can put in two tier terracing behind the goals as our old friends at Union Royale Namur did?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 24, 2019)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> View attachment 159802 Wonder if someone could clear up where it states that the ends cannot be covered as from what I read these will be protected by solid barriers as only the Western Wall will have openable shuttering. Don’t see we can put in two tier terracing behind the goals as our old friends at Union Royale Namur did?


I think maybe you, or someone else, could ask/ find out more on Monday.


----------



## Paula_G (Jan 25, 2019)

Be great if someone could as I’m working on Monday evening, thanks. On that wonder if DHFC has considered a live stream of the meeting or perhaps a DHFCTV recording for later viewing?


----------



## billbond (Jan 28, 2019)

editor said:


> There's no way I'm going to back this shit ground. But then I didn't back the last one either.
> 
> I'm extremely confident that if this shitty scheme goes ahead, the ground will end up even worse than what's been proposed because reneging on their promises is what developers always do.
> 
> Never. Trust. A. Property. Developer.



This
How i feel, not to be trusted
All they are interested in is pound notes and the more the better
The club officials need to tread very carefully

Nothing about this meeting on the official DH Twitter


----------



## blueheaven (Jan 28, 2019)

Are there likely to be any publicly-available minutes from tonight's meeting, for those who can't make it?


----------



## YTC (Jan 28, 2019)

billbond said:


> This
> How i feel, not to be trusted
> All they are interested in is pound notes and the more the better
> The club officials need to tread very carefully
> ...



There is:


----------



## billbond (Jan 28, 2019)

YTC said:


> There is:




Yeah sorry my mistake
Just rung a chap at the club(lovely guy on the phone) and he put me right
still at least its up on here as well now


----------



## YTC (Jan 28, 2019)

That would be Dave, billbond - he is indeed a lovely chap.

Just to be clear though, it was on here too. As soon as we announced it.



YTC said:


> Incase anyone wants to come and hear from us about this and a lot of other stuff in and around the club, come say hello!


----------



## Matt The Cab (Jan 28, 2019)

billbond said:


> This
> How i feel, not to be trusted
> All they are interested in is pound notes and the more the better
> The club officials need to tread very carefully
> ...



That

Is how easily we can be seen to be a split fan base... a statement of supposed fact rather than a question.


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2019)

I can't make it tonight but does anyone fancy writing up something I can share on Buzz so everyone can be kept up to date?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 28, 2019)

blueheaven said:


> Are there likely to be any publicly-available minutes from tonight's meeting, for those who can't make it?


I doubt it’s that formal a meeting... only if someone takes them I would have thought.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 28, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> It Theresa May a consultant for Meadow? This doesn't look  like a new plan, B it's plan A again but louder!
> Hope when we get full details it's better but from the little bits so far looks like a disaster waiting to happen.


More to the point...is Kevin Rye?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jan 28, 2019)

Just curious...who is on the 'top table' tonight?


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> More to the point...is Kevin Rye?


What a puffed-up pointless twat he was.


----------



## billbond (Jan 29, 2019)

YTC said:


> That would be Dave, billbond - he is indeed a lovely chap.
> 
> Just to be clear though, it was on here too. As soon as we announced it.



Yes My mistake, never looked properly 
Ref to Dave seemed the sort of chap you want at a club
Good communicator, patient and interested in what you have to say
Like many on here


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 1, 2019)

Anyone else going to Champion Hill today to see Meadows plans?


----------



## blueheaven (Feb 6, 2019)

Bit of info on the new ground proposal here: New flats on Dulwich Hamlet’s Champion Hill ground would be eight storeys high

Anyone who went to the presentation at the ground have any thoughts?

Personally I think they have zero chance of getting planning permission for any of this stuff, but wasn't there for the Meadow side of things.

Proposal info is here: Champion Hill - Exhibition
The newspaper report also mentions there being a consultation form to fill in, but I couldn't see that anywhere on the site or PDF.


----------



## pettyboy (Feb 6, 2019)

blueheaven said:


> Personally I think they have zero chance of getting planning permission for any of this stuff, but wasn't there for the Meadow side of things.



What makes you think that?


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 6, 2019)

blueheaven said:


> Bit of info on the new ground proposal here: New flats on Dulwich Hamlet’s Champion Hill ground would be eight storeys high
> 
> Anyone who went to the presentation at the ground have any thoughts?
> 
> ...





pettyboy said:


> What makes you think that?


I live in a modern 8 storey block of flats ( on the 2nd storey), there are several similar blocks in close proximity as well as a viaduct carrying every train in and out of London Bridge about 30 yards from my bedroom window. I moved in a couple of months ago and I love it. Right now I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. 

"Campaigning residents" demanding that blocks be 3 storeys or less are basically nimbys. They live in Zone 2, they're either social housing tenants (like myself) getting a home in a prime location for a relatively cheap rent, or they're homeowners sitting on a property they could sell for a small fortune. I'll bet most of them aren't born and bred locals. They're like immigrants who vote UKIP, they've got their piece of Little England and now they want to pull up the drawbridge before everyone else can join them. The site is to the north of the nearest other housing so any new development won't block any direct sunlight, and it's well below the level of the properties higher up Dog Kennel Hill.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 6, 2019)

I'd have thought the issue isn't so much the increased height as the fact that (again) they're proposing to build on Greendales which as we all know is MOL, and that (again) they're trying to suggest a new ground can be built entirely on the existing pitches which it obviously can't be. Without wanting to sound too much like a broken record it still looks essentially the same, I still don't see the difference that's going to see this one get approved?


----------



## Al Crane (Feb 6, 2019)

The fact that no-one has fed back on here yet speaks volumes for the content of the exhibition in terms of the proposed football stadium. It was a box-ticking exercise so they can state in their planning documents that they held a public consultation.

Quite frankly, I find it pretty insulting and incredibly naive from Meadow to invite supporters to an exhibition and then have no detail on the stadium itself. They’ve clearly spent plenty of time designing the housing element of the scheme.

As to what little information was available on the stadium, there’s nothing that was illustrated or said verbally which suggests the stadium is as good as the one designed previously.


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 6, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I'd have thought the issue isn't so much the increased height as the fact that (again) they're proposing to build on Greendales which as we all know is MOL, and that (again) they're trying to suggest a new ground can be built entirely on the existing pitches which it obviously can't be. Without wanting to sound too much like a broken record it still looks essentially the same, I still don't see the difference that's going to see this one get approved?


I should have elaborated on that in my previous post. If anyone feels there shouldn't be any redevelopment of our current ground I respect that. (It's broadly my own view, I'm sure there must be more appropriate sites for new housing and you can't just build upon every open inner city space.) However the notion (as per the linked article) that a 3 storey housing development on that site is OK but not 8 storeys doesn't have much credibility with me.


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 6, 2019)

Al Crane said:


> The fact that no-one has fed back on here yet speaks volumes for the content of the exhibition in terms of the proposed football stadium. It was a box-ticking exercise so they can state in their planning documents that they held a public consultation.
> 
> Quite frankly, I find it pretty insulting and incredibly naive from Meadow to invite supporters to an exhibition and then have no detail on the stadium itself. They’ve clearly spent plenty of time designing the housing element of the scheme.
> 
> As to what little information was available on the stadium, there’s nothing that was illustrated or said verbally which suggests the stadium is as good as the one designed previously.


I didn't attend the exhibition. It wasn't open at convenient times: a 4 hour window on Friday evening, then 3 hours on Saturday lunchtime when Hamlet were playing away. 

I'm still very cynical about Meadow, I just want a lasting solution for our club. I was very impressed by Ben Clasper's comments at the Supporters' Forum last week, his powers of tact and diplomacy in getting us back home are way beyond anything I could have achieved and have convinced me to warily trust Meadow by proxy for the short term at least.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 6, 2019)

JAT Until the day they show me detailed plans of a sustainable ground that is suitable for the clubs needs Meadow can go fuck themselves


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 6, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> JAT Until the day they show me detailed plans of a sustainable ground that is suitable for the clubs needs Meadow can go fuck themselves


That's not going to happen, therefore the club won't get a sustainable new ground. 

From attending the Supporters/Directors forum last week, the current ground needs to be substantially rebuilt for the long term and a redevelopment similar to the Meadow proposals appears to be the best chance of this. And at the end of the day Meadow own the ground, so telling them to go forth and multiply isn't a helpful long term solution.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 6, 2019)

Why can't they show us plans once they have them? 
I did attend last week and fully understand the need for a new ground but I'm not going to blindly support something again from Meadow.
I'm happy to support this development IF the ground is sustainable and IF it meets our need and size.
Until I see a plan of how that is happening then it's a no from me.


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 6, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> Why can't they show us plans once they have them?
> I did attend last week and fully understand the need for a new ground but I'm not going to blindly support something again from Meadow.
> I'm happy to support this development IF the ground is sustainable and IF it meets our need and size.
> Until I see a plan of how that is happening then it's a no from me.


There aren't any detailed plans yet. It was more or less explained at last week's supporters meeting that the way forward is to propose the most basic ground and take it from there.


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> There aren't any detailed plans yet. It was more or less explained at last week's supporters meeting that the way forward is to propose the most basic ground and take it from there.


I think the impression they gave from their invite was that there would be something substantial for fans to see.


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 6, 2019)

editor said:


> I think the impression they gave from their invite was that there would be something substantial for fans to see.


That wasn't the impression I got, so I didn't bother to attend. It just looked like a vague rehash of the previous proposals to me.


----------



## JoeBoy1959 (Feb 6, 2019)

From what I saw of the illustrations, it seems the area around the pitch for standing is very shallow - more shallow than today. There's no parking either. I hope Southwark reject it as is and hope Meadow don't take it out on us agsin


----------



## JTee (Feb 6, 2019)

The new proposals for the ground are essentially the same, if not worse, than the current ground. Turned 90 degrees and moved over onto the Astro pitch. 

The last application was this. It offered nothing extra than the current ground already provides. 

The current proposals, even if little detail has been shared, appear to be the same. Unambitious and, critically, limiting for the club. 

I don’t know enough to comment on the financial positives or implications for DHFC. But the physical proposals for the club are not good enough to support.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Feb 6, 2019)

Have the actual proposals been made public yet? As far as I’m aware, they haven’t. I may be wrong.


----------



## pompeydunc (Feb 7, 2019)

There were no plans at the "consultation" - just an artists impression of the ground.  There were no details on layout of the main stand, which was particularly disappointing. Their proposed timeline to have planning approval by summer seems very optimistic.

I would like to hear from the Club and Meadow on what the next steps are for the ground design, i.e. how they will consult with supporters to develop them. The club's badge is on the plans as a partner. It's not clear whether this means the club is backing them from outset? I guess this is a grey area, and support could be withdrawn at anytime.

I would hope the trust / supporters reserve our position, till we have far greater clarity on what is now being proposed, i.e. how it will be financed, who owns the ground after construction, what our long-term security of tenure is on the land and whether the FA confirms the plans would be Grade A compliant. Backing what's on the table currently is illogical, as there are no plans to back!

Other issues of note:
- Previous plans had small covered ends. There is now confusion as to whether these will be included.
- The stadium consultant said fences around ground will be rolled down on non-matchdays to preserve "the openess of the sight" - a fop to MOL and Friends of Greendale? Thus stadium would be prone to trespass and vandalism.
- The training MUGA has been moved from a separate ground-level space in Hadley's plans to behind seating in mainstand or on the roof. Thus reducing potential internal space.
- There are no dimensions, but the artworks gives impression of smaller bar than now...previous plans was for a bigger one than currently exists.
- IIRC previous submitted plans included Meadow delivering 4G pitch, insuring and maintaining for 10 years (part of section 106 agreement). That's now on the club (learnt at forum), and funding applications from Football Foundation will be submitted, but this tends to be 60/70% of funding. I don't now how we will raise other portion - perhaps a bond issue would work? I trust Ben will have a plan.
- The sight is not level, and to deliver the steeped terracing to have capacity of 4000, then will need to dig down. Not clear how this will be managed regarding need to deliver new pitch in 2019 to satisfy lease with Council, and longer-term stadium plans. Hopefully we will learn more on this imminently.

Overall, I am surprised the original plans for the ground have been thrown in the bin and Meadow have started again. I didn't expect this, so we are back to 2014!


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Feb 7, 2019)

Here's a link to pdfs of the boards shown at the exhibition:
http://www.championhillproposals.co...9/02/Meadow-Dulwich-Exhibition-boards-web.pdf


----------



## blueheaven (Feb 7, 2019)

pettyboy said:


> What makes you think that?



I'm by no means an expert on planning applications, so it's purely my own inclination. But it's based on:
- Housing that is 8-storeys high is bound to attract increased public opposition.
- They still want to use Greendale/MOL - land that is not actually their's.
- The stadium they're proposing appears to be rubbish.
- The fact that they're Meadow, and don't appear to be very good at these things, but do seem to be excellent at falling out with the people who you'd think they'd want to have on-side.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 7, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> There aren't any detailed plans yet. It was more or less explained at last week's supporters meeting that the way forward is to propose the most basic ground and take it from there.



I don't think anyone is going to get away with proposing a Sunday league stadium, get planning approval and then build the San Siro on Greendale!.
I'm glad the club has now got a working relationship with Meadow and agree it is probably the best way forward in the short term to co-operate with them (to a degree), and what Tom and Ben have achieved so far is nothing short of miraculous and I love and respect them for it.
However as supporters we need to see much much more before I support a Meadow plan or forgive them for the hell they have put us through the last year.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Feb 7, 2019)

I'm reminded of the Streatham Hub fiasco. Developer says there will be continuity of leisure facilities, developer gets permission for flats and supermarket, Developer then tries to build flats, superstore first and tries to get out of providing leisure facilities. Admittedly that's a very crude history of what happened, but theres a brief history here:
A "short" history of the Streatham Hub development | Streatham Action

Note how long these things can end up dragging on!

In short, I see the proposals for the stadium, it's not specific enough to judge as it looks smaller yet promises to be bigger, and I note the promises that the stadium will be first phase. I don't believe it, and I think they will pull any trick down the line to get out of it.

Meadows = Developers = Shits


----------



## pettyboy (Feb 8, 2019)

Update from JBP:


----------



## Cyclodunc (Feb 8, 2019)

pettyboy said:


> JBP



I prefer Jack British-Petroleum too.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2019)

pettyboy said:


> Update from JBP:



You just know these wankers are going to get what they want and we'll end up with a shit stadium that leaves no room for growth that we'll eventually have leave for one reason or another.


----------



## pompeydunc (Feb 8, 2019)

editor said:


> You just know these wankers are going to get what they want and we'll end up with a shit stadium that leaves no room for growth that we'll eventually have leave for one reason or another.



No, we don't know that, and we don't know the opposite either. I would like to know:
- if/when we will have a proper consultation on more informed plans;
- how these plans are linked to the club's requirement to upgrade the astro by end of 2019 as per current lease with Council; and
- what the legal/ownership/lease structure will be for the club and land will be post-development.

It's all rather confusing at the moment...


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2019)

pompeydunc said:


> No, we don't know that, and we don't know the opposite either.


That's my belief based on years and years of encounters with developers. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong and my cynicism unfounded.


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 8, 2019)

The club appears to be in a better and stronger position than at this time last year, so I shall continue to trust our directors to act in the club's best interests and advise the rest of us when there's anything else we can do to help secure the club's future.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> The club appears to be in a better and stronger position than at this time last year, so I shall continue to trust our directors to act in the club's best interests and advise the rest of us when there's anything else we can do to help secure the club's future.


I trust them too, but developers will be developers and they're the ones holding the almighty wad.


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 8, 2019)

editor said:


> I trust them too, but developers will be developers and they're the ones holding the almighty wad.


Yes, but that's always been the case, and they now know they'll be in for a hell of a battle if they try to stitch us up again. I don't see the point in a fresh round of ranting and raving about it right now when - on the whole - the club's situation has improved over the past twelve months. 

It was made fairly clear at last week's supporters meeting that the latest Meadow publicity material included an *architect's impression* of the proposed new ground, and that there would be opportunity for the club to have input in any final design, yet people seem to be completely ignoring that and banging on about how inadequate it looks.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> Yes, but that's always been the case, and they now know they'll be in for a hell of a battle if they try to stitch us up again. I don't see the point in a fresh round of ranting and raving about it right now when - on the whole - the club's situation has improved over the past twelve months.
> 
> It was made fairly clear at last week's supporters meeting that the latest Meadow publicity material included an *architect's impression* of the proposed new ground, and that there would be opportunity for the club to have input in any final design, yet people seem to be completely ignoring that and banging on about how inadequate it looks.


I didn't realise I was "ranting and raving." I was just expressing an opinion as to the likely outcome of their proposals.


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 8, 2019)

editor said:


> I didn't realise I was "ranting and raving." I was just expressing an opinion as to the likely outcome of their proposals.


I wasn't referring to you personally, but it's barely ten days since the supporters-directors meeting which (the consensus seemed to be) was very positive and encouraging under the circumstances, and now following the Meadow event this thread has suddenly restarted with a lot of generally negative and sceptical comments that pay little heed to what was said by Ben Clasper and Tom Cullen.

I'm not naive enough to think Meadow are suddenly our friends and won't put their own interests ahead of ours if push comes to shove, but I'm not sure their exhibition last weekend has a huge significance in the overall scheme of things. I worked in construction in an admin role for five years, those architect's impressions very much represent the preliminary stage, that's not even close to what will need to be submitted before anything is formally considered for approval. It looks like little more than a testing the water exercise to gauge the level of opposition from the local community.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Feb 28, 2019)

Publicly this has gone quite, anyone know when we might here the next instalment?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Feb 28, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> Publicly this has gone quite, anyone know when we might here the next instalment?


As always with these sort of things it will appear nothing is going on but there will be lots of discussion in the background. Basically, as fans we will have to sit and wait until the actual planning application is submitted whenever that may be.


----------



## Al Crane (Feb 28, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> As always with these sort of things it will appear nothing is going on but there will be lots of discussion in the background. Basically, as fans we will have to sit and wait until the actual planning application is submitted whenever that may be.



I hope there's lots of discussion going on in the background between Meadow and the Club but until I see some evidence of that I remain doubtful.

Why do we have to wait until the planning application is submitted? That's completely the wrong way to go about trying to get people onside with the scheme. Except to those who will blindly support or object to anything they're given of course.

Why aren't Meadow proactively trying to engage the Club's supporters to provide a stadium which is fit for purpose and meets our growing needs? It's almost as if they don't give a toss...


----------



## Latahs (Feb 28, 2019)

Maybe there'll be an update planned for this weeks programme. It's been a couple of weeks since we last had a home game.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Mar 12, 2019)

More weeks pass and still absolutely no news, not even a rumour  Do Meadow have the same advisers at Theresa May? Kick that can down the road baby!


----------



## Matt The Cab (Mar 13, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> More weeks pass and still absolutely no news, *not even a rumour*



Start one


----------



## Lucy Fur (Mar 13, 2019)

Matt The Cab said:


> Start one


Peter Benison likes to urinate on small mammals.


----------



## sankara (Mar 13, 2019)

Lucy Fur said:


> Peter Benison likes to be urinated on  by small mammals.


FTFY


----------



## G Man (Mar 17, 2019)

Matt The Cab said:


> Start one



Erhun Oztumer came from Turkey to bring us joy.


----------



## Al Crane (Mar 19, 2019)

Meadow's website for the new stadium proposals is suspended...possibly just a domain renewal issue or perhaps something else.

Suspended website | This website has been suspended


----------



## iamwithnail (Mar 19, 2019)

Something else, WhoIs says it's renewed til May 2020


----------



## Pink Panther (Mar 19, 2019)

No news is good news!


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2019)

Al Crane said:


> Meadow's website for the new stadium proposals is suspended...possibly just a domain renewal issue or perhaps something else.
> 
> Suspended website | This website has been suspended


Fucking amateurs.


----------



## MrFouldsy (Apr 1, 2019)

Revised proposals and meeting

Note

1. PYRO! 

2. Doesn't appear to be any stand behind goal / meaningful terracing (but these are only illustrations)


----------



## Crispy (Apr 1, 2019)

If it's the same footprint as last time, substantial goal end terracing is impossible. The site is just barely larger than a pitch.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2019)

It looks shit and totally unsuitable for a club with such huge - and fast growing - attendances.


----------



## bkbk (Apr 1, 2019)

Our defence is all over the place there so you certainly cant fault their realism.


----------



## Pink Panther (Apr 1, 2019)

bkbk said:


> Our defence is all over the place there so you certainly cant fault their realism.


Looks like Billericay are groundsharing with us as they're in their home kit and we're in all pink. It also appears that both sides are kicking the same way.


----------



## Son of Roy (Apr 1, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> Looks like Billericay are groundsharing with us as they're in their home kit and we're in all pink. It also appears that both sides are kicking the same way.



That is because there is only half a pitch and only one goal. Using a neutral goal keeper both teams have to try and score in the same goal. Headers and volleys only. It's just been agreed by the National league to help clubs reduce costs. You don't need your own goal keeper anymore (sorry Preston) and clubs that ground share can put a fence along the half way line. Well it is April 1st!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 1, 2019)

Crispy said:


> If it's the same footprint as last time, substantial goal end terracing is impossible. The site is just barely larger than a pitch.



It looks suspiciously like it's been designed by T.May Architects doesn't it. Turned down...just try again.


----------



## Cat Daisy (Apr 1, 2019)

So does it now meet the National League requirement of having potential to accommodate 5000 (& the more immediate requirement of more than 3000) along with better lines of sight, cover, seating, etc?


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 2, 2019)

I know its one illustration BUT the ground looks worse every time I see a new version


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2019)

Cat Daisy said:


> So does it now meet the National League requirement of having potential to accommodate 5000 (& the more immediate requirement of more than 3000) along with better lines of sight, cover, seating, etc?


I think it would be a lovely ground for a modestly supported team three of four divisions below. But it's a bag o'shite for us. Too small, with nowhere near enough terracing and covered areas to give fans a decent day out, and fuck all room to grow.


----------



## pompeydunc (Apr 3, 2019)

editor said:


> I think it would be a lovely ground for a modestly supported team three of four divisions below. But it's a bag o'shite for us. Too small, with nowhere near enough terracing and covered areas to give fans a decent day out, and fuck all room to grow.



Where are these designs that you have seen?  I can't see any yet...


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2019)

pompeydunc said:


> Where are these designs that you have seen?  I can't see any yet...


I must have dreamt the whole thing and the amazing designs with four covered stands around the 7,000 capacity ground are coming right up.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Apr 3, 2019)

They're just ticking boxes aren't they, 

"We've reached out to the local community twice and given them ample opportunity to inform us of what works best for all parties...blah blah bloody blah."

Its arse.


----------



## Cat Daisy (Apr 3, 2019)

Lucy Fur said:


> They're just ticking boxes aren't they,
> 
> "We've reached out to the local community twice and given them ample opportunity to inform us of what works best for all parties...blah blah bloody blah."
> 
> Its arse.



So where is our "shopping list" so we can demonstrate how far apart the two visions are?


----------



## pompeydunc (Apr 3, 2019)

Cat Daisy said:


> So where is our "shopping list" so we can demonstrate how far apart the two visions are?



DHST did a consultation on the first plans in 2014. Paperwork below. I sent this to the specified email address after the latest consultation, and to the stadium consultant that was present. I didn't get a response - not that I was necessarily expecting one. I hope some of these issues have been picked up though, and we will see some proper flesh on the bones shortly. I won't hold my breath, but equally won't be damning a stadium when the actual designs are not public yet.

http://dhst.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/140901-response-to-Hadley-consultation.pdf

http://dhst.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/140829-Annex-A-word-cloud.pdf

http://dhst.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/140829-Annex-B-further-comments.pdf


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2019)

pompeydunc said:


> I won't hold my breath, but equally won't be damning a stadium when the actual designs are not public yet.


Good luck with stance. Because_ developers._


----------



## Pink Panther (Apr 4, 2019)

Cat Daisy said:


> So where is our "shopping list" so we can demonstrate how far apart the two visions are?


I would suggest minimum Football League standard, or at the very least minimum National Division standard with potential to be easily upgraded to the former. We had 3,300 for last year's promotion play-off final at Tooting; had that match been played in Dulwich at a ground big/good enough you could have added another 1,000 to that figure. We're already pulling 3,000+ for bog standard league matches against the likes of Bath and Billericay while we're at the wrong end of the table. That could easily be 4,000+ in the near future if we're playing a relatively local club with big travelling support and both teams are pushing for promotion. Even if we never reach the Football League I believe we *need* that level of capacity.

We need 1,000 seats, proper terraces, more cover for a start. Meadow will offer us as little as they can, because they're ruthless capitalists and anything more will erode their end profit. Our club (led by the directors, backed by the club committee, supporters trust and everyone else) will need to play tough and push hard to get what we need.

It's hard to see how we can get this if the new ground is at right angles to the current one, given the MOL issue. It would need the new ground to have the same east-west alignment as the current one (a possibility that was floated by the directors at the supporters' forum at the end of January) effectively shuntiing the ground around 70 yards to the west, overlapping around one third of the current pitch. Of course this would mean Meadow having to accept a smaller housing development and a less massive profit.


----------



## Matt The Cab (Apr 4, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> Of course this would mean Meadow having to accept a smaller housing development and *a less massive profit*.



Extremely telling. On any development they’ll make huge profits, they just want more while seemingly being perceived as a community caring business.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 4, 2019)

Matt The Cab said:


> Extremely telling. On any development they’ll make huge profits, they just want more while seemingly being perceived as a community caring business.



I don't think they give a fuck about being perceived as a community caring business tbh. They'll cough up what they have to and nothing more - it's all about leverage really.


----------



## Cat Daisy (Apr 4, 2019)

pompeydunc said:


> DHST did a consultation on the first plans in 2014. Paperwork below. I sent this to the specified email address after the latest consultation, and to the stadium consultant that was present. I didn't get a response - not that I was necessarily expecting one. I hope some of these issues have been picked up though, and we will see some proper flesh on the bones shortly. I won't hold my breath, but equally won't be damning a stadium when the actual designs are not public yet.



Thanks for these. Don't imagine the principles will have changed much over time but maybe some of the Annex B scores will have gone up (espec around Detailed Design)



Pink Panther said:


> We're already pulling 3,000+ for bog standard league matches against the likes of Bath and Billericay while we're at the wrong end of the table. That could easily be 4,000+ in the near future if we're playing a relatively local club with big travelling support and both teams are pushing for promotion. Even if we never reach the Football League I believe we *need* that level of capacity.
> 
> We need 1,000 seats, proper terraces, more cover for a start.



Yeah, this sounds like the right stuff ... and we are getting numbers that exceed some league clubs already!


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 5, 2019)

With Meadow in charge we will only ever get something smaller in footprint and at best the same capacity as what we have now.
Anyone who thinks we will get a bigger or better ground than what we have now is sadly dreaming IMO.


----------



## Nivag (Apr 5, 2019)

It won't be fit for purpose of the same size or smaller.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 5, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> With Meadow in charge we will only ever get something smaller in footprint and at best the same capacity as what we have now.
> Anyone who thinks we will get a bigger or better ground than what we have now is sadly dreaming IMO.



Agreed, or at least they'll try and avoid it as much as possible. I think the question really has to be 'what will get them planning permission'? If they propose something with no chance then we need to worry about what happens next. If they propose something with a chance but not fit for purpose what do we do? Organise against?


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 5, 2019)

Exactly, it is feasible that they could put in a plan that meets all the planning requirements legally and is acceptable with the council but give us a small ground that is completely useless to us.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 11, 2019)

Did anyone go to the Meadow presentation yesterday or going today?

Champion Hill - Exhibition


----------



## Christian Burt (Apr 11, 2019)

They seem to have sneaked in Crystal Palace badges into the design??!


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> Did anyone go to the Meadow presentation yesterday or going today?
> 
> Champion Hill - Exhibition





The computer generated images look exactly the same (i.e. shit with no cover behind the goals) so is there any point?


----------



## crocustim (Apr 11, 2019)

editor said:


> View attachment 167317
> 
> The computer generated images look exactly the same (i.e. shit with no cover behind the goals) so is there any point?



This is because the majority ground will be shifted onto Metropolitan Open Land. MOL, like green belt, is treated like it is a landscape or ecological designation . It isn’t. And then you get stupid restrictions like not being able to cover the ends. Politicians’ fault IMHO.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2019)

crocustim said:


> This is because the majority ground will be shifted onto Metropolitan Open Land. MOL, like green belt, is treated like it is a landscape or ecological designation . It isn’t. And then you get stupid restrictions like not being able to cover the ends. Politicians’ fault IMHO.


Developers fault for coming up with such a fucking stupid proposal, surely?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 11, 2019)

crocustim said:


> And then you get stupid restrictions like not being able to cover the ends.



Or not being able to build football grounds at all.

Although I'm not sure I'd call that a stupid restriction tbh.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Apr 11, 2019)

Have you seen the amount of room they have left in the south east corner to get around the pitch!? Tiny dangerous bottle neck.
These designs are totally unacceptable to an Sunday league team let alone a National League South team.
Plus terrace only along about 2/3rds behind south end goal.


----------



## crocustim (Apr 11, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> Have you seen the amount of room they have left in the south east corner to get around the pitch!? Tiny dangerous bottle neck.
> These designs are totally unacceptable to an Sunday league team let alone a National League South team.
> Plus terrace only along about 2/3rds behind south end goal.



This is better in the new plans shown yesterday


----------



## crocustim (Apr 11, 2019)

editor said:


> Developers fault for coming up with such a fucking stupid proposal, surely?



Do you want to disagree with everything just because it is proposed by a developer?

I guess you expect them to just hand back the ground to us?


----------



## crocustim (Apr 11, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Or not being able to build football grounds at all.
> 
> Although I'm not sure I'd call that a stupid restriction tbh.



I think the way MOL and Green Belt is treated as sacrosanct and without flexibility is idiotic given the housing crisis. Much of the designation is out of date and needs reviewing.

The result is less appropriate development elsewhere.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Apr 11, 2019)

Boston United Community Stadium moves a step closer

seen a number of comments in press recently about steeper terracing providing better views and atmosphere


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2019)

crocustim said:


> Do you want to disagree with everything just because it is proposed by a developer?
> 
> I guess you expect them to just hand back the ground to us?


I think it's arrogant of them to assume they can just build their multi million, profit-scooping development on Metropolitan Open Land, so yes. I_t's entirely their fault._ In their quest for ever-bigger profits, this is the stupid plan they came up with.

Oh and the last thing driving this development along is their heartfelt desire to help out the 'housing crisis.'


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 11, 2019)

crocustim said:


> I think the way MOL and Green Belt is treated as sacrosanct and without flexibility is idiotic given the housing crisis. Much of the designation is out of date and needs reviewing.
> 
> The result is less appropriate development elsewhere.



Remove the barriers and the market will provide? Can't agree with that tbh - the answer to the housing crisis is social housing not allowing developers to stick up new flats wherever.


----------



## crocustim (Apr 11, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Remove the barriers and the market will provide? Can't agree with that tbh - the answer to the housing crisis is social housing not allowing developers to stick up new flats wherever.



No. I’m actually pro regulation. But it should be reviewed every now and then to make sure it is still correct- as in are the right areas Green Belt? Field A might be better for Green Belt and industrial yard B (which is next to a train station) better for development but because of a decision made 50 years ago the field gets developed. Also, all the regulations are going out the window in the city as a result in the rush for housing numbers. All the while the Tories in the Home Counties can live in their famous five novels and dream of the empire. The lack of sensible conversation on Green Belt protects the very wealthy and disadvantages the less well off.


----------



## pompeydunc (Apr 13, 2019)

I visited the exhibition last week, and spoke to Lee Goldberg (Development Manager, Meadow)  Thoughts:

- The main difference between Hadley's plans a few years back and now is that *Meadow do not have control of any land on Greendale*.  They only control Champion Hill land, where they own the freehold.  Hence, this consultation was largely about the redevelopment of Champion Hill land, which would include the new main stand and clubhouse, but excludes the three other stands.  *They have no right to submit a planning application for the land on Greendale, without the cooperation of DHFC*.  Therefore shouting at Meadow to deliver covered stands for the new stadium is pointless, as it's no longer in their gift to deliver this.

- I don't know, but expect, we will *hear from the club in due course on their latest plans for redeveloping the astroturf and providing three stands*.  The Meadow rep I spoke to thinks that cover on the two ends is possible, but not on the west side, as this would impact on the openness of the site.  The opportunity and risk for delivery of this part of the ground is seemingly entirely within our/DHFC's gift.  This means all this work will be self-funded, alongside grants from Football Foundation, FSIF, Sport England etc.  This is a major difference from Hadley's plans previously.

- Lee said that *Meadow are willing to provide DHFC a 125 year lease on the clubhouse, main stand* and associated land that falls on Champion Hill.

- From what I can tell, *the major risk is the short lease that DHFC has with Southwark Council on the astroturf on Greendale*.  This currently ends at the end of next season.  I understand this lease is connected to DHFC's lease with Meadow to occupy Champion Hill.

- From the information currently available, then *our support for the redevelopment of Champion Hill should only really come if there is a watertight agreement with Southwark Council to provide a 125 year lease (or similar) to DHFC to occupy the portion of Greendale* that is required to build the rest of the stadium.  I expect we will hear more from the club on this in due course.  A land deal on these two parts of land has always been the major crux of the redevelopment, and this was the issue the last plans largely fell down on.

- I'm less interested in the design issues of the stadium on either portion of land, until there is clarity on the lease issues.  For what it's worth though I understand the latest plans for the main stand, gym, bar, clubhouse etc. were only completed a couple of days before the exhibition, so they were not on display on a big panel.  They were available in a flipbook on side.  The clubhouse itself looks fine, but there needs to be access to the club shop from inside the ground rather than outside the ground (or ideally access from both sides).  I understand these plans have only just been sent to the club / DHST, so they have not had a chance to feedback.  I hope DHST takes advantage of Supporters Direct stadium architects to scrutinise these plans, alongside any plans from DHFC for the redevelopment of the astroturf and associated facilities.


----------



## Al Crane (Apr 13, 2019)

pompeydunc said:


> I visited the exhibition last week, and spoke to Lee Goldberg (Development Manager, Meadow)  Thoughts:
> 
> - I don't know, but expect, we will *hear from the club in due course on their latest plans for redeveloping the astroturf and providing three stands*.  The Meadow rep I spoke to thinks that cover on the two ends is possible, but not on the west side, as this would impact on the openness of the site.  The opportunity and risk for delivery of this part of the ground is seemingly entirely within our/DHFC's gift.  This means all this work will be self-funded, alongside grants from Football Foundation, FSIF, Sport England etc.  This is a major difference from Hadley's plans previously.



I don't agree with the Rep's view on roofs. I think a roof the whole way round like Dartford is perfectly possible without impacting on the openness of Greendale. Once you accept that the stadium needs a perimeter wall anyway of nearly 2m height then a roof which extends out towards the pitch at 90 degrees to the wall won't make much difference at all. The more you sink the pitch the less impact the stadium will have on the openness. 

As you've suggested, I think we need some clarity on who is responsible for developing what parts of the site, where funding comes from etc. If it's as you've suggested then clearly there needs to be a joined up approach so that they two are developed in tandem.


----------



## EDC (Apr 13, 2019)

2m high wall and the ground will be vandalised in minutes, surely 10ft is a minimum ?


----------



## Cyclodunc (Apr 13, 2019)

It’s really secure at the moment, of course


----------



## Pink Panther (Apr 13, 2019)

EDC said:


> 2m high wall and the ground will be vandalised in minutes, surely 10ft is a minimum ?


Electric fence?


----------



## EDC (Apr 14, 2019)

Yeah


----------



## Al Crane (Apr 14, 2019)

EDC said:


> 2m high wall and the ground will be vandalised in minutes, surely 10ft is a minimum ?



1.83m is technically the minimum requirement.


----------



## Gas head 5 (Apr 14, 2019)

Fingers said:


> Hi all. Plans for the vote on our new ground have been published.
> 
> Trust to poll members on ground redevelopment plans – Dulwich Hamlet Supporters' Trust
> 
> ...


Good Morning I am pleased to know that a new Ground is in the pipeline. For such a charismatic Club I feel the present ground is not fit for purpose, Blank Grey Walls with no colourful Murals / designs.!? Insufficient Seating . Footballs being lost every time someone kicks them out of touch. I think the Club/Fans need to focus on taking the Club forward into the League. Not just a cheap Social Drinking club. It is a Football club ! Or are you content with staying in the National League South? 
Sorry but my main team are Bristol Rovers & we are a passionate Football club. If we lose for many of us our heads go down for days so you can imagine how I feel. Yes Thank you I have enjoyed the whole "Kit & Caboodle going to see Dulwich whilst I continue to be exiled here in London. However I think you guys & Gals need to do A Lincoln ! With some of yr Players (Two Goals yesterday deserved more than a polite round of applause) Manager Astute classy Gavin Rose & of course most of the terrific support you get. I will shut up now, just to say I am deliberating which London team will be my bit on the side next season. Dulwich, Wealdstone or my local team Orient ?!. Kind Regards Alan.


----------



## EDC (Apr 14, 2019)

I’m a bit fond of Bristol Rovers too.


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2019)

Just putting this here:


----------



## Pink Panther (Apr 28, 2019)

editor said:


> Just putting this here:



I'd hardly call Greendales "unspoilt", it's a bloody wilderness. And it had one of our previous grounds on it.


----------



## barnsleydulwich (Jun 14, 2019)

Any news on the extra terracing/sheltered ends at the ground?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 15, 2019)

Do you mean the current ground or the proposed new one? If it’s the current one then this is the wrong thread. If it’s the proposed one ... no news yet, as far as I know.


----------



## iamwithnail (Jun 20, 2019)

New planning application is in - Clubs Planning Application Submitted For New Stadium - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club

Just seeing if i can southwark's powered-by-potato planning website to work.

ETA: Doesn't seem to be on the planning portal yet.


----------



## EDC (Jun 20, 2019)

Interesting wording, The club’s application and no mention of Meadow’s.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 20, 2019)

EDC said:


> Interesting wording, The club’s application and no mention of Meadow’s.



And the stadium only? So the flats/houses/whatever to be under a separate application?


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 20, 2019)

fear and excitement in equal measures!


----------



## Hamlet Pete (Jun 20, 2019)

Friend sent me pics from the Southwark News... It's got Meadow written all over it


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jun 20, 2019)

YTC is this a proposal you support?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 20, 2019)

Champion Hill - Proposal for new homes and a new Dulwich Hamlet FC stadium

Looks to be the site for the info then.

ETA: Still light on detail. The stadium to be outside the MOL along with 224 flats - it's not clear how that will fit though.


----------



## YTC (Jun 20, 2019)

Lucy Fur said:


> YTC is this a proposal you support?



100%, as quoted. This is OUR application, joint with Meadow. We've worked incredibly hard to take a lead on this, and here we are!


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2019)

YTC said:


> 100%, as quoted. This is OUR application, joint with Meadow. We've worked incredibly hard to take a lead on this, and here we are!


Where can we get a proper look at what the  proposed stadium is going to look like?


----------



## barnsleydulwich (Jun 20, 2019)

editor said:


> Where can we get a proper look at what the  proposed stadium is going to look like?


I'll second that. It's unclear at best what the actual stadium will look like. Surely some form of cover can be incorporated at each end and possibly side terrace as a minimum. Aren't these bastards going to make enough money!


----------



## Crispy (Jun 20, 2019)

editor said:


> Where can we get a proper look at what the proposed stadium is going to look like?



The detailed documents will show up here, once the planning department has validated the application:

_STHWR_PROPLPI_139494_1	 |															 DULWICH HAMLET FOOTBALL CLUB, DOG KENNEL HILL, LONDON, SE22 8BD



barnsleydulwich said:


> Surely some form of cover can be incorporated at each end and possibly side terrace as a minimum.



I strongly suspect that a roof on the North, South and West sides will not be included, as a sop to the "no development on MOL" rule.


----------



## MrFab_JP (Jun 20, 2019)

Will the ends be banked or tiered to allow a game to be watched? And covered?


----------



## YTC (Jun 20, 2019)

editor said:


> Where can we get a proper look at what the  proposed stadium is going to look like?



Designs within the application are in line with the feedback from fans and the council, these things can change as the process goes along but can confirm we'll have terraces all around the ground (the three sides that are not the main stand).


----------



## EDC (Jun 20, 2019)

And a Dortmund style pink wall at one end?


----------



## YTC (Jun 20, 2019)

YTC said:


> Designs within the application are in line with the feedback from fans and the council, these things can change as the process goes along but can confirm we'll have terraces all around the ground (the three sides that are not the main stand).



Should be noted that this news coming out today will NOT stop our commitment to improve terracing at current site for this season!


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2019)

A


YTC said:


> Designs within the application are in line with the feedback from fans and the council, these things can change as the process goes along but can confirm we'll have terraces all around the ground (the three sides that are not the main stand).


What is the maximum capacity?


----------



## YTC (Jun 20, 2019)

editor said:


> What is the maximum capacity?



4000 initially with room to expand to 5. 

Full wrap around with details on this tweet!


----------



## GregDHFC (Jun 20, 2019)

I think what would help get fans behind the proposal would be setting out how this is different to Meadow's initial proposal. From the info there, it looks basically the same (just with more pink and blue). 

What has the influence of DHFC's support been?


----------



## Son of Roy (Jun 20, 2019)

The Vanarama National League website seems to think the stadium planning application relates to a site that is not Champion Hill !


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2019)

Kind of annoying that the South London Press and Southwark News get to break this story and get linked in the club tweet while nothing was sent to Brixton Buzz.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jun 21, 2019)

editor said:


> Kind of annoying that the South London Press and Southwark News get to break this story and get linked in the club tweet while nothing was sent to Brixton Buzz.


Seems a more than reasonable point given the support given over the years by BB.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 21, 2019)

Hamlet Pete said:


> Friend sent me pics from the Southwark News... It's got Meadow written all over it


Why wouldn't it...they're the principal partner in the development...


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 21, 2019)

Lucy Fur said:


> YTC is this a proposal you support?


As I Club Director I would take it that he does. Why wouldn't he?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 21, 2019)

editor said:


> Kind of annoying that the South London Press and Southwark News get to break this story and get linked in the club tweet while nothing was sent to Brixton Buzz.


I would have thought, given the reticence of editor to fully back the proposals, whilst I am extremely grateful for all the PR Brixton Buzz has given the Club down the years, I could see why they weren't on the 'first come to' list. Though it could just have easily have been an oversight, who knows...


----------



## pettyboy (Jun 21, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> I would have thought, given the reticence of editor to fully back the proposals, whilst I am extremely grateful for all the PR Brixton Buzz has given the Club down the years, I could see why they weren't on the 'first come to' list. Though it could just have easily have been an oversight, who knows...


Doubt there was any oversight in giving the exclusive to the local paper over anyone else! Seems totally reasonable to me


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 21, 2019)

Sounds like its a sunken pitch to allow stepped terrace on 3 sides with no roofs to get round the MOL planning.
It says bigger bar, hopefully that means bigger and more accessible than the one we already have and not the crappy one they drew in the original plans.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 21, 2019)

I'll be interested to see how they are suggesting the ground can be easily increased in future from 4 to 5,000. And why it can't be 5,000 from the start?


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> I would have thought, given the reticence of editor to fully back the proposals, whilst I am extremely grateful for all the PR Brixton Buzz has given the Club down the years, I could see why they weren't on the 'first come to' list.


The implied notion that the club will now only send important press releases to uncritical, commercial outlets sets rather a worrying precedent. Local, fan-run websites rely on getting the big stories as they happen, but this suggests that unless they unconditionally agree with the club's proposals, then they have to get the news late and second-hand.

If this is the case, then it's a dreadful way to treat a long time supporter of the club who - as you have told me yourself - played a big part in increasing the popularity of the club in recent years and provided more positive coverage than anyone else.

If this turns out to be official DHFC/Meadows policy, I'm out.


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2019)

I wonder if '_preferred media partners_' the SLP and Southwark News covered all these Hamlet stories from the last five weeks.

Dulwich Hamlet serve up their commercial sponsorship opportunities for the 2019-2020 season
Dulwich Hamlet take on Tottenham Hotspur XI in pre-season friendly, Sat 20th July 2019
Dulwich Hamlet FC announce women’s team for the 2019-2020 season
The Women’s World Cup Beer Festival at Dulwich Hamlet clubhouse, June 7th – July 7th 2019
New comedy club at Dulwich Hamlet starts on Sun 2nd June and then every first Sunday of the month
Dulwich Hamlet pre-season friendlies announced, including games vs Crystal Palace, Colchester and Sutton United
Dulwich Hamlet FC open meeting: ground redevelopment news, club finances and upcoming friendlies

I still haven't received any official press release about the planning application. Guess I need to learn to be more uncritically positive about all things Meadow/DHFC.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jun 21, 2019)

editor said:


> I still haven't received any official press release about the planning application. Guess I need to learn to be more uncritically positive about all things Meadow/DHFC.


As far as I can see it was a four page wraparound publicity/advertisement type thing which was identical in both publications.  It wasn't presented as part of either paper's news coverage and there's nothing on either publication's website to tie in with this as far as I can see. There was no comment or opinion from the staff of either newspaper, positive or otherwise.


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> As far as I can see it was a four page wraparound publicity/advertisement type thing which was identical in both publications.  It wasn't presented as part of either paper's news coverage and there's nothing on either publication's website to tie in with this as far as I can see. There was no comment or opinion from the staff of either newspaper, positive or otherwise.


@Dulwich Mishi  seemed to have an opinion why I never got to see any of this until after it was published in both papers and tweeted by the club (linking to both papers).


----------



## Al Crane (Jun 21, 2019)

Some of the plans for the new stadium have been uploaded here...


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2019)

Al Crane said:


> Some of the plans for the new stadium have been uploaded here...


I'm not so good on translating these plans, but am I correct in assuming that there is no cover at all on three sides of the ground?


----------



## Al Crane (Jun 21, 2019)

editor said:


> I'm not do good on reading these plans, but am I correct in assuming that there is no cover at all on three sides of the ground?



Looks like it but the roof level plan hasn't been included so there's no roof for the main stand either which I assume there will be!


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 21, 2019)

editor said:


> @Dulwich Mishi  seemed to have an opinion why I never got to see any of this until after it was published in both papers and tweeted by the club (linking to both papers).


Yeah, that’s MY opinion, it’s how message boards work. I can’t speak for the Club, it’s something you will have to take up with the Directors. I haven’t got round to looking at the papers yet, bar yesterday’s wraparound in the ‘Southwark News’, which appears to have been paid advertising. So in that sense they presumably wouldn’t have contacted you as you don’t have advertising?


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Yeah, that’s MY opinion, it’s how message boards work. I can’t speak for the Club, it’s something you will have to take up with the Directors. I haven’t got round to looking at the papers yet, bar yesterday’s wraparound in the ‘Southwark News’, which appears to have been paid advertising. So in that sense they presumably wouldn’t have contacted you as you don’t have advertising?


Given your long involvement with the club, your opinion tends to carry more weight than some freshly arrived fan, and I find your take on this topic rather concerning.

I would have thought that the club would have the courtesy to include Buzz on any announcements concerning the "full stadium and residential application" but that clearly wasn't to be. And although you're correct in stating that we don't accept advertising, Buzz has published countless articles on the club's activities, many of which are essentially free advertising (see list above for examples).

Perhaps if I ask for money from now on I may get these announcements the same time as everyone else...


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 21, 2019)

editor said:


> Given your long involvement with the club, your opinion tends to carry more weight than some freshly arrived fan, and I find your take on this topic rather concerning.
> 
> I would have thought that the club would have the courtesy to include Buzz on any announcements concerning the "full stadium and residential application" but that clearly wasn't to be. And although you're correct in stating that we don't accept advertising, Buzz has published countless articles on the club's activities, many of which are essentially free advertising (see list above for examples).
> 
> Perhaps if I ask for money from now on I may get these announcements the same time as everyone else...


Well the fact is my viewpoint carries the same weight of any other poster, it’s simply a personal opinion, regardless if people think it carries more weight just because I’ve been supporting The Hamlet for a few decades more than most. Have you heard back from any of the Directors yet as to why you weren’t told in advance? Be interesting in how they respond to your concerns. I am presuming you have contacted them...


----------



## Crispy (Jun 21, 2019)

Some thoughts on the plans, and how they differ from the previous scheme:

*Clubhouse ground floor:*



The toilet provision is *excellent*. Loads of them, and simply laid out.
I presume the squash courts and spin studio (and all the other gym rooms upstairs) are part of a well-researched business plan for the gym. Squash courts are very specialised spaces (you can only play squash in them) so I hope there's demand for it.
There is no dedicated food/hot drink outlet (the previous scheme had 2). I presume the plan is to have temporary stall(s) near the gates?

*Clubhouse first floor:*



The bar layout is *excellent.* Long service counter and tons of doors. It is a drink-serving factory and should bring in much more revenue than the existing layout, which struggles to cope with demand.

*Clubhouse second floor:*



Plenty of flexible function & class rooms. I like the balcony over the bar. These are all good spaces for hire.

*Terraces and Seating*

The previous scheme had a blocked view of one corner of the pitch from the stand. This is remedied in the new scheme:



The terrace is decently sloped, with a wide high area at the top. Good views for everyone on the steps. I drew this section from the figures on the plans:



*There are no covered areas on the terraces. *I can tell from the graphical style that these plans come from the same software I use in my day job (Autodesk Revit). You build a 3D model and then "slice" it to make plans, sections, elevations etc. The first and second floor plans still show the terrace steps. Therefore there is nothing above them.

*Summary*
Excellent clubhouse and stand. The rest is limited and compromised (and most likely cannot be expanded in any form)


----------



## Pink Panther (Jun 21, 2019)

Crispy said:


> Squash courts are very specialised spaces (you can only play squash in them) so I hope there's demand for it.


I was under the impression that the existing squash courts are something of a white elephant and were only included at the insistence of then landlords King's College London. As you say, it's a substantial amount of space that can't be utilised for anything else. 

It's also been stated in the past that having the current main building on three levels is a prime source of the excessive overheads in running the place, so I'm a bit surprised to see another three storey main building. 

A total of *666* seats in the "Damien" stand!


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Have you heard back from any of the Directors yet as to why you weren’t told in advance? Be interesting in how they respond to your concerns. I am presuming you have contacted them...


Did the SLP and Southwark News have to chase after this story?  Although it's hugely popular - over 8 million page views since we started - Brixton Buzz is done entirely as a labour of love in the contributor's spare time.

What money we make through events and beer sales goes direct to local community charities and no one who writes for us gets paid a penny (myself included).

So, no, I haven't had the time to start privately emailing individual directors to ask why we were excluded from the latest press release.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Jun 21, 2019)

You could have instead of having this argument on here.


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2019)

Cyclodunc said:


> You could have instead of having this argument on here.


I'm not having an 'argument.' I'm just rather surprised by recent events.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 22, 2019)

Crispy said:


> Some thoughts on the plans, and how they differ from the previous scheme:
> 
> *Clubhouse ground floor:*
> 
> ...



From your experience does it look like a plan more likely to gain approval than the previous one? I still can't quite work out if it is actually off the MOL and how that works.


----------



## Hamlet Pete (Jun 22, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Why wouldn't it...they're the principal partner in the development...


Was answering the question of whether Meadow was involved. They are


----------



## Crispy (Jun 22, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> From your experience does it look like a plan more likely to gain approval than the previous one? I still can't quite work out if it is actually off the MOL and how that works.


It's all up to the politics. It certainly looks like there are no "buildings" on the MOL now, but whether that counts as "no development" we can't say.

To say nothing of the housing proposal...


----------



## pinknblue (Jun 22, 2019)

It’s great that the club and Meadow’s have got these plans in and that the general response is so positive. However I have serious concerns over having no covered terracing. I can’t recall having been to be any grounds at step 6 or 7 that don’t have covered terracing and I think the lack of covering will seriously deter people from computer to games on wet Saturdays. And if we do get big crowds and it’s wet won’ the sight-lines be badly affected by all those umbrellas? Why can’t the ground be completely sunken with a roof all around you and wooden shuttering up above - like a vertical blind - so that the ground would  be almost invisible when games are not being played?


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2019)

pinknblue said:


> It’s great that the club and Meadow’s have got these plans in and that the general response is so positive. However I have serious concerns over having no covered terracing. I can’t recall having been to be any grounds at step 6 or 7 that don’t have covered terracing and I think the lack of covering will seriously deter people from computer to games on wet Saturdays. And if we do get big crowds and it’s wet won’ the sight-lines be badly affected by all those umbrellas? Why can’t the ground be completely sunken with a roof all around you and wooden shuttering up above - like a vertical blind - so that the ground would  be almost invisible when games are not being played?


If we want Hamlet to be a family friendly club, then offering at least basic shelter from the elements is a pretty fundamental requirement for parents with kids/babies etc.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 22, 2019)

pinknblue said:


> Why can’t the ground be completely sunken with a roof all around you and wooden shuttering up above - like a vertical blind - so that the ground would be almost invisible when games are not being played?


Cos It'd cost a fortune


----------



## tangerinedream (Jun 22, 2019)

What is Brixton Buzz and what have the club done wrong here? Would've thought the local rag was the obvious place to release news of a new ground? 

Is Brixton Buzz a fanzine or something?


----------



## Pink Panther (Jun 22, 2019)

Crispy said:


> Cos It'd cost a fortune


Regardless of cost, there will have to be *some* covered standing otherwise we won't even get a grading for our current division. There will be a minimum number of spectators that has to be accommodated under cover. I'm not certain what it is but I'm sure it will be more than the beastly number of seats in the main stand, possibly 1,000 of the 4,000 capacity. (There's a lengthy FA document available online somewhere that will spell out all the requirements unambiguously.)

Architect's drawings are frequently revised over the course of a construction project, although I'm surprised the originals indicate no cover at all on three sides.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 22, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> Architect's drawings are frequently revised over the course of a construction project, although I'm surprised the originals indicate no cover at all on three sides.


The lack of cover is almost certainly an attempt to comply with the "no development on MOL" rule. Drawings are always revised, but only within the envelope of the permitted design. A cover to the terraces would need a new planning application.


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2019)

tangerinedream said:


> What is Brixton Buzz and what have the club done wrong here? Would've thought the local rag was the obvious place to release news of a new ground?
> 
> Is Brixton Buzz a fanzine or something?


You're trolling, yes?


----------



## Pink Panther (Jun 22, 2019)

Crispy said:


> The lack of cover is almost certainly an attempt to comply with the "no development on MOL" rule. Drawings are always revised, but only within the envelope of the permitted design. A cover to the terraces would need a new planning application.


Well I just hope we're missing something here. I assume everyone involved in the application will be aware of that. It's one thing to have to settle for less than we would like, but the design as presented doesn't appear to tick all the essental boxes.


----------



## iamwithnail (Jun 22, 2019)

500 I believe, for this step.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jun 23, 2019)

iamwithnail said:


> 500 I believe, for this step.


So it looks like we could get away with no covered standing, but there is a stated preference for cover on more than one side of the ground and I can't think of another ground above county league level with no covered standing. (Yeovil had none when it was opened around the same time as our current ground, but there was a 2,500 seat stand on each side!)


----------



## scousedom (Jun 23, 2019)

editor said:


> If we want Hamlet to be a family friendly club, then offering at least basic shelter from the elements is a pretty fundamental requirement for parents with kids/babies etc.


As one of that demographic, I can confirm that 666 seats should be ample for that. Thanks.
As for the rest of the ground, no cover in Dulwich is infinitely preferable to cover in Tooting. Hardly any local families made the seven mile trip there while hundreds have since returned to our sparsely covered home. So I’d say the priority is
1. Stay in Dulwich
2. See above


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2019)

scousedom said:


> As one of that demographic, I can confirm that 666 seats should be ample for that. Thanks.


You're welcome.

I assume that this figure is backed up by some kind of research because I'm not so sure that it _will _be enough if we're getting crowds of 3,000+ in the pissing rain.

Personally, I think the lack of cover for the vast majority of paying fans is a bit embarrassing, and these concerns shouldn't be glibly brushed aside. Will there be any other clubs in our division offering less cover for fans?


----------



## scousedom (Jun 23, 2019)

editor said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> I assume that this figure is backed up by some kind of research because I'm not so sure that it _will _be enough if we're getting crowds of 3,000+ in the pissing rain.
> 
> Personally, I think the lack of cover for the vast majority of paying fans is a bit embarrassing, and these concerns shouldn't be glibly brushed aside. Will there be any other clubs in our division offering less cover for fans?


666 is from a post on the previous page which I assume to be correct. You liked it. Why wouldn’t a 30%+ increase be enough when less than that (500 seats now I think?) has been in the past?

The more pertinent point though - that you’ve failed to address - is the realpolitik of it not being realistic to demand a gold-plated moon on a stick. We have to stay in Dulwich. If we don’t we go bankrupt. That’s what last season taught us. The only long-term, even short-term, option is a move on these lines. By all means push for the best that can be got, as those at the sharp end of discussions will be doing without your prompting you can rest assured, but no cover is no issue compared with no Dulwich home. 

And anyway, we’ve been over this before, _it doesn’t rain that much_. It’s London. And there’s no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing. Wear a hat.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 23, 2019)

There is not currently enough cover / covered seats for parents and children, especially not in the rain.

This can be seen each home game as parents and children arrive and look for seats close to kick off.

Fail to find what they are looking for as the stand is full.


----------



## scousedom (Jun 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> There is not currently enough cover / covered seats for parents and children, especially not in the rain.
> 
> This can be seen each home game as parents and children arrive and look for seats close to kick off.
> 
> Fail to find what they are looking for as the stand is full.


30% more seats should be a massive help then, probably eliminate the problem entirely if it’s only those arriving close to kick off who struggle. And the “close to kickoff” part of that might be relevant too.


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2019)

scousedom said:


> The more pertinent point though - that you’ve failed to address - is the realpolitik of it not being realistic to demand a gold-plated moon on a stick. We have to stay in Dulwich. If we don’t we go bankrupt. That’s what last season taught us. The only long-term, even short-term, option is a move on these lines. By all means push for the best that can be got, as those at the sharp end of discussions will be doing without your prompting you can rest assured, but no cover is no issue compared with no Dulwich home.


So a request for even the most _basic_ of cover behind a goal is seen as something so outlandish and unreasonable that it can be patronisingly dismissed as wanting a 'gold-plated moon on a stick'?

Will there be any other club in our division - or even the one below - that fails to offer any covered standing to fans?

And it's not just about cover from the elements - it's about atmosphere and the noise that can be created. With just one seated covered stand, the stadium is now likely to be quieter.


----------



## scousedom (Jun 23, 2019)

editor said:


> So a request for even the most _basic_ of cover behind a goal is seen as something so outlandish and unreasonable that it can be patronisingly dismissed as wanting a 'gold-plated moon on a stick'?
> 
> Will there be any other club in our division - or even the one below - that fails to offer any covered standing to fans?


Not a request no. But a demand, quite possibly. I’m no planning expert. But it seems to me from all of this that there is a very delicate planning balance on the MOL issue. Perhaps cover means rejection and no cover means permission. In which case, given the overwhelming need to stay in Dulwich, then no cover it has to be.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 23, 2019)

scousedom said:


> 30% more seats should be a massive help then, probably eliminate the problem entirely if it’s only those arriving close to kick off who struggle. And the “close to kickoff” part of that might be relevant too.



Most parents get to the stand close to kickoff. You want to change that? Means I will have to get to the stand even earlier than 1.30. 

30% more seats probably wont be enough to make up for the missing cover under the toilets opposite. 

Especially when overall capacity is also increased. But less parents and children in the stand suits me. 

So play on...


----------



## scousedom (Jun 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> 30% more seats probably wont be enough to make up for the missing cover under the toilets opposite.


I think it probably will. It won’t be enough to fit everyone who was in the TO stand in I grant you. But it will probably be enough to fit the parents and children. 
But as I said, I think a pragmatic acceptance that no cover but being in Dulwich is preferable to a dogmatic refusal to request/accept less than much more or majority cover, if the cost of that position is a planning refusal with all the subsequent consequences.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 23, 2019)

scousedom said:


> I think it probably will. It won’t be enough to fit everyone who was in the TO stand in I grant you. But it will probably be enough to fit the parents and children.
> But as I said, I think a pragmatic acceptance that no cover but being in Dulwich is preferable to a dogmatic refusal to request/accept less than much more or majority cover, if the cost of that position is a planning refusal with all the subsequent consequences.



Fair enough. I don’t think it will be enough for the parents and children. I just present my current observations. 

But it doesn’t matter to me. Two reasons. One. I think its ridiculous that somehow its acceptable to build concrete on MOL but god forbid there was a roof. 

Two. I’d rather go back to Tooting than Meadow make any profit from their previous behaviour.


----------



## scousedom (Jun 23, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Fair enough. I don’t think it will be enough for the parents and children. I just present my current observations.
> 
> But it doesn’t matter to me. Two reasons. One. I think its ridiculous that somehow its acceptable to build concrete on MOL but god forbid there was a roof.
> 
> Two. I’d rather go back to Tooting than Meadow make any profit from their previous behaviour.


Well I’m not going to argue with point one! 
Point two wouldn’t be my preference. Selfishly, the trip is prohibitive to a lot of families, and more generally as we saw the club couldn’t sustain itself at anything like its current level in Tooting. I understand keeping to this level is not important to everyone. But it is to many. Not to say that the risks to the club from having to relocate would be very substantial.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 23, 2019)

editor said:


> So a request for even the most _basic_ of cover behind a goal is seen as something so outlandish and unreasonable that it can be patronisingly dismissed as wanting a 'gold-plated moon on a stick'?


In this specific context it may as well be. Personally, I think even this scheme is already on dodgy ground WRT development on MOL. The London Assembly policy in question states:

Appropriate development should be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses and minimise any adverse impact on the openness of MOL.​
Given that the proposal encloses with a fence a larger area than the existing all-weather pitch, I don't see how it can be said to increase/unharm the "openness" of the land, regardless of how well you can see through it.


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2019)

Crispy said:


> In this specific context it may as well be. Personally, I think even this scheme is already on dodgy ground WRT development on MOL. The London Assembly policy in question states:
> 
> Appropriate development should be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses and minimise any adverse impact on the openness of MOL.​
> Given that the proposal encloses with a fence a larger area than the existing all-weather pitch, I don't see how it can be said to increase/unharm the "openness" of the land, regardless of how well you can see through it.


Is it really impossible to come up with some kind of cunning collapsing structure that could provide cover when the game is on and then be stored down flat afterwards?

Having zero cover for all standing fans really isn't good.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 23, 2019)

editor said:


> Is it really impossible to come up with some kind of cunning collapsing structure that could provide cover when the game is on and then be stored down flat afterwards?
> 
> Having zero cover for all standing fans really isn't good.


I don't think the design of the roof/fence is the issue, but rather the literal size of the site. It's bigger than the all-weather pitch and therefore reduces the size of the publicly-accessible MOL.

By not proposing any "structures" the developer hope to shimmy around the policy.


----------



## magneze (Jun 23, 2019)

No cover on 3 sides is 50% worse than now. Seems odd.


----------



## scousedom (Jun 23, 2019)

editor said:


> Is it really impossible to come up with some kind of cunning collapsing structure that could provide cover when the game is on and then be stored down flat afterwards?
> 
> Having zero cover for all standing fans really isn't good.


Not impossible at any cost. But “at any cost” isn’t real life is it?
And to reiterate the earlier point, having no cover is better than having no club.


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2019)

scousedom said:


> Not impossible at any cost. But “at any cost” isn’t real life is it?
> And to reiterate the earlier point, having no cover is better than having no club.


Have you looked at and costed any possible such solutions? How much did they cost?


----------



## scousedom (Jun 23, 2019)

editor said:


> Have you looked at and costed any possible such solutions? How much did they cost?


Oh behave.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 23, 2019)

It may well be possible at a reasonable _monetary _cost, but including it in this application would be counter-productive if the _political _cost is too high.


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2019)

scousedom said:


> Oh behave.


Oh well. I'll just keep my silly ideas to myself from now on, eh? 

*_Feels growing distance between me and what I thought was 'my' club..._


----------



## scousedom (Jun 23, 2019)

editor said:


> *doffs cap
> *gets back in box
> 
> I'm not enjoying this.


Forgive me for being a little exasperated at the suggestion that the onus is on me to price your unicorn rather than you, despite it being your imagination it exists in.


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2019)

scousedom said:


> Forgive me for being a little exasperated at the suggestion that the onus is on me to price your unicorn rather than you, despite it being your imagination it exists in.


Could you be any more patronising, do you think?


----------



## scousedom (Jun 23, 2019)

editor said:


> Could you be any more patronising, do you think?


Or you more impractical?


----------



## tonysingh (Jun 23, 2019)

Surely getting the new stadium is the most important part here. We can add extra cover at a later date, perhaps work together as a club to find a solution? That's as opposed to DHFC supporters arguing amongst ourselves over what should be a hugely positive moment in our clubs history. Meadows fuck off (even though it sticks in the craw that they'll profit at all), our future is 100% secure and we have a stadium that befits a club that's moving on up.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jun 23, 2019)

editor said:


> Is it really impossible to come up with some kind of cunning collapsing structure that could provide cover when the game is on and then be stored down flat afterwards?


The FA ground grading document linked earlier on the thread states that "temporary structures will not be accepted" so it's probably a non-starter.


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> The FA ground grading document linked earlier on the thread states that "temporary structures will not be accepted" so it's probably a non-starter.


Understood. Thank you.


----------



## Emmbeee (Jun 23, 2019)

Temporary structures don't count towards the minimum but aren't banned in excess of the minimum. 

This means all the required seating and cover could be provided in the main stand, with another method of providing cover provided elsewhere. 

I remember driving along a motorway and seeing a cricket sightscreen in a field advertising something. A billboard will never get permission next to a motorway. At the bottom was the text "we don't need planning permission for something on wheels".
Now who is to say the plan isn't for a temporary gazebo type structure to be erected either side of any matches when weather requires it.
You wouldn't put this on the planning application.
I know nothing btw, this is just a personal opinion.

My mind went to the now demolished Don Valley Stadium in Sheffield which had a tarpaulin roof cantilevered without affecting sightlines. By building A frames into the sunken terrace this could easily be achieved. Top panels could then be slotted in when required.

http://www.newsteelconstruction.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/202jan12.jpg


----------



## pinknblue (Jun 24, 2019)

iamwithnail said:


> 500 I believe, for this step.


We're applying for Category 'A' grading which is suitable for step 5 rather than Cat 'B' which is only suitable for level 6.


----------



## pinknblue (Jun 24, 2019)

scousedom said:


> Well I’m not going to argue with point one!
> Point two wouldn’t be my preference. Selfishly, the trip is prohibitive to a lot of families, and more generally as we saw the club couldn’t sustain itself at anything like its current level in Tooting. I understand keeping to this level is not important to everyone. But it is to many. Not to say that the risks to the club from having to relocate would be very substantial.



Going back to Tooting would mean DHFC going out of existence!


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 24, 2019)

pinknblue said:


> Going back to Tooting would mean DHFC going out of existence!



You mean relegated.


----------



## pinknblue (Jun 24, 2019)

scousedom said:


> As one of that demographic, I can confirm that 666 seats should be ample for that. Thanks.
> As for the rest of the ground, no cover in Dulwich is infinitely preferable to cover in Tooting. Hardly any local families made the seven mile trip there while hundreds have since returned to our sparsely covered home. So I’d say the priority is
> 1. Stay in Dulwich
> 2. See above



I agree but having no cover is still pretty rubbish! It will affect our gates and sightlines from all those umbrellas. We have a ground with some cover now so why would a new ground with some cover be unacceptable? Can one of the directors/planning team answer this please? Presumably, we're not allowed to add cover behind the goals at our current ground either?


----------



## pinknblue (Jun 24, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> You mean relegated.


No, I mean bankrupt! As we so nearly were last year when at Tooting!


----------



## pinknblue (Jun 24, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> I was under the impression that the existing squash courts are something of a white elephant and were only included at the insistence of then landlords King's College London. As you say, it's a substantial amount of space that can't be utilised for anything else.
> 
> It's also been stated in the past that having the current main building on three levels is a prime source of the excessive overheads in running the place, so I'm a bit surprised to see another three storey main building.
> 
> A total of *666* seats in the "Damien" stand!



Why the reduction in seats this time? In the original plans I seem to remember it was closer to 900 seats.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 24, 2019)

pinknblue said:


> No, I mean bankrupt! As we so nearly were last year when at Tooting!



If you believe that. Good for you.


----------



## pinknblue (Jun 24, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> If you believe that. Good for you.



I'm just going on what's been publicly stated elsewhere!


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 24, 2019)

pinknblue said:


> I'm just going on what's been publicly stated elsewhere!



I’m sure. But if we move to tooting, lose our manager and all our players. The fanbase collapses to 100. 

We don’t go bankrupt but effectively the club is on its knees. 

Things would be bad, but not bankrupt. 

I also don’t know why would have to go back to Tooting. Will Meadow kick us out again if they don’t get that way?


----------



## Pink Panther (Jun 24, 2019)

pinknblue said:


> Going back to Tooting would mean DHFC going out of existence!





B.I.G said:


> You mean relegated.


It would make both more likely the longer we were there. We're Dulwich Hamlet Football Club, we don't belong in Tooting. We wouldn't attract new support while we were there and our existing support would diminish the longer we were there, especially if we began slipping down the pyramid. I'd rather see the club mothballed until it was possible to resume playing in or close to Dulwich, even if that meant resuming at a much lower level like the Kent County League or Surrey Intermediate League.



pinknblue said:


> I agree but having no cover is still pretty rubbish! It will affect our gates and sightlines from all those umbrellas.


Umbrellas have no place in football grounds, and it's amazing how those who bring them always want to stand at the front. I'd ban them from the ground. Anyone who  thinks they  need an umbrella should  wear a suitable hat and coat instead.


----------



## scousedom (Jun 24, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> Umbrellas have no place in football grounds, and it's amazing how those who bring them always want to stand at the front. I'd ban them from the ground. Anyone who thinks they need an umbrella should wear a suitable hat and coat instead.



^^This.


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> Umbrellas have no place in football grounds, and it's amazing how those who bring them always want to stand at the front. I'd ban them from the ground. Anyone who  thinks they  need an umbrella should  wear a suitable hat and coat instead.


I agree, but with standing space in the new ground being reduced to absolutely zero, we can surely expect a lot more of this:


----------



## blueheaven (Jun 24, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Will Meadow kick us out again if they don’t get that way?



Don't you think they will? I wouldn't like to put it to the test.

From looking at the plans I'd be keen to hear how the attendance could be expanded - it doesn't look like it would be an easy thing to do.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 24, 2019)

blueheaven said:


> Don't you think they will? I wouldn't like to put it to the test.
> 
> From looking at the plans I'd be keen to hear how the attendance could be expanded - it doesn't look like it would be an easy thing to do.



I think they will. Therefore I have no interest in their plans.


----------



## scousedom (Jun 24, 2019)

editor said:


> I agree, but with standing space in the new ground being reduced to absolutely zero, we can surely expect a lot more of this:



Two things:
1. Where does it say standing space in the new ground is being reduced to absolutely zero? We're all-seater now are we?
2. Assuming you just mean there will be less space than currently - which I don't accept having not compared the plans with the current layout, but let's ignore that for the moment - why would you assume that our fans would become more anti-social than less? Why would people be more likely to use an umbrella in a cramped environment than a spacious one?


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2019)

scousedom said:


> Two things:
> 1. Where does it say standing space in the new ground is being reduced to absolutely zero? We're all-seater now are we?


I meant standing space with no cover, hence the need for umbrellas. Sorry, I thought that was startingly obvious given the context of the comment and the post I was replying to.



scousedom said:


> 2. Assuming you just mean there will be less space than currently - which I don't accept having not compared the plans with the current layout, but let's ignore that for the moment - why would you assume that our fans would become more anti-social than less? Why would people be more likely to use an umbrella in a cramped environment than a spacious one?



I didn't realise using an umbrella in the pissing rain was deemed an 'anti social' activity, but with no cover at all for standing spectators and increased crowds, I'd say there's a distinct possibility that more umbrellas will appear in the ground.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jun 24, 2019)

editor said:


> I didn't realise using an umbrella in the pissing rain was deemed an 'anti social' activity


Personally I'd say it is when you're at a spectator event and it's blindingly obvious other people have to watch from behind you as there isn't enough room for everyone at the front. I don't even own an umbrella and haven't done for a very long time. I simply check the weather forecast before a match and dress appropriately .If we can ban people from bringing their own booze into the ground we can ban them from bringing in umbrellas.


----------



## Taper (Jun 24, 2019)

We should ship the San Siro over brick by brick and stick it on Greendale. All MOL and planning concerns would wither away set against such an epic undertaking.


----------



## GregDHFC (Jun 25, 2019)

Is there room in the plans for bars to be set up in other corners of the ground? In my opinion that has been the improvement that has made the most difference to queueing times. 

We can have the best club bar in the world, but they'll still struggle to serve 1500 people in 15 minutes.

Is there room for food stalls too?


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 25, 2019)

Apparently there is room for temporary structures on match day, for beer and food, in the corners of the ground.


----------



## Cardinal (Jun 25, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> So it looks like we could get away with no covered standing, but there is a stated preference for cover on more than one side of the ground and I can't think of another ground above county league level with no covered standing. (Yeovil had none when it was opened around the same time as our current ground, but there was a 2,500 seat stand on each side!)


There are a couple I can think of off the top of my head. Boreham Wood and Welling have no covered terracing: both have got A grades, and both have recently spent time in the National League. Also, I haven't been to Bromley's ground since they put up their new stand but their previous level of "cover" was pretty pathetic and didn't keep any rain off. However, all of those grounds have covered seated accommodation on at least two sides so that does comply with the preference for cover on more than one side of the ground.

With respect to the covered terracing issue, I'm pretty sure that Chelmsford's 'ro-ro' terraces are counted towards the capacity calculation at Melbourne Park, and one of those is even covered. If you could put in similar temporary structures which were only erected for home games that may get round the issues with MOL sightlines. However, you would need somewhere to store the terraces when not in use, and that might be a bigger problem.


----------



## pinknblue (Jun 25, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> Personally I'd say it is when you're at a spectator event and it's blindingly obvious other people have to watch from behind you as there isn't enough room for everyone at the front. I don't even own an umbrella and haven't done for a very long time. I simply check the weather forecast before a match and dress appropriately .If we can ban people from bringing their own booze into the ground we can ban them from bringing in umbrellas.



That's pretty OTT! You'll be banning people in shorts for having 'antisocial knobbly knees next'! Or 'antisocial hipster beards that spoil the ambience'!


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jun 27, 2019)

Anyone know where we can see the full plans or when the club are going to present them to us?
I'm sure someone mentioned an open meeting was going to be scheduled to show us.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 27, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> Anyone know where we can see the full plans or when the club are going to present them to us?
> I'm sure someone mentioned an open meeting was going to be scheduled to show us.


Major planning applications like this can take weeks to validate. They have to make sure all the required information (drawings, reports etc.) has been submitted correctly. The limit is 35 days. The last application for the scheme took 18 days to validate, so we might expect to see something on the Southwark planning website in the second week of July.

EDIT: There won't be much more to see than the plans we've already seen, a few pages up. Elevations, sections etc. will come, and some pretty graphics, but nothing that can't be inferred from the plans. More interesting will be the interpretations of policy, the wording of the design statement etc.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jun 27, 2019)

Good to see last week’s wraparound has become an actual news story this week, from the look of it nothing added from any press release, if there was one.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> Good to see last week’s wraparound has become an actual news story this week, from the look of it nothing added from any press release, if there was one.


I didn't get one, if there was one. I've learnt more about the proposed development from Crispy than anyone else.


----------



## scousedom (Jun 27, 2019)

editor said:


> I didn't get one, if there was one. I've learnt more about the proposed development from Crispy than anyone else.


Have you been in contact with club officials in the week since the news broke?


----------



## tasty_snacks (Jun 28, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> Anyone know where we can see the full plans or when the club are going to present them to us?
> I'm sure someone mentioned an open meeting was going to be scheduled to show us.



^^^^^This^^^^^^

All good points raised here. Would like to get the chance to quiz those ITK at some point soon.

It's blindingly obvious that bad weather impacts attendances. To say 'just wear a hat and a suitable coat' is bloody daft if you look at it from a casual supporters perspective, and what factors go into the decision to go to a match on any given Saturday.

I'm also unclear how the new bar will help things. It seems longer, but not that much longer? Surely the main factor is sheer weight of traffic? With attendances on a big match day up nearly a third in the new ground, will the old problems not persist?


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2019)

scousedom said:


> Have you been in contact with club officials in the week since the news broke?


Ever worked in journalism? Ever run a free local blog run by volunteers? You'll find that there's precious little time to go around pestering individuals for any possible news updates. The customary way for community ventures is to send out timely press releases to interested parties, prioritising the ones who have been staunch supporters for a very long time.


----------



## Latahs (Jun 28, 2019)

Oh behave


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2019)

Latahs said:


> Oh behave


OK. I'm backing out. This doesn't feel like the Hamlet I started supporting a decade ago.


----------



## Latahs (Jun 28, 2019)

Editor- I’m sorry for taking a cheap shot that was too good to pass up.....But I’m not sorry for expressing my frustration at the tone of some of your posts (my club - bleurgh) and the fact you seem to be demanding your views are give some level of priority due to a perceived debt the club owes for your support.

This is a forum about a club on your website. The fact that any of the official parties involved in the club talk on here at all is a complete concession- which also demands the time of volunteers.

No one who uses this forum should expect to shriek into it demanding answers of anyone like some sort of dhfc/dhst batlight.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2019)

Latahs said:


> Editor- I’m sorry for taking a cheap shot that was too good to pass up.....But I’m not sorry for expressing my frustration at the tone of some of your posts (my club - bleurgh) and the fact you seem to be demanding your views are give some level of priority due to a perceived debt the club owes for your support..


I don't think the club owes me a debt _at all_, although several people have said that I played a significant part in increasing the awareness and the crowds at Champion Hill in recent years. Or maybe I dreamt that.

And I don't think my views deserve any more priority than anyone else - this is an open forum and no one carries any more weight than anyone else - but I was disappointed to see my ideas - crap though they may be - being belittled and dismissed out of hand with patronising responses like I was some kind of idiot.


----------



## scousedom (Jun 28, 2019)

editor said:


> I don't think the club owes me a debt _at all_, although several people have said that I played a significant part in increasing the awareness and the crowds at Champion Hill in recent years. Or maybe I dreamt that.
> 
> And I don't think my views deserve any more priority than anyone else - this is an open forum and no one carries any more weight than anyone else - but I was disappointed to see my ideas - crap though they may be - being belittled and dismissed out of hand with patronising responses like I was some kind of idiot.


Have you stopped for a minute to think how patronising _you_ were being to the club, to the people who've worked immensely hard to get us back to Champion Hill, to the people who have been helping with the planning proposal, with what you've been saying? Do you _honestly think_ no one among those people has thought "Hmmm, cover might be nice"? And therefore that if it isn't included in the plans it might be because there's a damned good reason? Maybe you could ask the club what that reason is/was, instead of just calling plans embarrassing. A comment/question like that from a regular contributor is one thing, but from a journalist and moderator it carries far different weight.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 28, 2019)

We had a new stadium built for us fairly recently because the old one was unsuitable, how long was it before we needed a new one?


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2019)

scousedom said:


> Have you stopped for a minute to think how patronising _you_ were being to the club, to the people who've worked immensely hard to get us back to Champion Hill, to the people who have been helping with the planning proposal, with what you've been saying? Do you _honestly think_ no one among those people has thought "Hmmm, cover might be nice"? And therefore that if it isn't included in the plans it might be because there's a damned good reason? Maybe you could ask the club what that reason is/was, instead of just calling plans embarrassing. A comment/question like that from a regular contributor is one thing, but from a journalist and moderator it carries far different weight.


I will be a bit embarrassed to tell visiting fans in winter that there is zero cover for the vast majority of the crowd and none for anyone standing. That's my honest opinion. Should I lie about that?

And since when do you speak for 'the club' by the way? Now that is patronising.

Anyway, to repeat: I'm backing out of this debate so please don't bother delivering another of your lectures.


----------



## scousedom (Jun 28, 2019)

editor said:


> And since when do you speak for 'the club' by the way? Now that is patronising.


I don't speak for the club in any way. To be clear. I just wanted to defend it from what I believe is an unfair attack.


----------



## Taper (Jun 28, 2019)

Aren’t we missing the issue here. We don’t own our current stadium. And the club remains in a precarious situation because of this. We will effectively own the new stadium. And Whatever the faults in the planning, we can and will improve it. Ownership is the big issue.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 28, 2019)

Taper said:


> Aren’t we missing the issue here. We don’t own our current stadium. And the club remains in a precarious situation because of this. We will effectively own the new stadium. And Whatever the faults in the planning, we can and will improve it. Ownership is the big issue.



True and a great point. Will we have the right to put in our own planning permission requests as a tenant?


----------



## Roger D (Jun 28, 2019)

If we are paying for it any such request is likely to be seriously considered. If someone else is paying for it.....  Everything has its price.

It appears there is a working relationship and Dulwich have a reasonable degree of input. Sadly unless someone has a few million spare to fund a new stadium that's probably all they will get .

The current ground was supposed to have more cover and terracing I believe. Strangely enough the developer ran out of money for those features. Not the first or last time in non league.

Dulwich are very unlikely to get a perfect stadium, if planning permission is granted. Pragmatism will be needed. Sadly cover and terracing are easy to cut back and the MOL rules may have a say too.


----------



## MrFouldsy (Jul 1, 2019)

Let's all get along and fight the real enemy.

Mishi


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jul 1, 2019)

MrFouldsy said:


> Let's all get along and fight the real enemy.
> 
> Mishi


Are you saying that I am the real enemy? If not then who is the real enemy?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jul 1, 2019)

Roger D said:


> If we are paying for it any such request is likely to be seriously considered. If someone else is paying for it.....  Everything has its price.
> 
> It appears there is a working relationship and Dulwich have a reasonable degree of input. Sadly unless someone has a few million spare to fund a new stadium that's probably all they will get .
> 
> ...


There were also ‘strong rumours’ of, rather than money just running out, of money being diverted elsewhere...allegedly!


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jul 2, 2019)

Dulwich Mishi said:


> There were also ‘strong rumours’ of, rather than money just running out, of money being diverted elsewhere...allegedly!



Outrageous! Just don't ask me where I got all these Nectar points from


----------



## BrandNewGuy (Jul 3, 2019)

The planning application and associated documents are now on Southwark's planning site, though the application hasn't been validated yet, so there are no dates with regard to responses, committee dates etc:
19/AP/1867     |              Redevelopment of the Dulwich Hamlet Football (Champion Hill) Stadium, including the demolition of existing buildings and land at Greendalle and redevelopment to provide: - the erection of a new stadium with relocated playing pitch, part two-part three storey clubhouse building with sports and leisure facilities, with capacity for 4,000 spectators (Use Class D2), multi-use games area (MUGA) and associated floodlighting and boundary treatment;  - the erection of a series of buildings between four and six storeys in height to provide 224 residential dwellings (89 x one bedroom, 67 x two bedroom and 68 x three bedroom), (Use Class C3);  - associated car parking, cycle parking, refuse storage and access road; - creation of a new public linear park and associated hard and soft landscaping;  - the relocation of telecommunications equipment, together with associated areas of hard and soft landscaping, car and cycle parking, means of access and plant and equipment.                  |                                                                      DULWICH HAMLET FOOTBALL CLUB, EDGAR KAIL WAY, LONDON, SE22 8BD


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2019)

BrandNewGuy said:


> The planning application and associated documents are now on Southwark's planning site, though the application hasn't been validated yet, so there are no dates with regard to responses, committee dates etc:
> 19/AP/1867	 |			  Redevelopment of the Dulwich Hamlet Football (Champion Hill) Stadium, including the demolition of existing buildings and land at Greendalle and redevelopment to provide: - the erection of a new stadium with relocated playing pitch, part two-part three storey clubhouse building with sports and leisure facilities, with capacity for 4,000 spectators (Use Class D2), multi-use games area (MUGA) and associated floodlighting and boundary treatment;  - the erection of a series of buildings between four and six storeys in height to provide 224 residential dwellings (89 x one bedroom, 67 x two bedroom and 68 x three bedroom), (Use Class C3);  - associated car parking, cycle parking, refuse storage and access road; - creation of a new public linear park and associated hard and soft landscaping;  - the relocation of telecommunications equipment, together with associated areas of hard and soft landscaping, car and cycle parking, means of access and plant and equipment.				  |																	  DULWICH HAMLET FOOTBALL CLUB, EDGAR KAIL WAY, LONDON, SE22 8BD


Crispy  - given your expertise on planning matters, would you fancy doing a piece on Buzz explaining the details of this application?


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jul 3, 2019)

I feel a bit happier looking at these plans. First impressions good, Main stand looks great but my main worry is still the lack of any facilities or cover on any other part of the ground. (File attached - I've cut out the pages from the plan with the ground details)


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 3, 2019)

So it looks like what was expected by a lot of people. The main building is to be on the existing site and the remainder of the ground is more or less on the site currently occupied by the artificial pitch - on MOL. So is the key issue here whether that constitutes development? Have to say my instinctive reaction would be that it does, but I'm not an expert.


----------



## bkbk (Jul 3, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> I feel a bit happier looking at these plans. First impressions good, Main stand looks great but my main worry is still the lack of any facilities or cover on any other part of the ground. (File attached - I've cut out the pages from the plan with the ground details)



Thanks for this. Somewhat concerned they think our colours are pink n purple; _"On the first three panels above the substation are proposed three panels in purple and pink emblazoned with the crest of DHFC"_.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jul 3, 2019)

Also can't see any mention or provision for a wheelchair area or disabled access in the main stand, haven't been through it all in detail though


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jul 3, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> Also can't see any mention or provision for a wheelchair area or disabled access in the main stand, haven't been through it all in detail though


I would presume you need this provision by law, as a new build, so it will be in there somewhere. Not that it matters, as the one we have in the current stand is never actually designated for that on a matchday anyway, with able bodied people packing it out...


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jul 3, 2019)

Wouldn't the 'demountable canvas banners' around the ground on matchday be a bit of a issue every game, who is putting them up and down all the time and storing them carefully away?
Good luck getting volunteers to do that in January in the pissing rain with no cover!


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> Wouldn't the 'demountable canvas banners' around the ground on matchday be a bit of a issue every game, who is putting them up and down all the time and storing them carefully away?
> Good luck getting volunteers to do that in January in the pissing rain with no cover!


Bring an umbrella! Oh no, wait


----------



## Crispy (Jul 3, 2019)

editor said:


> Crispy  - given your expertise on planning matters, would you fancy doing a piece on Buzz explaining the details of this application?


There's not much more to say on top of what I said already really. The clubhouse looks excellent. They're saying no "permanent" structures on MoL and it's all in the footprint of the astroturf, so no covered terrace.


----------



## TonyWalt (Jul 4, 2019)

I think it looks pretty good. Apart from having no covering on 3 sides. Maybe, along with the demountable canvas banners, there could be some kind of retractable canvas covering overhead. Rather like a big long modern shop awning. In pink n blue obviously


----------



## bkbk (Jul 4, 2019)

Raising something that I am sure has already been considered and noted, but there looks to be only single-ish file corridor for fans to filter past the main stand and this requires taking stairs. It's a real pinch point in the current stadium when crowds are large and the provision here seems lesser.


----------



## MrFouldsy (Jul 4, 2019)

TonyWalt said:


> I think it looks pretty good. Apart from having no covering on 3 sides. Maybe, along with the demountable canvas banners, there could be some kind of retractable canvas covering overhead. Rather like a big long modern shop awning. In pink n blue obviously


I think this could be a really practical solution. 

However, does anyone else think the whole pink and blue thing is getting a bit tired? Also connotations with a certain politician and his old school tie? Could we use the new ground as an opportunity to completely rebrand? New colours for a new era? Something that goes well with jeans?


----------



## MrFouldsy (Jul 4, 2019)

How about letting each individual player and fan decide what colours to wear? 



MrFouldsy said:


> I think this could be a really practical solution.
> 
> However, does anyone else think the whole pink and blue thing is getting a bit tired? Also connotations with a certain politician and his old school tie? Could we use the new ground as an opportunity to completely rebrand? New colours for a new era? Something that goes well with jeans?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jul 4, 2019)

MrFouldsy said:


> How about letting each individual player and fan decide what colours to wear?


Nice try, not got time to chat, see you by the lake in Burgess Park...


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jul 4, 2019)

MrFouldsy said:


> I think this could be a really practical solution.
> 
> However, does anyone else think the whole pink and blue thing is getting a bit tired? Also connotations with a certain politician and his old school tie? Could we use the new ground as an opportunity to completely rebrand? New colours for a new era? Something that goes well with jeans?


No.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jul 4, 2019)

MrFouldsy said:


> I think this could be a really practical solution.
> 
> However, does anyone else think the whole pink and blue thing is getting a bit tired? Also connotations with a certain politician and his old school tie? Could we use the new ground as an opportunity to completely rebrand? New colours for a new era? Something that goes well with
> 
> ...



2/10, v. poor effort. must try harder.


----------



## B.I.G (Jul 4, 2019)

Lucy Fur said:


> 2/10, v. poor effort. must try harder.



I liked his old stuff better 





MrFouldsy said:


> I thought you were Southampton


----------



## crocustim (Jul 5, 2019)

bkbk said:


> Raising something that I am sure has already been considered and noted, but there looks to be only single-ish file corridor for fans to filter past the main stand and this requires taking stairs. It's a real pinch point in the current stadium when crowds are large and the provision here seems lesser.


I was also worried about this so asked at the consultation. If I remember correctly the walkways are 3 meters wide and don’t have the pinch points that we currently have in the far corner. I think it will be an improvement.


----------



## tonysingh (Jul 5, 2019)

crocustim said:


> I was also worried about this so asked at the consultation. If I remember correctly the walkways are 3 meters wide and don’t have the pinch points that we currently have in the far corner. I think it will be an improvement.



3 meters wide? So Mishi might just be able to fit through.


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Jul 5, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> 3 meters wide? So Mishi might just be able to fit through.


Thank you Mr Weightwatchers!


----------



## pompeydunc (Jul 24, 2019)

Looks like the planning application has now been validated by the Council.  Link is here.

It states that the "Standard Consultation Expiry Date" is Thursday 22 Aug 2019, but the "Agreed Expiry Date" is Tuesday 08 Oct 2019.  The application is massive - 177 documents!  I presume we will get some guidance / analysis from the club / DHST in due course.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jul 31, 2019)

Ok looks like we need to get behind this again!

Statement from Dulwich Hamlet Football Club on their new stadium planning application - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club


----------



## Christian Burt (Jul 31, 2019)

I'm no fan of Meadow, but the News Item/Statement was excellent from the club. To the point and also answered a few myths.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Aug 1, 2019)

Do I trust Meadow still? No. Do I trust Tom, Ben, Liam etc? yes 100%. We need to make this happen.


----------



## Noss (Aug 5, 2019)




----------



## Pink Panther (Aug 5, 2019)

Noss said:


>



This sort of thing really annoys me. That astroturf hasn't been properly maintained for years and isn't really safe. And until recently the site was only accessible due to vandalism of the boundary fence. Also, I thought the new stadium was going to have a 3G pitch to facilitate local community use?

These people just seem to be searching for reasons to oppose any sort of development.


----------



## RabbleLevi (Aug 5, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> This sort of thing really annoys me. That astroturf hasn't been properly maintained for years and isn't really safe. And until recently the site was only accessible due to vandalism of the boundary fence. Also, I thought the new stadium was going to have a 3G pitch to facilitate local community use?
> 
> These people just seem to be searching for reasons to oppose any sort of development.



I walk past it frequently. Occasionally two people are kicking a ball about. Occasionally someone is encouraging their dog to foul on it. It looks unsafe, it isn’t in a fit condition to even consider a public space. It’s been neglected for years. The goals don’t even have nets!


----------



## dcdulwich (Aug 5, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> These people just seem to be searching for reasons to oppose any sort of development.


Completely agree. Which is why those who support a new stadium which would secure the future of our club need to stand up and (literally) be counted.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Aug 6, 2019)

My family, and I, lived on Wanley Road backing onto Greendale, since the estate was built in the 50's, and that hole area has been misused and neglected for decades.


----------



## Latahs (Aug 6, 2019)

There was a lovely burnt out moped adorning the side of the Greendale path when i ran past on Sunday. Truly an Arcadian idyll.


----------



## Pink Panther (Aug 6, 2019)

Latahs said:


> There was a lovely burnt out moped adorning the side of the Greendale path when i ran past on Sunday. Truly an Arcadian idyll.


Perhaps some "local kids" had used it for some "informal" joyriding?


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2019)

Latahs said:


> There was a lovely burnt out moped adorning the side of the Greendale path when i ran past on Sunday. Truly an Arcadian idyll.


Yes, but where will local kids be able to leave their burnt out mopeds if this scheme goes ahead?


----------



## EDC (Aug 6, 2019)

On the linear path.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2019)

scousedom said:


> Or you more impractical?


Except it seems that what I suggested IS being considered as an option. And that's a bloody good thing. 



> Clasper indicated that canvas covering to be rolled out only on match-days is a possibility being explored, but insisted that crowd cover was “a decision that the community should take”.


Exclusive: New stadium key to Hamlet progress - chairman gives more details - Southwark News


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2019)

Buzzed: Dulwich Hamlet issue statement on their new stadium planning application – and urge fans to support it


----------



## YTC (Aug 9, 2019)

I'd point you in the direction of a thread posted by the club today, DHFC tried to engage with people on this issue, and we were frozen out, until like *just* now when they pop up to object.


----------



## YTC (Aug 9, 2019)

Also:


----------



## scousedom (Aug 9, 2019)

editor said:


> Except it seems that what I suggested IS being considered as an option. And that's a bloody good thing.
> 
> 
> Exclusive: New stadium key to Hamlet progress - chairman gives more details - Southwark News


Fantastic. I was (quite clearly) never against extra resources for fans. I was only against people going “this isn’t good enough”, “this is an embarrassment“ etc without acknowledging the wider context and the potential need for compromise.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2019)

scousedom said:


> Fantastic. I was (quite clearly) never against extra resources for fans. I was only against people going “this isn’t good enough”, “this is an embarrassment“ etc without acknowledging the wider context and the potential need for compromise.


Except that's not what happened at all - you were being _totally dismissive_ of any suggestion of any kind of temporary cover being erected, as anyone who cares to look back at this thread can see. 

Oh well. Onwards.


----------



## scousedom (Aug 9, 2019)

editor said:


> Except that's not what happened at all - you were being _totally dismissive_ of any suggestion of any kind of temporary cover being erected, as anyone who cares to look back at this thread can see.
> 
> Oh well. Onwards.


No. I was being dismissive of an attitude of saying “XYZ has to be done” without any acknowledgement of potential practical (financial, planning etc) limitations. Show me once where I said cover in itself was a bad idea. I didn’t. I only said it might not be possible given planning or financial restrictions and that if so, and it was a choice between no cover and ground or no ground, then no cover and ground had to win.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2019)

scousedom said:


> No. I was being dismissive of an attitude of saying “XYZ has to be done” without any acknowledgement of potential practical (financial, planning etc) limitations. Show me once where I said cover in itself was a bad idea. I didn’t. I only said it might not be possible given planning or financial restrictions and that if so, and it was a choice between no cover and ground or no ground, then no cover and ground had to win.


Except I never ever said that, "_XYZ HAS to be done_" as this thread amply proves.


----------



## scousedom (Aug 9, 2019)

editor said:


> Except I never ever said that, "_XYZ HAS to be done_" as this thread amply proves.


Saying it would be embarrassing if it wasn’t amounts to the same thing?


----------



## scousedom (Aug 9, 2019)

editor said:


> If we want Hamlet to be a family friendly club, then offering at least basic shelter from the elements is a pretty fundamental requirement for parents with kids/babies etc.


“Pretty fundamental requirement”... “has to be done”...?


----------



## YTC (Aug 9, 2019)

editor said:


> Onwards.



Let's focus on this bit!


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2019)

scousedom said:


> Saying it would be embarrassing if it wasn’t amounts to the same thing?


I really can't be arsed to engage with this frankly bizarre attempt to misrepresent what was said. If anyone's remotely interested (and I doubt anyone is) they can read the thread and see exactly what was said and meant.


----------



## blueheaven (Aug 12, 2019)

editor said:


> Exclusive: New stadium key to Hamlet progress - chairman gives more details - Southwark News



That article mentions that if we get promoted to the National League while at Champion Hill we won't be allowed to go up - I wasn't aware of that. Does anyone know what the National League requirements are that Champion Hill isn't currently meeting?


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Aug 12, 2019)

blueheaven said:


> That article mentions that if we get promoted to the National League while at Champion Hill we won't be allowed to go up - I wasn't aware of that. Does anyone know what the National League requirements are that Champion Hill isn't currently meeting?


One of the directors will know the answer to that, they will be the ones to ask.


----------



## cg__ (Aug 13, 2019)

Having a read of some of the opposition comments on the development application is both hilarious and incredibly depressing. The amount of NIMBY-ism on display from some is astounding.

Some of my lowlights are: one bloke complaining about the 'football shouting' that disturbs him in his garden; someone claiming that London needs more green spaces not housing (some of us don't already have houses ffs); and someone complaining about children having to go to school near a building site (how would anything get built in London if this was a valid complaint?).

I have also never seen a group of people wax so lyrical about a scruffy piece of astroturf. You wouldn't have thought the beautiful Dulwich and Ruskin Parks were just around the corner.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Aug 13, 2019)

cg__ said:


> I have also never seen a group of people wax so lyrical about a scruffy piece of astroturf.



It's just like Tusany you know!


----------



## Al Crane (Aug 13, 2019)

Latest score: Supporting 259* Objections 74

*Typo previously!


----------



## cg__ (Aug 13, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> It's just like Tusany you know!



Forget Tuscany, sounds like in the last couple of weeks since I've walked past it it's become the Garden of Eden!


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2019)

Al Crane said:


> Latest score: Supporting 336 Objections 74


It often doesn't make a tot in difference in my experience. Hundreds of objections can be waved away with a stroke if the developer is waving about a big enough wad/is pals with the council etc.

(*not that I'm trying to discourage anyone from commenting)


----------



## Cat Daisy (Aug 13, 2019)

Al Crane said:


> Latest score: Supporting 336 Objections 74



Good to see that Ben Clasper has written to S/T holders this afternoon. Did someone say there were 600 S/T holders this season. While some of them will presumably be juniors etc, it will presumably look better if we can point to a number of supporters of the application that at least mirrors the number of supporters that turn up at matches.


----------



## Scottfield (Aug 13, 2019)

Al Crane said:


> Latest score: Supporting 259* Objections 74
> 
> Typo previously!


Damage already done Al Crane, if that's even your real name! No one reads corrections!


----------



## pompeydunc (Aug 13, 2019)

Scottfield said:


> Damage already done Al Crane, if that's even your real name! No one reads corrections!



Said an upsidedown cat with a cloak of anonymity.


----------



## YTC (Aug 13, 2019)

Cat Daisy said:


> Good to see that Ben Clasper has written to S/T holders this afternoon. Did someone say there were 600 S/T holders this season. While some of them will presumably be juniors etc, it will presumably look better if we can point to a number of supporters of the application that at least mirrors the number of supporters that turn up at matches.



Really vital that everyone comments as there's a lot of accounts popping up online objecting that we've never seen of or heard of before spouting some rather questionable boll...information.

One I find remarkable, and one that constantly gets dodged, is that if we don't 'enclose and upgrade' the Astro Turf, The council will anyway.A lot of people moaning about us 'enclosing the space' - if we don't do it, the council does, and we cease to exist!

It's right here, on their website: Green Dale Fields - download the plan here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6048/Interim-Management-Plan-Draft.pdf


----------



## cg__ (Aug 13, 2019)

YTC said:


> Really vital that everyone comments as there's a lot of accounts popping up online objecting that we've never seen of or heard of before spouting some rather questionable boll...information.



The most recent one that has cropped up today quite clearly has a very limited understanding of the whole situation as well, asking questions about why Dulwich aren't just opposing the housing development or why Southwark council can't just CPO the site and expand Champion Hill. Quite harmful misinformed views


----------



## YTC (Aug 13, 2019)

cg__ said:


> The most recent one that has cropped up today quite clearly has a very limited understanding of the whole situation as well, asking questions about why Dulwich aren't just opposing the housing development or why Southwark council can't just CPO the site and expand Champion Hill. Quite harmful misinformed views



It's inevitable I guess, but it's quite hard to tell the story of the last 2 years again, especially after living it. Saw someone bring up Rio a few days ago to. That ship has sailed guys, things have changed, we've moved on! 

Incredibly harmful views, and back to binary arguments with no end. This is why it's vital we all pile in and make sure we're making our voices heard on the planning portal.


----------



## Al Crane (Aug 13, 2019)

YTC said:


> Really vital that everyone comments as there's a lot of accounts popping up online objecting that we've never seen of or heard of before spouting some rather questionable boll...information.
> 
> One I find remarkable, and one that constantly gets dodged, is that if we don't 'enclose and upgrade' the Astro Turf, The council will anyway.A lot of people moaning about us 'enclosing the space' - if we don't do it, the council does, and we cease to exist!
> 
> It's right here, on their website: Green Dale Fields - download the plan here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6048/Interim-Management-Plan-Draft.pdf



I’ve seen lots of comments which focus on the loss of public amenity space and regardless of opinions on the quality of the current AstroTurf the message about increased, quality provision isn’t coming across clearly enough at present.

I assume Meadow pay a PR consultant to deal with this sort of thing. Why don’t Meadow / Club just respond and set out that very clearly what’s available for public amenity?

The point about losing the AstroTurf pitch as “public amenity” has always been that a higher quality MUGA will be installed alongside a full size 3G pitch that would be available for public hire - therefore the facilities will be better overall. Many objectors focusing on the size of AstroTurf vs size of MUGA which is never going to stack up because its not offset that way.


----------



## YTC (Aug 13, 2019)

Good point Al, this point has been made but perhaps needs to be clearer from Club side!


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Aug 14, 2019)

YTC said:


> Good point Al, this point has been made but perhaps needs to be clearer from Club side!


Strange comment... You ARE the Club side.


----------



## blueheaven (Aug 14, 2019)

After giving it a lot of thought I've commented in support of the development because I support the club and I don't want it to die, and supporting this proposal seems like it's the only viable option - but to be honest it doesn't sit at all well with me that the club finds itself in a position where its survival depends on partially taking over a protected area that is valuable to wildlife and (going by many of the comments) is clearly of some community value. I praise the job that the club is doing in getting people on side, explaining the situation as best it can and generally putting a positive spin on things... but personally I find it hard to push to the back of my mind the fact that this is basically only happening because we've been backed into a corner by Meadow. And as much as Meadow have apparently changed and are willing to work with the club on this now, the bottom line for me is that they are still very much the bad guys in all of this and the local community - on either side of the argument - should be united in being bloody furious at them.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 14, 2019)

blueheaven said:


> After giving it a lot of thought I've commented in support of the development because I support the club and I don't want it to die, and supporting this proposal seems like it's the only viable option - but to be honest it doesn't sit at all well with me that the club finds itself in a position where its survival depends on partially taking over a protected area that is valuable to wildlife and (going by many of the comments) is clearly of some community value. I praise the job that the club is doing in getting people on side, explaining the situation as best it can and generally putting a positive spin on things... but personally I find it hard to push to the back of my mind the fact that this is basically only happening because we've been backed into a corner by Meadow. And as much as Meadow have apparently changed and are willing to work with the club on this now, the bottom line for me is that they are still very much the bad guys in all of this and the local community - on either side of the argument - should be united in being bloody furious at them.



Yes this is pretty much how I feel about it. As a supporter it does look like supporting the development is the only way forward, although it's hard to support Meadow's plans tbh. And I have to say the work done by those now involved with the club has been fantastic.  I do think though that after everything that's happened we shouldn't be back to trying to portray any objection at all as totally unreasonable NIMBYism (for all that some might be). There are genuine and reasonable objections to this (that a lot of us would probably sympathise with in a different development) and I think we should be engaging with those not trying to dismiss them.


----------



## Clareg (Aug 14, 2019)

Agree with last 2 posts and partner and I have now both supported proposal .


----------



## Borstal Scum (Aug 21, 2019)

I'm a bit unsure in the club's statement when it states, " As a fan owned club DHFC could not afford the estimated costs of longer-term renovation (over £2 million) or the estimated costs of a replacement stadium compliant with the demands of the modern game (over £10 million)."

Are the words 'fan owned' inaccurate? Can we say that DHFC is a fan-owned club? DHST is now a significant shareholder, but one can be a significant shareholder with only 3% of the shares. McCormack is still the controlling shareholder, is he not? Unless a democratic fan body is the controlling shareholder, can one say that DHFC is really 'fan-owned?'


----------



## pettyboy (Aug 21, 2019)

Borstal Scum said:


> McCormack is still the controlling shareholder, is he not?



Nah. All this information is in the public domain if you could be bothered to take a look.


----------



## B.I.G (Aug 21, 2019)

Borstal Scum said:


> I'm a bit unsure in the club's statement when it states, " As a fan owned club DHFC could not afford the estimated costs of longer-term renovation (over £2 million) or the estimated costs of a replacement stadium compliant with the demands of the modern game (over £10 million)."
> 
> Are the words 'fan owned' inaccurate? Can we say that DHFC is a fan-owned club? DHST is now a significant shareholder, but one can be a significant shareholder with only 3% of the shares. McCormack is still the controlling shareholder, is he not? Unless a democratic fan body is the controlling shareholder, can one say that DHFC is really 'fan-owned?'



Chelsea are fan owned, its PR innit.


----------



## Roger D (Aug 21, 2019)

The majority of allocated shares in the last public breakdown are held by people who can legitimately be described as Dulwich Hamlet fans.

The phrase fan owned can be read in many ways. Its use may be intentional.


----------



## Borstal Scum (Aug 22, 2019)

pettyboy said:


> Nah. All this information is in the public domain if you could be bothered to take a look.



 I was going by disclosures on companies house which seemed to indicate that McCormack was the controlling shareholder. If I’m wrong please correct me, though it may be nice if you did it without the condescending attitude.

I’m not saying I’m against the planning application, but the use of ‘fan-owned’ may raise an eyebrow at clubs like Fisher and Clapton CFC.


----------



## B.I.G (Aug 22, 2019)

Borstal Scum said:


> I was going by disclosures on companies house which seemed to indicate that McCormack was the controlling shareholder. If I’m wrong please correct me, though it may be nice if you did it without the condescending attitude.
> 
> I’m not saying I’m against the planning application, but the use of ‘fan-owned’ may raise an eyebrow at clubs like Fisher and Clapton CFC.



Maybe we should go bust and reform? Is that your business plan? Those clubs did it that way after all.


----------



## Roger D (Aug 22, 2019)

It is a matter of public record that Nick signed over the bulk of his shares to a company run at the time by Ben, Liam and Tom. (I haven't checked they are all shareholders in that company still. Gavin may also have been involved at one point)

Liam posted a while back that a new share register was being prepared due to a recent investment. Unless that was the one the Trust have confirmed they made, we don't know who it was. There is no reason to believe it was Nick.

If Nick's shareholding remains as in the last share register, he remains a large shareholder, second biggest from memory, but has zero control as the block vote he transferred can outvote him. From memory that would hold true even if every other shareholder voted with Nick. Which is pretty unlikely to happen anyway.

Note the investment may  perhaps have been Ben converting loans into shares. If so, he as an individual probably moves ahead of Nick in the number of shares held. We will know for sure when the updated share register is released


----------



## Borstal Scum (Aug 22, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Maybe we should go bust and reform? Is that your business plan? Those clubs did it that way after all.



No, that is not my business plan. OK, let’s just agree that ‘fan owned’ may be interpreted various ways, then. I thought it meant where there was a fan body (not just one fan) having majority ownership of the club, but others may interpret it as being owned by a person who is identified as a fan. Obviously, I clearly do not want DHFC to be bust.


----------



## Roger D (Aug 22, 2019)

Remember that on top of the shares Nick transferred there are many small shareholders.

Not sure how long you have been around the club but if you were here in the mid-90's you will recognise many of those names as regular fans. Most are still around the club.

I doubt the club are using the term fan owned solely because of the biggest shareholding but are instead reflecting the wider share ownership by fans, albeit a small % of allocated share capital.

Full disclosure - I'm one of the mid 90's fans with a small shareholding


----------



## B.I.G (Aug 22, 2019)

Borstal Scum said:


> No, that is not my business plan. OK, let’s just agree that ‘fan owned’ may be interpreted various ways, then. I thought it meant where there was a fan body (not just one fan) having majority ownership of the club, but others may interpret it as being owned by a person who is identified as a fan. Obviously, I clearly do not want DHFC to be bust.



Cool. Everyone in agreement. Another Urban success story. Take that the haters!


----------



## Dulwich Mishi (Aug 22, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Maybe we should go bust and reform? Is that your business plan? Those clubs did it that way after all.


Fisher Athletic did go bust. With same owner that was manoeuvring the strings controlling the puppet that was Nick McCormack.
Clapton still exist. Clapton CFC are a completely different kettle of fish. Their fans choosing to break away and form their own club. More in the mould of FC United of Manchester or Enfield Town I’d say.


----------



## pettyboy (Aug 22, 2019)

Borstal Scum said:


> I was going by disclosures on companies house which seemed to indicate that McCormack was the controlling shareholder. If I’m wrong please correct me, though it may be nice if you did it without the condescending attitude.
> 
> I’m not saying I’m against the planning application, but the use of ‘fan-owned’ may raise an eyebrow at clubs like Fisher and Clapton CFC.



If you weren’t posting false information, there would be no need to be condescending. I’ll spell it out again shall I? All this information is available to read in the public domain. The club has been damaged enough already over the years by the spreading of lies. 

“Scum” seems to be the operable word here fella.


----------



## blueheaven (Aug 22, 2019)

pettyboy said:


> If you weren’t posting false information, there would be no need to be condescending. I’ll spell it out again shall I? All this information is available to read in the public domain. The club has been damaged enough already over the years by the spreading of lies.
> 
> “Scum” seems to be the operable word here fella.



Wow, the guy was just asking a question, why be so aggressive?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 22, 2019)

I've not followed, nor am I going to read the whole of, this thread. 

I last looked into all this a couple of years ago, and my thoughts back then were as per my comments quoted below (from another thread). Has anything changed in the meantime, that might change my opinion?

(I have been asked elsewhere for my thoughts, in relation to whether the current planning application should be supported or objected to)



teuchter said:


> Affordable housing quotas on new developments are effectively one of the few ways we currently manage to get anything approaching new social housing built. They are standard practice and part of planning policy. Any developer is aware that it's a cost they take on when developing a site.
> 
> As I understand it the deal here is basically that we give up some public open space for a new football stadium. That's already controversial, because strong arguments can be made for metropolitan open space being a significant community asset. Which by definition has existed for much longer than the football club.
> 
> ...





teuchter said:


> What kind of support - that they could reasonably be expected to give - would you like to see from these organisations?
> 
> Regarding the open space - there are various dismissive comments about its value, referring to it as "wasteland" and so on. It may be true that it could be better used. However, the point is that even if it's currently unattractive or un-useful, once it's built on that's it forever. There's no possibility of it becoming a better managed open space in the future. I think the instinct to have a "zero-tolerance" attitude to encroachment on public open space, once it gains any level of protection, is a good one. I can see that from the club's point of view, a last throw of the dice, and agreement that it goes no further, can seem a reasonable request. That's the kind of thinking that I'm sure the developers want to take advantage of. But it sets a precedent, and what do you say to the next good cause who wants to take away just a little bit of it, ten or twenty years later? And what's left 50 or 100 years down the line?





teuchter said:


> OK, let's agree for the purpose of the argument that the affordable housing opportunity, regardless of quota, is of no real social value. So we take that out of the equation.
> 
> You're controlled by the owner of the land. Who wants you off the land so they can make money out of it. In exchange for negotiating, on your behalf, to take away some existing public open space and put you there instead, in a new stadium where they'll be kind enough to stop bullying you.
> 
> ...





teuchter said:


> Ok, so, the thing is that looking at the situation from the outside - which is what I'm doing because I have no interest in football - it seems the basic problem is to do with the ownership of the existing stadium. It's not to do with land or a stadium being available or not - there's a stadium that is apparently is fit for purpose and on land which is designated, in town planning terms, specifically for that purpose.
> 
> And what the "wider community" is being asked to accept, is a solution to this problem that involves giving up public space *and* giving the developer what they want - a profitable housing development. So, basically the developer wins at the game they are trying to play - which is one of bullying. And like I say, looking at that from the outside, that seems a very bad deal. To me it seems that what needs to happen is to sort out all the mess of the ownership of the land and the landlord/owner/club relationship.
> 
> That's why I fully support the council calling the developer's bluff. I can see of course that this process makes life very difficult for the club. But I'd actually rather see public money going into supporting the club, maybe even buying it out, than see public space being given up to appease a developer playing games. Actually, it feels like the site should just be CPO'd to protect the long term future of the club, which I'm happy to accept as a valuable community asset even though I have no interest in it. Of course, there are probably all sorts of legal reasons that's not a viable solution. But this is the way the situation looks to me, anyway.


----------



## Matt The Cab (Aug 22, 2019)

Is that a no then?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 22, 2019)

From DHFC site:



> *Will the stadium will be built on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)?*
> 
> No, that’s not a true statement. No section of the stadium building will be on MOL, all buildings will be on the existing Champion Hill site. The pitch though will be on our existing astroturf pitch which is on MOL and will be enclosed which it is not today. The renovation and the enclosure of that pitch was already part of the Southwark Plan for Green Dale Fields before this application was submitted and is therefore due to be actioned regardless of whether there is a stadium adjoining the site.



Seems a bit of a stretch. As far as I can see, what is planned for the astroturf enclosure at present is just a mesh fence.

 

That's not really the same thing as the hardstanding and enclosure that would be required for spectators etc that would be part of the redevelopment.

The basic argument here seems to be "it'll still be open land really". That it's all still broadly within the intended use of Metropolitan Open Land. But the existing stadium was built on open land, and as I understand it, that was subject to a planning condition that it be used for leisure purposes and not redeveloped. What this proposal facilitates is the loss of that previous open land - supposedly protected against development. 

In 20 or 40 years time, when people have forgotten that this new, enclosed pitch was built on supposedly protected open land, it'll be ready for the same argument to develop it. The pitch can be relocated onto some other portion of Metropolitan Open Land. No open land will really be lost, because a football pitch is still open land really! The football club is in financial trouble and this is the only way to rescue it! But some more houses can be built and another developer can make some cash.


----------



## cg__ (Aug 22, 2019)

pettyboy said:


> “Scum” seems to be the operable word here fella.



If anything you're the only one acting like scum here. 

Jesus the guy just asked a question, why be so horrible?


----------



## B.I.G (Aug 22, 2019)

cg__ said:


> If anything you're the only one acting like scum here.
> 
> Jesus the guy just asked a question, why be so horrible?



Suspicious of a new members motives, and why not be?


----------



## cg__ (Aug 22, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Suspicious of a new members motives, and why not be?



There's being suspicious and there's acting like a wanker

As a semi new user myself some of the ways you see people on here talk to each other is pretty unwelcoming. Maybe the person is new to the forum and wanted to learn more about ownership of the club from the people who know it best?


----------



## crocustim (Aug 22, 2019)

Send pettyboy to the borstal?


----------



## JoeBoy1959 (Sep 21, 2019)

Are we still benefiting from changing to Bulb energy?


----------



## Nivag (Sep 21, 2019)

JoeBoy1959 said:


> Are we still benefiting from changing to Bulb energy?


yup Bulb - Get a quote


----------



## Pink Panther (Sep 21, 2019)

JoeBoy1959 said:


> Are we still benefiting from changing to Bulb energy?


Yes thanks, they're much cheaper than British Gas!


----------



## Nivag (Dec 2, 2019)

Update from the Chairman and date for a fan forum next week:



> Ben Clasper, Chairman, has issued a statement with an update on the planning application and announced a fan forum for Tuesday December 10th at 7pm




https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dulw...to-fans-supporters--stakeholders-2491999.html


----------



## Jimbob73 (Dec 11, 2019)

I couldn't make the meeting last night, has anyone got any updates? cheers


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2019)

Jimbob73 said:


> I couldn't make the meeting last night, has anyone got any updates? cheers


And if anyone could knock out an article for Buzz that would be good too!


----------



## Nivag (Dec 11, 2019)

This sums up some of the meeting.


Pink Panther said:


> [Ben]...explained that there are ongoing problems regarding the maintenance of the failing mechanical, electrical and public health services at the ground (i.e. floodlights, plumbing, drainage etc.) which continues to swallow a lot of time, money a



Also still waiting on various parts of Southwark council to do their planning thing.


----------



## EDC (Dec 16, 2019)

EDF reporting its gone to the  major’s office as it doesn’t meet requirements but might go through with changes.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2019)

EDC said:


> EDF reporting its gone to the  major’s office as it doesn’t meet requirements but might go through with changes.


What, a property developer trying to wriggle out of their 'affordable' housing commitments?! Never!


----------



## EDC (Dec 16, 2019)

There’s no details, there may be other reasons.  Height, access, who knows.   The link posted on there doesn’t work.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 17, 2019)

editor said:


> What, a property developer trying to wriggle out of their 'affordable' housing commitments?! Never!



Likely to be the MOL thing, again, isn't it?


----------



## Pink Panther (Dec 17, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Likely to be the MOL thing, again, isn't it?


Possibly. It was also mentioned at last week's forum that there are numerous precedents for overruling MOL restrictions, it's by no means the absolute barrier to this redevelopment that many seem to believe.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 17, 2019)

Pink Panther said:


> Possibly. It was also mentioned at last week's forum that there are numerous precedents for overruling MOL restrictions, it's by no means the absolute barrier to this redevelopment that many seem to believe.



Sure - I'm speculating based on my perception of the situation, I'm certainly no expert.

There's a bit of a contradiction in there though isn't there. I'd understood the argument was that the fenced off area didn't contravene the MOL rules - if it's now that MOL rules can be overturned I think that's a definite shift.


----------



## blueheaven (Jan 29, 2020)

This story in the press yesterday: Countryside campaigners bid to halt Dulwich Hamlet's ground move


----------



## Nivag (Jan 29, 2020)

Countryside!?! It's bloody zone 2!


----------



## Big Bertha (Jan 29, 2020)

Nivag said:


> Countryside!?! It's bloody zone 2!


Presumably where open land is at more of a premium, so more worth conserving it?


----------



## EDC (Jan 29, 2020)

I'm expecting that little Swedish girl to get involved at any moment.


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> This story in the press yesterday: Countryside campaigners bid to halt Dulwich Hamlet's ground move


Fucking Meadow.


> Developer Meadow Residential had applied to build 150 flats on the Champion Hill stadium site.
> 
> When Southwark threatened to issue a compulsory purchase to seize the land, Meadow retaliated a year ago with an even bigger scheme with more than 220 apartments.


----------



## scousedom (Jan 29, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> This story in the press yesterday: Countryside campaigners bid to halt Dulwich Hamlet's ground move


Putting the cunt into countryside (as Billy Connolly once nearly said).


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jan 29, 2020)

"fewer and lower floodlighting than the existing provision"  !!!!!  I hope they are more powerful then as the current ones are terrible!


----------



## Pink Panther (Jan 29, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> This story in the press yesterday: Countryside campaigners bid to halt Dulwich Hamlet's ground move


First of all I don't think it's helpful if we get drawn into a slanging match with objectors, or make a habit of ridiculing any objections. Anyone can see comments posted online so I feel it's important to be reasonable at all times.

I have a couple of concerns about this article.  First of all:

"Of the 423 comments to Southwark council, 280 were in favour and 141 against – but in the first three months since June last year, residents who wrote in were almost all in favour – *but now the pendulum has swung the other way*."  where has this renewed opposition come from?  Are these genuine locals, or have the original minority of objectors rallied support from the sort of "professional campaigners" who will always oppose anything like our ground redevelopment, and who have no actual connection with the local community?

Secondly:  "
CPRE head of green space campaigns, Alice Roberts, wrote to Mayor Khan: “The redevelopment of the stadium should not be at the expense of *much-used and valued natural open space*, including a *well-used community football pitch*."  This is just not factually accurate.  Greendales is an open space, but that's about it.  It's been poorly maintained and under-used for decades, and the astroturf pitch is also no longer "well used" and is clearly no longer fit for purpose.  Anyone claiming otherwise either knows little about football or hasn't even seen it.  It clearly needs to be completely relaid before it can be safe for community use, which will happen with the 3G pitch in the proposed new stadium.  Our club has also added value to the neighbouring St Saviour's & St Olave's playing fields by making use of them for training and contributing to the coaching of local schoolchildren I believe.


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2020)

Pink Panther said:


> First of all I don't think it's helpful if we get drawn into a slanging match with objectors, or make a habit of ridiculing any objections. Anyone can see comments posted online so I feel it's important to be reasonable at all times.
> 
> I have a couple of concerns about this article.  First of all:
> 
> ...


I can't lie about this: I fully understand why the objections are being lodged, and it's a bit nitpicking to start questioning where the objections are coming from given that many of the supporting comments would have come from Hamlet fans, many of whom live nowhere near the proposed development.  Just like the club encouraged fans to register their support, it seems that those against it are mobilising in much the same way, not that I think such input from either side holds much sway when decisions are being made.


----------



## Latahs (Jan 29, 2020)

This is the wrong battle for them to fight and they'll end up killing the club by poking into an issue which doesn't concern them. Like Gav said it's not the countryside its zone 2. Butt out.


----------



## Big Bertha (Jan 29, 2020)

Latahs said:


> This is the wrong battle for them to fight and they'll end up killing the club by poking into an issue which doesn't concern them. Like Gav said it's not the countryside its zone 2. Butt out.


By definition it’s not the countryside

*Metropolitan Open Land*" or "*MOL*" is a term or designation used only within London.[1] Land designated MOL is afforded the same level of protection as the Metropolitan Green Belt.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jan 29, 2020)

editor said:


> I can't lie about this: I fully understand why the objections are being lodged, and it's a bit nitpicking to start questioning where the objections are coming from given that many of the supporting comments would have come from Hamlet fans, many of whom live nowhere near the proposed development.  Just like the club encouraged fans to register their support, it seems that those against it are mobilising in much the same way, not that I think such input from either side holds much sway when decisions are being made.


Even if some Hamlet supporters live outside the area, they still come and support the club within its community.  Up to 3,000 people attend matches, they spend money in the neighbourhood and help drive the local economy.  I'm not convinced some of the objectors will have ever set eyes upon Greendales or Champion Hill Stadium, or will ever be visitors to the area if they succeed in halting the redevelopment.  That's not nitpicking at all in my book.


----------



## Latahs (Jan 29, 2020)

We must not let our mistrust of Meadows blind us to what the club needs to survive


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2020)

Latahs said:


> We must not let our mistrust of Meadows blind us to what the club needs to survive


Similarly, people shouldn't feel pressured into completely compromising their passionately held principles in their desire for the club to survive. 

I feel very much between a rock and a hard place and will continue to bite my tongue for the good of the club.


----------



## Latahs (Jan 29, 2020)

Football>>the shopping trolley Serengeti


----------



## mick mccartney (Jan 29, 2020)

Pink Panther said:


> *well-used community football pitch*.


'well-used' in the sense of totally worn out !


----------



## Nivag (Jan 29, 2020)

mick mccartney said:


> 'well-used' in the sense of totally worn out !


By dog walkers letting their dogs foul it


----------



## dcdulwich (Jan 29, 2020)

Pink Panther said:


> First of all I don't think it's helpful if we get drawn into a slanging match with objectors, or make a habit of ridiculing any objections. Anyone can see comments posted online so I feel it's important to be reasonable at all times.
> 
> I have a couple of concerns about this article.  First of all:
> 
> ...


The numbers quoted in the article are incorrect and incomplete.

First, the figures from the source that appears to have been used are wrong. On the Southwark website, of the 423 comments recorded, 295 are designated as ‘supporting’ and 123 as ‘objections’.

In addition, Southwark Planning was updating its website during the time when the application was being consulted upon. There is another section of the website that can still be accessed that shows a further 821 comments: 592 supporting with 229 objections. This makes a total of 1244 comments with 887 supporting and 352 objections.

When I looked in early October the equivalent 423/295/123 figures were 397/291/101 - but the consultation is listed as having expired on 30/9/2019 so it is not surprising that there have only been 26 comments over the last three and a half months. The ‘pendulum’ comment really makes no sense at all.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 29, 2020)

mick mccartney said:


> 'well-used' in the sense of totally worn out !


This is just a variation on the old developer trick of letting a site go derelict so that eventually people forget what was there before, and just want sonething - anything - built on it. Then they build something that no one would have been happy to have replace what was previously there. 

It doesn't really matter how well maintained or used the land is now - its potential for public use is what should be considered.


----------



## Scolly (Feb 7, 2020)

*London environment campaigners say Mayor's assessment allowing an enclosed football club pitch & stands to be built on protected land at Green Dale Fields in Southwark is wrong*






						London environment campaigners say Mayor's assessment allowing an enclosed football club pitch & stands to be built on protected land at Green Dale Fields in Southwark is wrong - CPRE London
					

CPRE London has today written to the Mayor of London over concerns that he is allowing inappropriate development on London's Metropolitan Open Land (M...




					www.cprelondon.org.uk


----------



## teuchter (Feb 7, 2020)

Scolly said:


> *London environment campaigners say Mayor's assessment allowing an enclosed football club pitch & stands to be built on protected land at Green Dale Fields in Southwark is wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They are quite right, especially on point 2.


----------



## Latahs (Feb 7, 2020)

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.


----------



## Taper (Feb 7, 2020)

MOL is a bit of an anachronism.  I was on Greendale last Saturday and that end of it is surrounded by large ugly buildings.  A new shiny stadium along the lines of the one proposed would improve it.


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 7, 2020)

teuchter said:


> They are quite right, especially on point 2.


No they're not, in fact they are quite wrong on point 2:

_" (2) *the nature of the provision will change entirely i.e. from 'turn up and play' to book/pay*_

_2. The new stadium will be enclosed and you have correctly advised that this is inappropriate development on MOL (impacting as it will on the openness of the MOL). However, you have said that this is acceptable because the FA requires a stadium to be enclosed. This is a circular and incorrect argument: the correct conclusion should be that any football club stadium development is inappropriate on MOL, in light of it needing to be enclosed with fencing/screening. *It is also inappropriate because the enclosure means it can no longer be enjoyed by the general public.* And the amenity value of the remaining MOL for the public and as a SINC is also severely compromised. These aspects of 'harm' have not been properly recognised."_

The current astroturf pitch was fully enclosed by a mesh fence when opened in 1992 and has *never* been available to the general public on a "turn up and play basis".  (Unless you count people gaining informal access after the fence was vandalised and ultimately removed.)


----------



## Scolly (Feb 7, 2020)

Pink Panther said:


> The current astroturf pitch was fully enclosed by a mesh fence when opened in 1992 and has *never* been available to the general public on a "turn up and play basis".  (Unless you count people gaining informal access after the fence was vandalised and ultimately removed.)



The council have clearly stated that if the astro reverts to them it will be fenced off and I would suggest only available for rental not public use.   

The clubs lease with the council also states we need to fence the area off when the astro is replaced.  The plan was to have this done by now, however delays in a planning decision has delayed the works.... but going by the original timetable the area would already be fenced off as part of the terms given to the club by Southwark council.

So the fencing is just not a valid argument, it's going to happen.   

The club have clearly stated they we will allow access to the local community to use the pitch, stadium facilities as well as it being a much needed sports area for local schools who have poor or no facilities.   The whole argument that the current astro should be left for community use is alarming .... it's simply dangerous and I would be concerned about parents allowing kids on there / adults who also play.

The club is willing to work with local groups / community to understand their needs and strike a balance on the final designs / stadium or surrounding areas ... I maybe wrong, but they haven't taken up the clubs request.


----------



## blueheaven (Feb 7, 2020)

On point 2: I haven't been round by the astroturf in probably a couple of years - can anyone share what the situation is with it currently? Is it even usable at the moment? Do people still play on it?

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.


----------



## Scolly (Feb 7, 2020)

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 (Feb 7, 2020)

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 (Feb 7, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> 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.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 7, 2020)

Latahs said:


> 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.


----------



## Taper (Feb 7, 2020)

A lot of MOL land is enclosed, including that around Greendale. Enclosure isn’t an issue.


----------



## Latahs (Feb 7, 2020)

teuchter said:


> 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.


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2020)

Buzzed: Dulwich Hamlet issue the latest update on the Champion Hill planning application, and urge fans to register their support


----------



## Latahs (Mar 5, 2020)

<Shines al crane/ dc dulwich Light into the sky>

This is dull but I believe that the most persuasive comments will also justify the re-development from a planning perspective. Don't just write about how much you love the club, inclusion, keys, cask ale etc.... 

Here are a few starters

The new MUGA will enhance the provision of sporting facilities in the area (improve health/ mental well-being etc.) and for local schools
The stadium will not survive without development so there won’t be any facilities or club...sine qua non (paraphrasing from Roger D)
The encroachment on MOL is a problem but it’s use should be reassessed (see below) as it would add more value as part of our development (Edited following Roger Ds comments) 
Greendale is rubbish and not an SSSI (put into your own words) which was historically part of the football ground
Local businesses rely on the trade that 3000+ people bring on alternate Saturdays (and will bring on Sundays in future thanks to DHFC_W)
The development will of course provide more affordable housing in the area (as no-one lives in an affordable house within the boundaries of Champion Hill Stadium) which is sorely needed

I'll edit this if there are any sensible arguments against  - but not from obvious contrarians who want the club to die


----------



## Roger D (Mar 5, 2020)

I am not a planning expert but doubt the no real encroachment on MOL line will work. There either is or there isn't. Planning is usually black and white.

However I believe with MOL there are shades of grey and development on MOL is acceptable under certain circumstances. If so you probably need to argue this development is acceptable under existing legislation because XYZ. Sorry you need someone with more planning knowledge than me to phrase that.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2020)

Don't forget to work out the good argument for overturning a planning condition that protects the existing stadium grounds from redevelopment. The good argument for why that should happen in order to allow a developer to make a nice profit, and displace that supposedly protected use onto a piece of publicly owned green space that could be used for something else.


----------



## Roger D (Mar 6, 2020)

That's the argument about whether or not it is justified in these circumstances to build on MOL. Don't believe the stadium will survive without another development. As you said, the developers want their profit and ultimately are likely to get it unless someone knows a benefactor with £13 million free.

For the record I live in Hampshire now and have never publicly supported or opposed the new ground. Many Hamlet fans got the hump when the CPRE invited anyone to oppose this. I don't disagree with CPRE objecting, it's their role however; I agree with the Hamlet fans that this is a local political decision and they shouldn't appeal to anyone outside the area. Clearly as a Hampshire resident that also excludes me.

I'm happy to call hypocracy out on either side. Those charged with making the decision should do so on the basis of the facts.

BTW to those who believe Greendale has never been developed, check the history of Dulwich Wood FC, founded 1907, pre world war one and where Townley Park had signed a lease to play in 1914/15......


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2020)

Roger D said:


> For the record I live in Hampshire now and have never publicly supported or opposed the new ground. Many Hamlet fans got the hump when the CPRE invited anyone to oppose this. I don't disagree with CPRE objecting, it's their role however; I agree with the Hamlet fans that this is a local political decision and they shouldn't appeal to anyone outside the area. Clearly as a Hampshire resident that also excludes me.



One legitimate reason bodies from outside the area might get involved is that planning decisions can set precedent - precedent that could have consequence for decisions elsewhere.


----------



## Taper (Mar 6, 2020)

There's already quite a bit of precedent for developing MOL. CPRE are very reactionary on Green Belt (see John Elledge), so perhaps their strategy is to try to hold some sort of line on its urban equivalent MOL. Or perhaps a board member is also a member of the Dulwich Society.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 6, 2020)

Taper said:


> There's already quite a bit of precedent for developing MOL. CPRE are very reactionary on Green Belt (see John Elledge), so perhaps their strategy is to try to hold some sort of line on its urban equivalent MOL. Or perhaps a board member is also a member of the Dulwich Society.



#Jonn# Elledge.

He made me a beatles mixtape.


----------



## Taper (Mar 6, 2020)

Jonn Elledge, that's the guy.  He's very good. Here's a bit of invective on the CPRE The CPRE is wrong: there are not 460,000 homes planned for England’s green belts | CityMetric


----------



## EDC (May 21, 2020)

East Dulwich Forum are saying the proposal has been accepted by Sadiq Khan.  Is that it then?


----------



## editor (May 21, 2020)

EDC said:


> East Dulwich Forum are saying the proposal has been accepted by Sadiq Khan.  Is that it then?


Says 'status unknown' on the planning form 



			https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications-old/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage


----------



## Pink Panther (May 21, 2020)

EDC said:


> East Dulwich Forum are saying the proposal has been accepted by Sadiq Khan.  Is that it then?


As far as I can tell one person who seems fairly clueless "thinks" it's been accepted. I'm sure the club would have made an announcement if there was anything significant to report.


----------



## B.I.G (May 21, 2020)

Pink Panther said:


> As far as I can tell one person who seems fairly clueless "thinks" it's been accepted. I'm sure the club would have made an announcement if there was anything significant to report.



Plus the person saying the club better have good security and someone claiming they used the space   during the lockdown, probably cos its so shit no one else is there.


----------



## Roger D (May 21, 2020)

I believe the application has been recommended for acceptance by the Greater London Authority. They may well have the right to call this decision in if they disagree with Southwark, see the link below for the powers they hold. It is rare for the Mayor to do this.

At the moment the responsible planning authority, to the best of my knowledge, remains Southwark, not the Mayor.

Whilst this is a step in the right direction for the applicant, if I am correct, it certainly does not mean that this is a done deal.









						Public hearings
					

Details of public hearings on planning applications that the Mayor has taken over, including past and future hearings




					www.london.gov.uk


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2020)

Taper said:


> 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


By the way...
I went past the other week and noticed quite a few people were using it. Playing football, kids riding bikes and running around.


----------



## EDC (May 21, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Plus the person saying the club better have good security and someone claiming they used the space   during the lockdown, probably cos its so shit no one else is there.


Its actually been extremely busy when I've walked the mutt through there, plus they've taken the time to make banners calling for it's protection.


----------



## B.I.G (May 21, 2020)

EDC said:


> Its actually been extremely busy when I've walked the mutt through there, plus they've taken the time to make banners calling for it's protection.



Which will make it even better when it gets knocked down and concreted.


----------



## Pink Panther (May 21, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Which will make it even better when it gets knocked down and concreted.


Are we having a concrete pitch? I thought it was going to be 3G.


----------



## B.I.G (May 21, 2020)

Pink Panther said:


> Are we having a concrete pitch? I thought it was going to be 3G.



Meadow are building it. So who knows what they think a 3g pitch is made of.


----------



## tonysingh (May 21, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Plus the person saying the club better have good security and someone claiming they used the space   during the lockdown, probably cos its so shit no one else is there.




Welcome back. Its been miles too quiet.


----------



## B.I.G (May 21, 2020)

tonysingh said:


> Welcome back. Its been miles too quiet.



Well I got banned for saying covid-19 was bad 

Now is not a good time. I’ve gone full dulwich and I’m singing babylon by david gray while far too close to the floor of my garden.

But I’m still not as much of a legend as tonysingh

Keep up the poetry!


----------



## B.I.G (May 21, 2020)

tonysingh since you started something. The superior toni singh.


----------



## pettyboy (May 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> By the way...
> I went past the other week and noticed quite a few people were using it. Playing football, kids riding bikes and running around.
> View attachment 213855



Good photo. Shows how dilapidated the pitch is. Really not fit for purpose and the astroturf is becoming more damaged and dangerous without proper maintenance.


----------



## teuchter (May 25, 2020)

pettyboy said:


> Good photo. Shows how dilapidated the pitch is. Really not fit for purpose and the astroturf is becoming more damaged and dangerous without proper maintenance.


So the solution is to repair it, not to build a fenced off private stadium on it. There's obviously demand for it if people are using it even in its delapidated state.


----------



## editor (May 25, 2020)

pettyboy said:


> Good photo. Shows how dilapidated the pitch is. Really not fit for purpose and the astroturf is becoming more damaged and dangerous without proper maintenance.


With the current state of affairs - playgrounds closed, exercise areas taped off, skateparks and BMX tracks closed -  people aren't going to be fussy where they exercise - so even a shitty slab of usually-ignored knackered astroturf becomes a place to go.  The parks and green spaces around me are busier than they've ever been, but when this lockdown is over, some will go back to their near-empty existence.


----------



## Nivag (Jul 9, 2020)

From EDF


> Hi all,
> 
> Just a note to say that the Planning Committee will hear the application to redevelop Dulwich Hamlet Football Club on 27th July at 6.30pm. The meeting will be online. Details are not public yet but when they are you will be able to find them here: [moderngov.southwark.gov.uk]
> 
> ...











						Dulwich Hamlet Football Club planning decision - 27th July
					

Hi all, Just a note to say that the Planning Committee will hear the application to redevelop Dulwich Hamlet Football Club on 27th July at 6.30pm. The meetin…




					www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2020)

Nivag said:


> From EDF
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cheery lot, aren't they?


----------



## Pink Panther (Jul 14, 2020)

editor said:


> Cheery lot, aren't they?


I find that forum unbearable at the best of times.


----------



## Nivag (Jul 14, 2020)

Update








						Statement to fans, supporters and stakeholders July 13, 2020
					

The club and the trust are pleased to update fans and our community regarding our planning application.




					www.pitchero.com


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2020)

And Buzzed!








						Dulwich Hamlet new stadium update – final decision due on Mon, 27th July 2020
					

Dulwich Hamlet have issued an update about the progress of their planning application for a new stadium, which is essential to securing the club’s future. The statement says that the planning…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## YTC (Jul 16, 2020)

In case you don't fancy heading over to the EDF, I posted a reply on there this morning which is probably just as helpful being on here incase anyone's wondering about anything in particular around the development still.


---------


Hello everyone, My name is Tom, and I became a director of the club as we managed to gain ownership of the club itself during the battle with meadow a few years ago.





I’m here to dispel some myths and frank untruths i’ve read here.





*The stadium will be expanded, then run down for more housing*




The ground, which will be sat across two different land owners (Meadow and Southwark) will be leased to the club on an unconditional 125 year lease mirrored by both parties. So, this frankly cannot happen. The club (since 2018) has been owned exclusively by fans that came forward to try and save it in our darkest hour. This now includes a sizeable shareholding and board representation from DHST. The notion that our own fans would want to run down a stadium and build houses on it is not only ridiculous, it’s legally impossible should this dev be approved.





*The Astroturf was run down by the club.*




This is technically true yes, the owners before us were hardly fit and proper. This is why we fought so hard to gain control of the club, so we could make the positive changes we all wanted to see. Anyone thats been to Champion Hill since our return would attest to how much the match day experience has been improved, thats down to us working hard, listening to fans and improving what we could. The Council took the lease back  of the astro turf before returning it to us as  part of the deal for us to return, and recommended it be improved by replacing the astro with 3G and putting a fence around it so it can be managed. That’s exactly what we’ll be doing, albeit on a slightly larger scale. The addition of standing terraces around 3 sides and a main building which is predominantly on Meadow’s land. A gentle reminder that the slopes on the side of the astro turf are the remains of our original terracing, the astro is on the site of the _first_ DHFC ground on Champion Hill, from around 1912 to 1929 we think.





*The Council is giving Land to Meadow, a private company.*




Untrue. The Council is granting the club a 125 extension on the land it has historically leased for over a century. The development of 3 sides of the stadium (standing terracing and associated fencing) will be on council land, that the club leases. The main stadium building will be on Meadow’s land, which they are in turn giving us a 125 year lease on. No land is being given to Meadow, Meadow own the land the club currently sits on.





As a way to try and explain as simply as possible the lease deal, I’ll try and draw it out.





Stadium dev below:


Image linked here: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=358767








*Tower Blocks will be built on MOL*


Again, frankly untrue. The only thing build on MOL, will be standing terraces for spectators and associated fencing around the stadium. All building will be on land Meadow already own.



*The club could redevelop the current stadium*

Technically this is true, if we had around 30 million pounds to 1) buy the land back off of Meadow and 2) spend the estimated 6-10 Million we’d need to tear down and rebuild the stadium to make it about the same as we’re proposing now. People do seem to forget that due to the club being run by an array of ‘characters’ over the years with no real interest in the football club, that we’ve been left in a situation where we do not own the ground the club sits on, nor do we have a stadium fit for purpose. The Current stadium building is falling apart. I say that with first hand (normally down a toilet or through a ceiling tile) experience. The costs of just keeping the place safe for the public are astronomical, and not sustainable. It’s just not true in reality that we could redevelop the current stadium. This development (and believe me, I fought against it) is the only way forward for the club, this time round we’ve actually be included in it, it’s a joint application, and we believe it’s good for us AND the local community, and southwark as a whole. We’ll be the stadium of southwark (literally the only one, as we are now) but with far better facilities to supply and support our community with sporting provision it currently lacks.



*The Clubs future will not be secured with this deal*

That’s a strong disagree from me. The club has operated on the edge since the 70’s, we’ve constantly had issues with tenure, grounds, leases. First B&Q, then the Sainsburys deal. We’ve been controlled by owners who’s focus has been on redevelopment for decades. We as a board, being made up of fans foremost (including DHST) only have the interests of the club at heart. Having a 125 year lease for the club is huge. We can draw down on FA funding we’ve previously not been able to get because we’ve been on short rolling leases, we can plan and run the business with more than a few years planning in advance as we won’t be in the midst of yet another battle. We’ll be able to develop further the academy and links to local schools. The revenue generation possible at the new stadium will allow us to mitigate the financial stress of running a non league football club, a business which is almost crippled by cashflow multiple times a season due to postponements, cup runs and injuries. We are a club that is currently just washing its face purely on our income alone. That means Gate money, hospitality and commercial partnerships. Why’s that so special? I hear some of you ask.  In football, even at this level, most teams are bankrolled by their directors or owners. We run on what we make, and thats it, because thats all we have. 



*The Stadium will never get built/Meadow will reneg on the stadium*



As the application states, the stadium has to be COMPLETED and handed over before the housing can even start construction. Again, legally impossible.



I, as all the other board members, DHST members and fans all appreciate concerns about this dev, we’ve had to make this choice given the stark reality that the club faces, but what I personally can’t stand by is just outright untruths. I put my life on hold to save the club, along with many others who volunteered 1000’s of hours of their time to keep us alive and to provide we hope a valuable asset to our part of London. The long and short of it is if we don’t get this through, we’re done. I would hope that despite peoples concerns, keeping a 127 year club at the heart of the community alive may be worth a little more than some concrete and carpet.



If you choose to oppose, you do chose death for the club. It is that simple unfortunately.


We had regular open meetings at the club (pre-covid) and 2 consultation events on this development but understand no everyone would have been able to attend these or get the information without trawling through a massive application, so please get in touch if you’d like to discuss anything.



I’ll check this thread a few more times before the planning date and try and answer any questions that come up. You can also direct any questions to hello@dulwichhamletfc.co.uk if you’d like to ask something privately or send me a DM here.

-------------





Tom Cullen - DHFC Director.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2020)

Posted here too 









						Dulwich Hamlet dispels the ‘myths, fibs and downright lies’ surrounding the club’s new stadium plans
					

As we reported earlier this week, the fate of Dulwich Hamlet’s new stadium will be decided at the London Borough of Southwark planning committee on Monday July 27th. Although Southwark planni…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## YTC (Jul 16, 2020)

*note I meant homebase I think, not b&q, if only Mishi were here to correct me!


----------



## Roger D (Jul 16, 2020)

It was Homebase. Think B&Q were part of the same group at the time mind.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 17, 2020)

YTC said:


> The ground, which will be sat across two different land owners (Meadow and Southwark) will be leased to the club on an unconditional 125 year lease mirrored by both parties. So, this frankly cannot happen. The club (since 2018) has been owned exclusively by fans that came forward to try and save it in our darkest hour. This now includes a sizeable shareholding and board representation from DHST. The notion that our own fans would want to run down a stadium and build houses on it is not only ridiculous, it’s legally impossible should this dev be approved.



In what way will it be legally impossible?

I don't in any way believe that anyone currently involved in the club would have this intention.

However - what bothers me is that this was supposed to be the case with the existing stadium, wasn't it? That site has a planning condition on it which says it can't be redeveloped for other uses. The council have to over-ride that condition in order to permit the current proposal. What we have right now seems to be a repeat of what happened previously: the old football ground was redeveloped, and some new, previously open land allocated to the club. That previously open land had the stadium built upon it, and it was protected by a planning condition to try and stop what is happening now, from happening. This apparently hasn't worked. So is there a substantially different situation now, in the current proposals, a legal setup that really makes sure it can't happen again?

I feel it's a little unfair to tell those who oppose the development that they are "choosing death" for the club. If the application fails, and the club cannot survive then that's a result of what happened in the club's history, before its resurgence, isn't it? That's what has generated the financial situation where the club's only means of survival is to accept what in effect is a cash handout from a developer, where the developer will only hand out that cash if some public land is made available to the football club. In the end, there are all sorts of organisations who are short of cash, and would like to redevelop their club buildings and so on, but most of them don't happen to sit in the position that you do, where you have a kind of negotiating lever that can potentially get you something worth tens of millions of pounds, in exchange for compromises being made about the use of public land.

This is a trick commonly played by developers - to make out that denying them permission for something will damage the public good - for example, they'll demolish a building and then say, well, if you don't give us permission there's just going to be a wasteland there, or we'll sell it to someone who wants to do something even less popular with it, or whatever. But they deliberately set up that situation, and it seems that they've rather successfully played a similar game here.

Actually, I'm quite sympathetic to your efforts, and I don't doubt you have all the best intentions and part of me hopes you'll succeed. It's probably very annoying to have me say that and then raise these questions and objections. But while part of me wants to see you get a long term solution, the other part of me has a big issue with the developer getting away with this, as a matter of principle, and because of the precedent that it sets.


----------



## B.I.G (Jul 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> In what way will it be legally impossible?
> 
> I don't in any way believe that anyone currently involved in the club would have this intention.
> 
> ...



The difference is the length of the lease. A short lease versus a long lease.

To the point isn’t it.


----------



## blueheaven (Jul 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> In what way will it be legally impossible?
> 
> I don't in any way believe that anyone currently involved in the club would have this intention.
> 
> ...



I actually agree with quite a lot of what you've said here, but regardless of how the situation came about, and whose fault it is, the fact is that this is the situation the club is in now. Can I ask, do you have a preferred solution that you think wouldn't result in the death of the club?


----------



## blueheaven (Jul 17, 2020)

I noticed on the EDF thread, someone brought up the issue of a 3G pitch not meeting the requirements of League Two, should the club end up progressing to that level. I'd have thought a bigger question is whether the new stadium itself will meet League Two requirements. Is the stadium being designed and planned with Football League requirements in mind?


----------



## B.I.G (Jul 17, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> I noticed on the EDF thread, someone brought up the issue of a 3G pitch not meeting the requirements of League Two, should the club end up progressing to that level. I'd have thought a bigger question is whether the new stadium itself will meet League Two requirements. Is the stadium being designed and planned with Football League requirements in mind?



Why not make it premier league level? Last time I checked we are a non-league club.


----------



## blueheaven (Jul 17, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Why not make it premier league level? Last time I checked we are a non-league club.



I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that over the course of the next 125 years the club might move up a couple of divisions.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 17, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> I actually agree with quite a lot of what you've said here, but regardless of how the situation came about, and whose fault it is, the fact is that this is the situation the club is in now. Can I ask, do you have a preferred solution that you think wouldn't result in the death of the club?


I think my preferred solution would have involved a compulsory purchase of the existing stadium by Southwark. And the purchase value should have reflected the fact that it is a site with a planning condition on it that means that it can't be developed as housing.


----------



## B.I.G (Jul 17, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that over the course of the next 125 years the club might move up a couple of divisions.



Do you not? Did we move out of non-league in the last 125 years?

And more to the point since 4g is not permitted in the league. Presumably you will be for the ripping up of the pitch and replacing with grass. Oh you are? Lets see where you are getting the extra revenue from now you can’t rent out the pitch or the extra expenditure now you cant train on it. Oh you aren’t in favour of replacing the pitch? You think that the league will change the requirements. Then why wouldnt they change the stadium requirements.

Do me a favour and actually think about something for more than five minutes.


----------



## B.I.G (Jul 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think my preferred solution would have involved a compulsory purchase of the existing stadium by Southwark. And the purchase value should have reflected the fact that it is a site with a planning condition on it that means that it can't be developed as housing.



Great. Loads of people are for that as well. Oh the council didn’t want to go through the time and trouble and cost? Thank god you are still talking about it then.


----------



## blueheaven (Jul 17, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Do you not? Did we move out of non-league in the last 125 years?
> 
> And more to the point since 4g is not permitted in the league. Presumably you will be for the ripping up of the pitch and replacing with grass. Oh you are? Lets see where you are getting the extra revenue from now you can’t rent out the pitch or the extra expenditure now you cant train on it. Oh you aren’t in favour of replacing the pitch? You think that the league will change the requirements. Then why wouldnt they change the stadium requirements.
> 
> Do me a favour and actually think about something for more than five minutes.



Wow you're aggressive.


----------



## B.I.G (Jul 17, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> Wow you're aggressive.



Tired of people having thoughts and opinions without thinking for more than five seconds.

I’m against the development because I’d rather let the club die than let Meadow make any money. If you think it has logical issues than point them out.

Where as ooh maybe we might get promoted into league football so we should prepare has so many issues its a worthless opinion.

Are your other opinions equally worthless?


----------



## blueheaven (Jul 17, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Tired of people having thoughts and opinions without thinking for more than five seconds.
> 
> I’m against the development because I’d rather let the club die than let Meadow make any money. If you think it has logical issues than point them out.
> 
> ...



TBH I get the impression from the way you speak to people on here that you think all opinions that aren't your own are worthless.


----------



## B.I.G (Jul 17, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> TBH I get the impression from the way you speak to people on here that you think all opinions that aren't your own are worthless.



If you think so. I notice you aren’t capable of backing up your opinion that we should prepare for potential league football.

Not that it matters at this point. The planning proposal was submitted ages ago, and now it will get approved or not.

So good job on explaining why your opionion isn’t worthless.

Perhaps if you thought about your opinions people would think they were less worthless. Regardless, you probably still put your opinions out on social media as you think they are so important and worthwhile.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jul 17, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Do you not? Did we move out of non-league in the last 125 years?
> 
> And more to the point since 4g is not permitted in the league. Presumably you will be for the ripping up of the pitch and replacing with grass. Oh you are? Lets see where you are getting the extra revenue from now you can’t rent out the pitch or the extra expenditure now you cant train on it. Oh you aren’t in favour of replacing the pitch? You think that the league will change the requirements. Then why wouldnt they change the stadium requirements.
> 
> Do me a favour and actually think about something for more than five minutes.


We didn't move out of the Isthmian League for 111 years but we're above that level now. We've been promoted twice in the last 7 years, so it's perfectly feasible that we could be promoted twice more over the next decade or so. I've seen us play Isthmian League matches against Wycombe Wanderers, Yeovil Town, Aldershot Town, Stevenage Borough, and Wimbledon, all of whom subsequently played in the Football League. Just because our club has never achieved something in the past doesn't mean it's beyond our compass in the future. For most of our club's existence there was much less opportunity to progess to Football League level as you had to be elected by existing member clubs, then there was only one promotion place instead of the current two.


----------



## B.I.G (Jul 17, 2020)

Pink Panther said:


> We didn't move out of the Isthmian League for 111 years but we're above that level now. We've been promoted twice in the last 7 years, so it's perfectly feasible that we could be promoted twice more over the next decade or so. I've seen us play Isthmian League matches against Wycombe Wanderers, Yeovil Town, Aldershot Town, Stevenage Borough, and Wimbledon, all of whom subsequently played in the Football League. Just because our club has never achieved something in the past doesn't mean it's beyond our compass in the future. For most of our club's existence there was much less opportunity to progess to Football League level as you had to be elected by existing member clubs, then there was only one promotion place instead of the current two.



Its not feasible though, as we don’t have the room for the necessary stadium or a benefactor. And correct me if I’m wrong but effectively this is the same level as its one below the equivalent of the conference, so no higher than our highest level before.

Becoming a league club is not a target I ever heard anyone state as their desire or intention.

We are a non-league club. We don’t even have a secure future so why would we consider a more prosperous future? Not that I believe it would be prosperous.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 17, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Great. Loads of people are for that as well. Oh the council didn’t want to go through the time and trouble and cost? Thank god you are still talking about it then.


In the event that planning permission is rejected, perhaps it could be back on the table.

If planning permission were denied, and it went through an appeal and so on, and was still denied, then what would happen next? The owners would be sitting on a site with only one way of generating revenue from it, which would be to lease it out as a stadium. Would there be customers other than DHFC who would pay more for it - or would coming to an agreement with DHFC then become in the interests of the landowner? (I have no idea)


----------



## B.I.G (Jul 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> In the event that planning permission is rejected, perhaps it could be back on the table.
> 
> If planning permission were denied, and it went through an appeal and so on, and was still denied, then what would happen next? The owners would be sitting on a site with only one way of generating revenue from it, which would be to lease it out as a stadium. Would there be customers other than DHFC who would pay more for it - or would coming to an agreement with DHFC then become in the interests of the landowner? (I have no idea)



Last time there was an issue and the planning application was withdrawn we were kicked out of the stadium. The revenue generated from any user of the stadium wouldn’t make it worthwhile to grant a 125 year lease (which should be 999 years if thats possible).


----------



## Pink Panther (Jul 17, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Its not feasible though, as we don’t have the room for the necessary stadium or a benefactor. And correct me if I’m wrong but effectively this is the same level as its one below the equivalent of the conference, so no higher than our highest level before.
> 
> Becoming a league club is not a target I ever heard anyone state as their desire or intention.
> 
> We are a non-league club. We don’t even have a secure future so why would we consider a more prosperous future? Not that I believe it would be prosperous.


We don't have a secure future because we don't have any control over our home ground. The proposed redevelopment will address this matter if approved. 

Becoming a Football League club may not be a target or an ambition but I think most of us want to win whichever division we happen to be playing in. With 7th place qualifying for play-offs we can't compete to finish no higher than 7th in case it results in promotion, and if we find ourselves in the National Division ultimately we should be aiming for another promotion.


----------



## B.I.G (Jul 17, 2020)

Pink Panther said:


> We don't have a secure future because we don't have any control over our home ground. The proposed redevelopment will address this matter if approved.
> 
> Becoming a Football League club may not be a target or an ambition but I think most of us want to win whichever division we happen to be playing in. With 7th place qualifying for play-offs we can't compete to finish no higher than 7th in case it results in promotion, and if we find ourselves in the National Division ultimately we should be aiming for another promotion.



What likelihood does the development have of being approved if it included a league capable ground as last time I checked it doesn’t even have cover for the terraces in order to gain approval.

And if we find ourselves in the National League we can’t aim for promotion in any realistic fashion as promotion would mean. A. Being prepared to rip up a 4g pitch and somehow replace the revenue. And b. Having a wage bill far in excess of the money generated from a full capacity stadium each home game.


----------



## Scolly (Jul 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think my preferred solution would have involved a compulsory purchase of the existing stadium by Southwark. And the purchase value should have reflected the fact that it is a site with a planning condition on it that means that it can't be developed as housing.



Unfortunately this is not an option.  Southwark do not want to do this and given recent events, the coppers of local authorities are likely to be at the lowest for decades so it's never going to be an option

If they had decided the do  this, it would have taken many, many years and way to long for the football club to still be in existence.   Any action would likely result in our licence to play at Champion Hill to be removed and as it showed when we played at Tooting, not only would we not be able to financially survive but the local economy suffers (many bars, restaurants, take-away etc will tell you that outside of the holiday period their best business days are when we are playing at home in East Dulwich) and  looses a massive part of the community.


----------



## Scolly (Jul 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> In the event that planning permission is rejected, perhaps it could be back on the table.
> 
> If planning permission were denied, and it went through an appeal and so on, and was still denied, then what would happen next? The owners would be sitting on a site with only one way of generating revenue from it, which would be to lease it out as a stadium. Would there be customers other than DHFC who would pay more for it - or would coming to an agreement with DHFC then become in the interests of the landowner? (I have no idea)



If they allowed us to continue to lease the stadium, it would reach a stage that it would not be fit for purpose and games would not be able to be held at the level we are at now.  We are very close to that now and it's only the 1000's of volunteer hours and money the club / Supporters' Trust have put in keeps us going on literately a week to week basis.  The Trust has invested some £85K in the club over the past 18 months and this as taken up most of our reserves, money that as been accumulated over  the last 10/15 through the hard work of supporters'.

However, it's also likely that they would sit on the site for many years, eventually planning would be given for them to build upon.   Lets be honest, as central funding to local Governments continues to be cut, Councils have to find more ways of raising money just to keep basis services running ..... and I would suggest that it would not take long for Greendale to be a target as prime land to sold off, especially as the Council would be fencing in the Astro if the club looses planning and Southwark remove our licence to operate it.

Offer the stadium to others is also an unlikely options, the owners are likely to sit on the site as continuing to operate would certainly cost them a lot more than they are likely to get in ... there are few costs on having a vacant plot


----------



## blueheaven (Jul 17, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> If you think so. I notice you aren’t capable of backing up your opinion that we should prepare for potential league football.



I'm happy to back up my opinion with anyone who wants a reasonable discussion. What I can't be arsed with is engaging with someone who insists on being rude and aggressive to anyone who doesn't share their view.



B.I.G said:


> Perhaps if you thought about your opinions people would think they were less worthless. Regardless, you probably still put your opinions out on social media as you think they are so important and worthwhile.



I don't think my opinions are any more important or worthwhile than anyone else's. You're the one calling other people's opinions worthless, not me.



Pink Panther said:


> We don't have a secure future because we don't have any control over our home ground. The proposed redevelopment will address this matter if approved.
> 
> Becoming a Football League club may not be a target or an ambition but I think most of us want to win whichever division we happen to be playing in. With 7th place qualifying for play-offs we can't compete to finish no higher than 7th in case it results in promotion, and if we find ourselves in the National Division ultimately we should be aiming for another promotion.



This is pretty much how I feel. We're just one promotion away from being in a situation where entry into the Football League could become a genuine possibility. If the right time to discuss that isn't now, when a new stadium is being planned, then when would the right time be? I think it would show a baffling level of short-sightedness not to think it at least worth discussing what might happen in that eventuality. It's not that I see it as a priority in the big scheme of things - but I do see it as something that is important for the club to give some consideration to (which I'm sure they are, which is why I asked the question in the first place).

Incidentally, on the subject of the pitch also being an issue with regards to Football League entry, this has already been addressed over on the EDF thread where YTC said: "I'm no fan on playing on 3G personally, but for the good of the club and community, it's a no brainer. If we ever got promoted to League 2, I feel we'd be in the position of a) Making a legal case for the inclusion of a 3G pitch or b) looking to supply a 3G pitch elsewhere in dulwich to replace the loss."


----------



## B.I.G (Jul 17, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> I'm happy to back up my opinion with anyone who wants a reasonable discussion. What I can't be arsed with is engaging with someone who insists on being rude and aggressive to anyone who doesn't share their view.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You’re an idiot.

I look forward to you supporting Dulwich in the football league.


----------



## B.I.G (Jul 17, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> I'm happy to back up my opinion with anyone who wants a reasonable discussion. What I can't be arsed with is engaging with someone who insists on being rude and aggressive to anyone who doesn't share their view.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I’m still irritated by this level of stupidity.

To stay in the football league you need 2000 seats. Perhaps you’d like to explain how to fit 2000 seats on the current land we have let alone less land.

Idiot.


----------



## gnar182 (Jul 17, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> I'm happy to back up my opinion with anyone who wants a reasonable discussion. What I can't be arsed with is engaging with someone who insists on being rude and aggressive to anyone who doesn't share their view.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



just to reassure you, you aren’t the one who came across as an arsehole in this exchange.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> I’m still irritated by this level of stupidity.
> 
> To stay in the football league you need 2000 seats. Perhaps you’d like to explain how to fit 2000 seats on the current land we have let alone less land.
> 
> Idiot.


It's really not not on to keep calling someone an idiot because they have a different viewpoint to you. Take a fortnight off this thread.


----------



## dcdulwich (Jul 18, 2020)

As someone involved - with Shaun and Clare in particular - on updating our capacity assessments, it might be helpful to point out a fact or two. If only to bring a bit of sanity to the thread.

To access the football league you need 500 seats but need to be able to demonstrate an ability to reach 1000. Similarly, a capacity of 4000 is required with an ability to reach 5000. That’s it. Anything stated to the contrary above is wrong.

Personally, I’m not mad keen on aggressively aiming for league status although, as others who I have great respect for have said, of course you always want to perform as best as you can in any league. For me, for now, the over-riding priority has to be to secure the future of our club - first, foremost and _ad infinitum._

We’ve had some tough but, just to keep us on our toes, a succession of wonderful, sometimes heartbreaking, seasons in the last decade - nobody will ever take ‘promotion roundabout’ away - or forming a guard of honour when we lost to East Thurrock. It’s what we do. But there really is hard graft ahead.

The survival of the club - getting the planning decision through and moving on from there - will require huge levels of commitment from everyone involved with the club.

We’ll have to cut our cloth as one of the few (perhaps only) clubs in our division entirely dependent on matchday income.

Despite the (bloody heavy) headwinds, we’re in the best position that we have been for decades. The club is entirely in the hands of committed supporters who love this club to bits and won’t let it fail - and certainly won’t let it die. I’m now confident that it is only inimical (sorry - threw that in just to wind you up Mishi) external forces that can now ever make that happen.

See you on the other side of this Covid Nightmare folks. Whenever that might be!


----------



## blueheaven (Jul 18, 2020)

dcdulwich said:


> As someone involved - with Shaun and Clare in particular - on updating our capacity assessments, it might be helpful to point out a fact or two. If only to bring a bit of sanity to the thread.
> 
> To access the football league you need 500 seats but need to be able to demonstrate an ability to reach 1000. Similarly, a capacity of 4000 is required with an ability to reach 5000. That’s it. Anything stated to the contrary above is wrong.



Thanks for taking the time to post this. Can I ask, from what is known of the new stadium plan at this stage, is it likely that it would be capable of meeting those requirements? I'm just wondering, hypothetically, what happens if everything goes to plan and the new stadium goes ahead and in a few years the club finds itself in this situation.



dcdulwich said:


> Personally, I’m not mad keen on aggressively aiming for league status although, as others who I have great respect for have said, of course you always want to perform as best as you can in any league. For me, for now, the over-riding priority has to be to secure the future of our club - first, foremost and _ad infinitum._



Yeah I absolutely agree. For the record I'm not especially desperate to see the club aiming to reach the Football League. But I do think, when you look at the club's progress and expanding fanbase over the last few years, and the potential addition of a better stadium into the mix, it all takes us to a point where it's close enough that it surely has to be one of the considerations.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jul 20, 2020)




----------



## Pink Panther (Jul 20, 2020)

PartisanDulwich said:


>



I despair. If someone finds it "unacceptable", fine, but those comments are a typical regurgitation of a litany of falsehoods. The stadium will be built on the site of a previous stadium and it's not Metropolitan Open Land.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2020)

Are you relying on a definition of 'stadium' that doesn't include the playing field?


----------



## Taper (Jul 21, 2020)

I think this chap has now hit bottom.  Comparing the new stadium development to the death of George Floyd


----------



## Cyclodunc (Jul 21, 2020)

Do agree that Air pollution is definitely a huge health emergency and is being ignored by too many people. Thousands of deaths a year because of it.


----------



## Taper (Jul 21, 2020)

Indeed.  But linking that to George Floyd and the stadium development is grimly disingenous.


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2020)

Taper said:


> I think this chap has now hit bottom.  Comparing the new stadium development to the death of George Floyd



A masterclass in hyperbole.


----------



## tonysingh (Jul 21, 2020)

editor said:


> A masterclass in hyperbole.




You were much more diplomatic and loquacious than me. 

I was just gonna call him a muggy cunt.


----------



## YTC (Jul 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> In what way will it be legally impossible?
> 
> I don't in any way believe that anyone currently involved in the club would have this intention.
> 
> ...



I hear what you're saying, as I stated in my original message. I was the one that fought against what happened to us tooth and nail, and with some success thankfully with the help of everyone else involved in the club. But that _IS_ the fact. The clubs gone if we don't get this. We could hold on to the IP maybe, but it's gone as we know it. Meadow don't owe us a lease. It will get run down, it will end up just being developed for housing, just without us there. That's been the deal since the first time developers got a hold of it. It's not changing, hence this being the only viable solution. I know it hurts, but we're here trying to provide a football club for generations ahead of us.

On the point of it being legally impossible, it would be due to the dual nature of the leases. They only operate in tandem, so we can't just get rid of the meadow side if we fancy it without loosing the council side. I mean why anyone would suggest we'd do that is absolutely insane but just for clarity - thats what I mean when I say legally impossible. This locks the club in for 125 years, it also locks in Meadow and the Council. It's designed to protect us in that sense.




teuchter said:


> I think my preferred solution would have involved a compulsory purchase of the existing stadium by Southwark. And the purchase value should have reflected the fact that it is a site with a planning condition on it that means that it can't be developed as housing.



Had there been a solid base for that to happen, it would have happened by now I'd imagine. Again, just pointing out the stark reality here. There are no plan B's. We as a group of fans have fought to be included and protected through this process, and in fairness since we made our case and negotiated with the help of Harriet, Helen Tracy and DCMS, Meadow have been decent to us. A 125 year lease on a stadium is not a bad deal, let me tell you. Especially if you've not had security of tenure since the 70's.

As an aside, the covenant runs into some problems. It's easily circumnavigated and not legally sound, look at the case of Newbury FC and Faraday road. Thats not the council or meadows fault, it's just flimsy legislation in my understanding.


----------



## YTC (Jul 21, 2020)

And also JESUS BiG have a lie down mate 😘😅


----------



## EDC (Jul 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> However - what bothers me is that this was supposed to be the case with the existing stadium, wasn't it? That site has a planning condition on it which says it can't be redeveloped for other uses. The council have to over-ride that condition in order to permit the current proposal. What we have right now seems to be a repeat of what happened previously: the old football ground was redeveloped, and some new, previously open land allocated to the club. That previously open land had the stadium built upon it, and it was protected by a planning condition to try and stop what is happening now, from happening. This apparently hasn't worked. So is there a substantially different situation now, in the current proposals, a legal setup that really makes sure it can't happen again?



Wrong, the ground hardly moved and where it did was slightly south over it's car park.  You can still see the parking lines painted on the wall along the footpath.


----------



## YTC (Jul 21, 2020)

EDC is correct. It's on the same footprint.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2020)

That's my error then, I have obviously misremembered the details. There was, however, effectively open land built upon, permission being given on the understanding that the football ground would not then also be developed, right? In other words the football club was allowed to profit from the loss of some green space.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2020)

YTC said:


> It will get run down, it will end up just being developed for housing, just without us there. That's been the deal since the first time developers got a hold of it. It's not changing, hence this being the only viable solution. I know it hurts, but we're here trying to provide a football club for generations ahead of us.



If this is the inevitable outcome (presumably your feeling is that the council simply wouldn't be able to uphold the planning condition?) then my question would be, why is the developer giving away a chunk of their land to the football club? Why not simply redevelop the whole site?

It kind of implies that there is a sort-of-enforcable condition on the land. It doesn't really make sense to me: either it's unenforcable, in which case why would the developer give away a valuable piece of land, or it's enforcable, in which case why allow them to get away with it?


----------



## pettyboy (Jul 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> If this is the inevitable outcome (presumably your feeling is that the council simply wouldn't be able to uphold the planning condition?) then my question would be, why is the developer giving away a chunk of their land to the football club? Why not simply redevelop the whole site?
> 
> It kind of implies that there is a sort-of-enforcable condition on the land. It doesn't really make sense to me: either it's unenforcable, in which case why would the developer give away a valuable piece of land, or it's enforcable, in which case why allow them to get away with it?



Would imagine they don't want a repeat of the PR disaster they had to deal with last time...Effectively killing off a 125+ football club isn't a great look for a multinational company.


----------



## YTC (Jul 22, 2020)

See Above.


----------



## YTC (Jul 22, 2020)

I hope the rest of my reply answered some of your Questions!


----------



## blueheaven (Jul 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> If this is the inevitable outcome (presumably your feeling is that the council simply wouldn't be able to uphold the planning condition?) then my question would be, why is the developer giving away a chunk of their land to the football club? Why not simply redevelop the whole site?
> 
> It kind of implies that there is a sort-of-enforcable condition on the land. It doesn't really make sense to me: either it's unenforcable, in which case why would the developer give away a valuable piece of land, or it's enforcable, in which case why allow them to get away with it?



Is it not the case that the council wouldn't grant them planning permission if they didn't incorporate a home for the football club into their plans? That's the way I'd always thought of it.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> Is it not the case that the council wouldn't grant them planning permission if they didn't incorporate a home for the football club into their plans? That's the way I'd always thought of it.


Well, they haven't incorporated a home for the football club into their plans. They've accommodated only a small portion (less than half?) of the area required for the football club's home into their plans.


----------



## Latahs (Jul 22, 2020)

Just received a message from DHST requesting that fans make representations to Southwark supporting the development.

Since the statements regarding the likelihood of the application being approved objectors have flooded the site. This is of course way beyond the deadline which was March but there is a risk that this will still influence the councillors. As a result everyone needs to get on there and support the development again. If you have already commented it'll combine your comments. It looks like the objecting groups have got whoever they can to leave messages objecting, a lot of which probably came after a physical leaflet drop happened on Monday night. As we have seen in this thread there has been hyperbole, misinformation etc bandied about by these guys but its gone beyond the pale now. DHFC has been a beacon of light in this community and the way the club is being painted cannot stand uncorrected. Comments must be made before 12:30 tomorrow. 

Please get anyone you know who knows, loves or visits the club to help us out.


----------



## blueheaven (Jul 23, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Well, they haven't incorporated a home for the football club into their plans. They've accommodated only a small portion (less than half?) of the area required for the football club's home into their plans.



OK, the point's the same though. You asked why "the developer is giving away a chunk of their land to the football club", and I responded that I thought the council wouldn't give them planning permission if they didn't.


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2020)

The vote is going to the wire right now.


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2020)




----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2020)

The motion is CARRIED!


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2020)

Buzzed: Dulwich Hamlet FC: Southwark Council Planning Committee approve new stadium plans


----------



## TonyWalt (Jul 28, 2020)

A brilliant result. 5:2 in favour.

STADIUM APPROVED:

The Club are delighted to announce that the Southwark Council Planning Committee has approved our joint planning application with Meadow Residential. The Result secures the clubs home and future in East Dulwich for the next 125 years.

#DHFC💖💙


----------



## blueheaven (Jul 28, 2020)

That's great news. Watched some of the meeting online last night - bloody hell, they sure know how to drag a discussion out!

Can I ask the club people on here what the next steps are at this point? Does this basically mean Meadow are free to start right away? Or is there some sort of appeals process that will happen first? Also is the stadium design actually finalised?


----------



## Taper (Jul 28, 2020)

There is no appeal for an approval i believe (unless you judicially review). The commitment (which now forms a condition) is to build the stadium first before the pitch is built on. Not sure about timing.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 28, 2020)

Great news, well done to all involved.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Let's now see how skilled the developers are in reducing what they've supposedly committed to build as far as the stadium is concerned, and how successful Southwark are in enforcing whatever conditions they've put on it.


----------



## magneze (Jul 28, 2020)

Good news


----------



## Jimbob73 (Jul 28, 2020)

Fantastic news. Just rubber stamping by the Mayor hopefully and the builders can get going.

That was a real rollacoaster of a night, watched most of it and felt sick all evening. The vote was like the playoff penalty shootout!!


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2020)

Last night I learnt that Meadow are shunting all the poor people buying (guffaw) 'affordable' flats in their development into the one block to keep them away from the upmarket residents.


----------



## Moroccan Sunset (Jul 28, 2020)

Are there clear plans for the new stadium? Will we have cover at both ends? Tried googling for the new stadium design, but can't find very much at all.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2020)

Moroccan Sunset said:


> Are there clear plans for the new stadium? Will we have cover at both ends? Tried googling for the new stadium design, but can't find very much at all.


If it's anything like this illustration, you need to lower your expectations (and invest in waterproofs):


----------



## Roger D (Jul 28, 2020)

Reading between the lines of what has happened, the two ends are probably on Metropolitan Open Land and any permanent protruding structure there would have caused serious planning permission issues, so no cover was included judging by the illustration.


----------



## Moroccan Sunset (Jul 28, 2020)

editor said:


> If it's anything like this illustration, you need to lower your expectations (and invest in waterproofs):
> 
> View attachment 224041



Bugger.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jul 28, 2020)




----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jul 28, 2020)

Great result credit to those from the Club that got us here -
Big thanks to professional officers at Southwark Council and Chair of Planning Councillor Martin Seaton (and Councillors who supported)
- still a long way to go to secure the stadium we and the Community want and need
vigilance & planning key over the next few years
and that includes environmental improvements to Greendale, that we have a moral obligation to ensure are fulfilled in full and beyond


----------



## Pink Panther (Jul 28, 2020)

Moroccan Sunset said:


> Are there clear plans for the new stadium? Will we have cover at both ends? Tried googling for the new stadium design, but can't find very much at all.


I'm sure there was talk of retractable canopies behind the goals but I can't recall exact details. Bognor erected a large canvas canopy at the clubhouse end of their ground since our last visit but it blew down in a storm shortly before the lockdown.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Roger D said:


> Reading between the lines of what has happened, the two ends are probably on Metropolitan Open Land and any permanent protruding structure there would have caused serious planning permission issues, so no cover was included judging by the illustration.


There's no reading between the lines needed, that's explicitly been the argument used to excuse building on open land. 

My guess is there'll be a gradual accumulation of 'temporary' structures, and in ten or twenty years the club (or whatever entity exists by then) will apply for permission to build something permanent and hope that everyone has forgotten the original justification.


----------



## Nivag (Jul 28, 2020)

editor said:


> Last night I learnt that Meadow are shunting all the poor people buying (guffaw) 'affordable' flats in their development into the one block to keep them away from the upmarket residents.


That's what every developer does in these builds. Even down to making the outside areas are designed so the residents in the 'affordable' block don't easily mingle with the full fat ones.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 28, 2020)

No-one in the 'affordable' block is going to be poor by any normal standard anyway. TBH this is obviously good news for the club so I'm very pleased about that but Meadow getting their millions makes me a bit queasy.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2020)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> No-one in the 'affordable' block is going to be poor by any normal standard anyway. TBH this is obviously good news for the club so I'm very pleased about that but Meadow getting their millions makes me a bit queasy.


Meadow are absolute scumbags. And now they've got the millions in the bag, just watch them water down and  wriggle out of their commitments in this development.


----------



## Roger D (Jul 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There's no reading between the lines needed, that's explicitly been the argument used to excuse building on open land.
> 
> My guess is there'll be a gradual accumulation of 'temporary' structures, and in ten or twenty years the club (or whatever entity exists by then) will apply for permission to build something permanent and hope that everyone has forgotten the original justification.



Whilst I can see why that is plausible, it's been done enough times elsewhere, I can't see that happening here. I expect the Friends will watch the site very closely and flag any infractions.

I also doubt the club would want to put themselves in breach of the lease, which doing that could plausibly do.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jul 28, 2020)

Nivag said:


> That's what every developer does in these builds. Even down to making the outside areas are designed so the residents in the 'affordable' block don't easily mingle with the full fat ones.


I'm housing association tenant in a large mixed block in Southwark, 104 flats on eight floors.  The ground floor is allocated to those with reduced mobility and floors 1-4 (at least on my side of the block) seems to be social housing, as my initial offer letter only specified a flat on floors 1-4.  (I'm on the first floor.)  There are numerous similar modern blocks nearby and it doesn't feel exclusive.  I feel very fortunate to have an ideal flat in a nice place where I'm comfortable, at a genuinely affordable rent, although I'm still very angry that so many others aren't that fortunate whilst an affluent minority makes a mint from buy-to-let schemes etc.  I regard lack of affordable housing as the UK's greatest crisis, as it leads to so many other problems.


----------



## tonysingh (Jul 28, 2020)

PartisanDulwich said:


> View attachment 224047



Totally getting that tattooed on me


----------



## pettyboy (Jul 28, 2020)

editor said:


> Last night I learnt that Meadow are shunting all the poor people buying (guffaw) 'affordable' flats in their development into the one block to keep them away from the upmarket residents.



Let's not pretend for a second that there is anything good about Meadow's development. There will be no 'poor' people housed in the new flats. Affordable housing does not mean council housing and it is little more than a get-out clause.


----------



## MrFab_JP (Jul 28, 2020)

I am happy there will at least be a stadium, and therefore a future for the club, but the stadium does not particually look like it has been designed with fans in mind. Its an after thought for a private housing estate. But that's what we have.


----------



## bkbk (Jul 28, 2020)

Moroccan Sunset said:


> Bugger.



I dont know if these are the latest proposals but the designs are here.



			https://championhillproposals.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Proposed-stadium-drawings.pdf
		


I cant quite work out if fans can walk in front of the main stand to change ends, or whether it needs to be done via the opposite side.


----------



## bkbk (Jul 28, 2020)

oh that seems to have been answered already earlier in the thread:



crocustim said:


> I was also worried about this so asked at the consultation. If I remember correctly the walkways are 3 meters wide and don’t have the pinch points that we currently have in the far corner. I think it will be an improvement.


----------



## Stuart Fordyce (Jul 29, 2020)

PartisanDulwich said:


> View attachment 224047



Can we have this painted on the wall please?


----------



## tonysingh (Jul 29, 2020)

Stuart Fordyce said:


> Can we have this painted on the wall please?



Don't know if you were joking or not but I do think we should contact local graffiti artists, proper ones, and get them to bang out a mural in the new ground. Give them the history of the club and let them have at a blank wall.


----------



## scousedom (Jul 29, 2020)

tonysingh said:


> Don't know if you were joking or not but I do think we should contact local graffiti artists, proper ones, and get them to bang out a mural in the new ground. Give them the history of the club and let them have at a blank wall.


Yeah if only we knew someone who’s done a ton of boss work at the current ground and who knows loads about the past and present of the club already.


----------



## Pink Panther (Jul 29, 2020)

bkbk said:


> I dont know if these are the latest proposals but the designs are here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's the set of 6 architect's plan drawings in the second of those links that are most relevant.  The 3 dimensional artist's impression included in the other link might be more interesting to look at but it isn't very revealing.  (That's the same impression that's been knocking around for several years since Meadow were still controlling the club's finances and before our period in exile.)

We were told the capacity would be 4,000, with potential to increase to 5,000.  I'm not sure how such an increase could happen within the same footprint, but this criterion seems fairly elastic anyway.  (The current ground has *potential* for quite a large increase in capacity if you extended the main stand towards the Greendale End and built up more steps of terracing elsewhere, but that's irrelevant now.) 

The plans illustrate a main stand with 680 seats plus another 60 on a balcony for officials and press, which is almost a 50% increase on the present main stand's capacity.  There are 7 steps of terracing running continuously around the other three sides of the ground with a 4 metre wide walkway around the top.  Apart from the lack of cover this looks pretty much identical to the three terraced sides of Dartford's ground, therefore a significant upgrade on the current terracing in terms of sightlines for the majority.  There are three blocks of three turnstiles, one either side of the main stand an a third in the south west corner accessible from the footpath running through to Greendale.  I'm not really clear as to whether you can walk in front of the main stand during the game as the dugouts appear to be in that space, rather like the situation at Tooting.

I notice there are two squash courts included in the main stand complex.  I thought the squash courts in the present ground were something of a white elephant?  What is with our grounds needing to have squash courts!  It always makes me think of Jonah Barrington throwing a strop and walking out of an edition of "Superstars" when he got disqualified from one event.

Once again the main stand complex is on three levels, which we were often told in the past is a design flaw with the current ground as it makes us liable for a greater amount of Council Tax, although I've never understood the reasoning behind this.


----------



## tonysingh (Jul 29, 2020)

scousedom said:


> Yeah if only we knew someone who’s done a ton of boss work at the current ground and who knows loads about the past and present of the club already.




Sorry


----------



## EDC (Jul 29, 2020)

What are the ends going to be called?  Sainsbury's End, no way.  The Mugger's Footpath End ?
?


----------



## Pink Panther (Jul 29, 2020)

EDC said:


> What are the ends going to be called?  Sainsbury's End, no way.  The Mugger's Footpath End ?
> ?


The North End and The South End?  The Camberwell End and the Village End?  We need to find out whether the previous ground on this site had names for the ends.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 29, 2020)

The blueberry bush end?.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jul 29, 2020)

always preferred to be in the Car Wash end second half (sorry Mishi)


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jul 29, 2020)

Serious amount of work needs to go into to names of ends, stands, roads etc


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2020)

PartisanDulwich said:


> Serious amount of work needs to go into to names of ends, stands, roads etc


Mishi End. Has to be.


----------



## tonysingh (Jul 30, 2020)

editor said:


> Mishi End. Has to be.



Aside form the fact he used to always say that stands and ends etc should be only named for players and managers...


----------



## Cyclodunc (Jul 30, 2020)

scousedom said:


> Yeah if only we knew someone who’s done a ton of boss work at the current ground and who knows loads about the past and present of the club already.



That’s no reason not to. Community club etc.


----------



## blueheaven (Jul 30, 2020)

Pink Panther said:


> It's the set of 6 architect's plan drawings in the second of those links that are most relevant.  The 3 dimensional artist's impression included in the other link might be more interesting to look at but it isn't very revealing.  (That's the same impression that's been knocking around for several years since Meadow were still controlling the club's finances and before our period in exile.)
> 
> We were told the capacity would be 4,000, with potential to increase to 5,000.  I'm not sure how such an increase could happen within the same footprint, but this criterion seems fairly elastic anyway.  (The current ground has *potential* for quite a large increase in capacity if you extended the main stand towards the Greendale End and built up more steps of terracing elsewhere, but that's irrelevant now.)
> 
> ...



Any idea if the main stand will be raised up like the current one is? (i.e. so the front row of seats are high above the dugouts, rather than at ground level?). I hope so, I think that improves the view from the stand a lot.


----------



## Al Crane (Jul 30, 2020)

blueheaven said:


> Any idea if the main stand will be raised up like the current one is? (i.e. so the front row of seats are high above the dugouts, rather than at ground level?). I hope so, I think that improves the view from the stand a lot.



Yes, it should be - see image attached.


----------



## pompeydunc (Jul 30, 2020)

EDC said:


> What are the ends going to be called?  Sainsbury's End, no way.  The Mugger's Footpath End ?
> ?



Low-flying bat End, Shit Blackberry bushes End, Councillor Seaton Stand, the bar is The Watering Hole, the toilets now the Peter Johns, so the terraced side has to be The Peter Johns Opposite.


----------



## pompeydunc (Jul 30, 2020)

Put together a three minute (ish) match highlights of the five and half hour meeting...


----------



## scousedom (Jul 30, 2020)

pompeydunc said:


> Low-flying bat End, Shit Blackberry bushes End, Councillor Seaton Stand, the bar is The Watering Hole, the toilets now the Peter Johns, so the terraced side has to be The Peter Johns Opposite.


A la train stations etc, what about a designated "This Is Not Your Meeting" Point?


----------



## LiamA (Jul 30, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The blueberry bush end?.


Blackberries Opposite stand.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2020)

tonysingh said:


> Aside form the fact he used to always say that stands and ends etc should be only named for players and managers...


I've seen pictures of him in a Hamlet shirt. That's good enough for me. 

But why not name the stage area in the bar after him?


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2020)

I'll meet you in the 'No Cover End.'

Oh wait, that's the majority of the ground.


----------



## Taper (Jul 30, 2020)

pompeydunc said:


> Put together a three minute (ish) match highlights of the five and half hour meeting...



That is truly wonderful.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 30, 2020)

so meadows gamble paid off


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> so meadows gamble paid off


Yep. They got what they wanted, and their fat wallets will soon be stuffed even fuller. I sincerely hope somewhere along the line, a big fat juicy bite of karma takes a mighty chunk out of their profiteering arses.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jul 30, 2020)

PartisanDulwich said:


> View attachment 224047


Love this, got to be a t-shirt, surely.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jul 30, 2020)

_Curva Tuscany_


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Jul 30, 2020)

So pleased we secured planning permission, that meeting could have gone anyway , and seemed to be slipping away at one point.
That said our team was fantastic
personally, it gives me no pleasure to have been effectively played by property speculators, who took a gamble, and while we undoubtedly taught them a lesson about the strength of community football when they tried a short cut to their goal, they ultimately got what they wanted and will make their millions.
It is now vital that we ensure they honour their side of the contract and we get the ground we deserve and demand.
We also have to do our best to ensure that this scheme does ensure Greendale is improved environmentally and the affordable (what ever that means) housing is delivered
I have no doubt that the failure to agree the plans this week, would have lead to years of wrangling, splits amongst the fans and ultimately the loss of the ground and club - as the property company held all the cards, a situation exacerbated by theCovid pandemic.
This is "Realpolitik" and not what we all might dream could happen, this is actually happening. Maybe one day,  if DHFC was moving through the Leagues towards the Championship, we could buy Sainsbury's out and build a new stadium there. but until that dream is realised, I will honour those who made this new stadium possible.


----------



## EDC (Jul 30, 2020)

Al Crane said:


> Yes, it should be - see image attached.


Everyone is going to get soaked in there with that roof, the wind generally blows into it from the direction it’s facing.


----------



## Al Crane (Jul 30, 2020)

EDC said:


> Everyone is going to get soaked in there with that roof, the wind generally blows into it from the direction it’s facing.



We need that roof to protect the top few rows from being blinded by the sun...


----------



## DulwichHammer (Aug 2, 2020)

Now that it is settled, I think we have come out of it not worse off, but not as well off as I would have hoped. Meadow have got what they want and will walk away with a big wad of cash. There will be no really affordable housing for the local community and I am sure it won't be long before those who buy flats on this settlement put up fences and security gates to keep local people out! The new "Get off my land" stand will never take the place of the toilets opposite stand and the pipistrelle and blackberry ends will not be the same as the car-wash and the other end (did we have a name for it or was it the car-wash opposite end?)! Anyway, it is done and, save being called in by the Mayor, the work should start soon pretty soon. Time will tell how duplicitous Meadow will be, but for now, our options are limited. Let's just celebrate the club's future for now and we can worry about all the other stuff when the building starts.


----------



## MrFab_JP (Aug 3, 2020)

Is the pitch going to be 3G pitch, to allow for the agreed community use? Conceivably that would have to go should Dulwich ever make it into the Football League. ("only" a couple of promotions away). How would that work with the community use agreement.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

God, I hate 3G pitches*

_*Yes, I fully understand the immense and unarguable all-the-year-round economic benefits they bring to smaller clubs, but I just don't like the way they look. I like grass and mud and smells and seasons at my football. _


----------



## Pink Panther (Aug 4, 2020)

MrFab_JP said:


> Is the pitch going to be 3G pitch, to allow for the agreed community use? Conceivably that would have to go should Dulwich ever make it into the Football League. ("only" a couple of promotions away). How would that work with the community use agreement.


I would imagine an alternative 3G pitch would be laid somewhere nearby, like the adjacent playing fields where the team already trains. 

I just don't see any point worrying about that right now. 3G pitches need replacing every 5 years or so, the technology of both natural and artificial (and hybrid) pitches is evolving and improving all the time.


----------



## Cyclodunc (Aug 4, 2020)

The rubber crumb better be artisan


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

Cyclodunc said:


> The rubber crumb better be artisan


Made by tattooed, sensitive men with beards.


----------



## pettyboy (Aug 4, 2020)

Interesting to see Harrogate Town go up to the FL on Sunday, who have a 3G pitch.

They'll play at Doncaster while their grass pitch is laid - Harrogate Town's temporary EFL home will be Doncaster


----------



## blueheaven (Aug 4, 2020)

Surely it's only a matter of time before the EFL relaxes its rules on artificial surfaces? Can't really see what the benefit is of keeping them outlawed when they're so beneficial to clubs. In Scotland they're permitted right up to Premiership level these days.


----------



## EDC (Aug 4, 2020)

And they're OK for the Champions League!


----------



## Cardinal (Aug 20, 2020)

dcdulwich said:


> As someone involved - with Shaun and Clare in particular - on updating our capacity assessments, it might be helpful to point out a fact or two. If only to bring a bit of sanity to the thread.
> 
> To access the football league you need 500 seats but need to be able to demonstrate an ability to reach 1000. Similarly, a capacity of 4000 is required with an ability to reach 5000. That’s it. Anything stated to the contrary above is wrong.


With all due respect, that's not quite the complete picture. Yes you can get promoted to the FL with a 4000 capacity ground, but you then have one season to get your ground capacity up to 5000. One season. If you can't do it then you're chucked out. Similarly, yes, you can get promoted to the FL with 500 seats, but you have one season to reach 1000 seats otherwise you're chucked out. You then have a further two years to reach 2000 seats, otherwise you're chucked out. The long-term minimum ground requirements are 5000 capacity and 2000 seats, but newly promoted sides are given a short grace period to reach this. So if you are truly intending to future-proof your ground for FL requirements then it needs to have the capability to reach 5000 capacity with 2000 seats. And from what I've seen of your stadium plans, that's going to be difficult.

The occasional exception does sneak through: AFC Wimbledon were short by about 150 on the capacity requirements at Kingsmeadow, but they were let off because they were planning to build a new ground. Accrington were also given an extended grace period (I can't remember why) but I'm pretty sure they are now fully compliant. 

Finally, congratulations on getting planning permission for your new ground. I hope it serves you well, and good luck for the new season.


----------



## EDC (Aug 21, 2020)

Just back from a dog walk over Greendale, millions of blackberries all rotting away they're that important.


----------



## scousedom (Aug 21, 2020)

EDC said:


> Just back from a dog walk over Greendale, millions of blackberries all rotting away they're that important.


The blackberries at Peckham Town are far superior.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Aug 23, 2020)

when we buy the Sainsbury's site and build 25k stadium - all will be fine #dreams


----------



## Paula_G (Sep 3, 2020)

Interesting tactic from the opposition, breeding rare breeds then releasing them into their “natural” habitat of the Greendales...  Rare butterfly makes return to Camberwell


----------



## Al Cunningham (Sep 3, 2020)

Is the next stage to seek formal approval from Sadiq Khan ?


----------



## Paula_G (Sep 3, 2020)

Not sure what the position of the Mayor though it would be a bittersweet feelings if Cummings proposed changes to planning had any effect on Mayoral approval...


----------



## pompeydunc (Sep 5, 2020)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> Not sure what the position of the Mayor though it would be a bittersweet feelings if Cummings proposed changes to planning had any effect on Mayoral approval...



The Mayor's office indicated their support as part of the Southwark planning stage, so would be a massive surprise if this then changed.


----------



## pinknblue (Sep 5, 2020)

Does anyone know when approval from the Mayor is likely to be given and when building work might start?


----------



## Al Cunningham (Sep 24, 2020)

I see the SLP are running with a front page story that Martin Seaton is bring investigated by Southwark Council about how he conducted the planning meeting


----------



## Al Cunningham (Sep 24, 2020)




----------



## Humberto (Sep 24, 2020)

Should sign aLBERT sTUBBINS from beyond the grave like.


----------



## Pink Panther (Sep 25, 2020)

Al Cunningham said:


> View attachment 231684


I hope this is all just hot air. It sounded at the time like John abused his position as Council leader to exert undue influence over the meeting, in which case Seaton (as Chair) was surely within his rights to block him?

Is it really "Southwark Council" doing this, or is it Peter John meddling?  It seems a bit odd the way he's so opposed to the development having masqueraded as a supporter of the club a couple of years ago.


----------



## Paula_G (Sep 25, 2020)

Pink Panther said:


> I hope this is all just hot air. It sounded at the time like John abused his position as Council leader to exert undue influence over the meeting, in which case Seaton (as Chair) was surely within his rights to block him?
> 
> Is it really "Southwark Council" doing this, or is it Peter John meddling?  It seems a bit odd the way he's so opposed to the development having masqueraded as a supporter of the club a couple of years ago.


As I read this I don’t think Peter John is opposed to the stadium part of the application but still feels that the property development side of things falls short on a number of things especially the “affordable” housing part of the application. I’m in the minds of a lot of Dulwich supporters this comes under the “doing a deal with the devil” part of ensuring the future of the club..


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2020)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> . I’m in the minds of a lot of Dulwich supporters this comes under the “doing a deal with the devil” part of ensuring the future of the club..


It was too bitter a pill for me to swallow, I'm afraid, but I kept it to myself for the sake of the club.

If the developer had been proposing a similar deal anywhere else but Hamlet I would have ripped the fuck out of them on Brixton Buzz/urban75.  They're utter cunts and I'm confident they'll do their best to wriggle out of as many commitments as possible as the development progresses.


----------



## Nivag (Sep 25, 2020)

Griff_Turnstile said:


> As I read this I don’t think Peter John is opposed to the stadium part of the application but still feels that the property development side of things falls short on a number of things especially the “affordable” housing part of the application. I’m in the minds of a lot of Dulwich supporters this comes under the “doing a deal with the devil” part of ensuring the future of the club..


He's a bit late in having them thoughts considering the developments he ok'd during his time on the council. Unless this wasn't one that had a contingency/extras plan.


----------



## Pink Panther (Sep 25, 2020)

editor said:


> They're utter cunts and I'm confident they'll do their best to wriggle out of as many commitments as possible as the development progresses.


Whilst I agree, the development that was approved seems like the quickest way to get them out of our hair once and for all and secure the club's long term future at Champion Hill. After such a lengthy saga any further complications are unwelcome. 

And if Southwark Council engages in legal action and loses, who endsup paying for that? As a Southwark social housing tenant and tax payer I'm livid. I understand approximately 44% of Southwark homes are social housing, which is the highest percentage of any borough in England.


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Sep 25, 2020)

This is all hot air
just covering backs because some people complained that they lost
To be fair while the first 4 hours was nail biting the vote turned into a hilarious commentary on Urban75


----------



## Roger D (Sep 25, 2020)

The problem Southwark face is if there was an illegality they are potentially on the hook massively. It would be a lot cheaper to investigate and react than wait for a third party to act. If an allegation has been made, they probably have a legal responsibility to investigate.

This is only an investigation. No specific allegations are public. However Southwark are almost certainly protecting their ratepayers by investigating.

If it goes further than this it may be a worry. At the moment it is what it is. 

In the short run potentially playing a full season without fans is probably a bigger threat to the club.


----------



## Jimbob73 (Oct 6, 2020)

It was me who suggested the toilets be named after Peter John! ...I'm famous


----------



## PartisanDulwich (Oct 6, 2020)

To be fair Peter John did some important work in saving the club when we were sent into exile
However, as local ward Councillor he always opposed Meadows proposals to build so many houses
Think that is a legitimate position - even if I don't personally think it would have resolved our issues/problems


----------



## pinknblue (Feb 26, 2021)

Does anyone have any news of how things are progressing with the proposed new ground?


----------



## tomwi (Mar 22, 2021)

What’s going on here then


----------



## Paula_G (Mar 25, 2021)

Not concerned with the fireworks but the comment about “final decision” seems incongruous with the results of the planning committee last year...


----------



## Nivag (Mar 25, 2021)

Paula_G said:


> Not concerned with the fireworks but the comment about “final decision” seems incongruous with the results of the planning committee last year...


Seeing as they were lying about actual fireworks I'd say I wouldn't believe too much what that account posts.


----------



## Nivag (Apr 14, 2021)




----------



## EDC (Apr 14, 2021)

Cllr Bollock 😳


----------



## Bugpowder Dust (Nov 15, 2021)

Given the stress on the current ground with 3,400 in it, the new stadium is going to be under even more pressure unless the design is adapted to include more facilities - food, drink and toilets; more vantage points; and more space in general for moving around. Which will be tricky unless the overall footprint can be enlarged.


----------



## MrFab_JP (Feb 8, 2022)

Any news?


----------



## Taper (Feb 8, 2022)

Last paragraph of Sunday's programme notes









						CHAIRMANS COLUMN - FEBRUARY 6TH (PROGRAMME NOTES)
					

The latest from Chairman Ben Clasper, from the programme of our Home game against Dartford FC  on Sunday, February 6th.




					www.pitchero.com


----------



## teuchter (Feb 8, 2022)

Friends of Green Dale are talking about seeking a judicial review.


----------



## Taper (Feb 8, 2022)

They've been talking about that since the planning decision was made.  Not sure on what basis.


----------



## Hamlet Pete (Feb 8, 2022)

I like how it's their beautiful and pollution free astro turf. Seeing as it doesn't belong to them and is situated in Southwark, an inner London borough


----------



## editor (Feb 25, 2022)

Latest update 








						Dulwich Hamlet: latest update about progress on the new stadium
					

The Dulwich Hamlet Supporters’ Trust  have today issued an update about the new stadium for the club, which we have reproduced in full below:



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Taper (Feb 25, 2022)

That is very good news.  Hats off to the club and DHST for getting it this far.


----------



## mickydoodle (Mar 2, 2022)

Not sure if this is of any significance?

MEADOW RESIDENTIAL LLP​MEADOW RESIDENTIAL LLP (OC400730)
The following information is available from the company's filing history.

Date​Form​Description​8 Mar 2022GAZ1First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2022)

mickydoodle said:


> Not sure if this is of any significance?
> ​
> MEADOW RESIDENTIAL LLP​MEADOW RESIDENTIAL LLP (OC400730)
> The following information is available from the company's filing history.
> ...


This doesn't auger well


----------



## Crispy (Mar 2, 2022)

"compulsory strike-off" means the company is going to be removed from companies house list. On its own it doesn't mean much, beacuse it could just mean that the interesets and assets of Meadow Residential have been moved to another company. Or it could mean they're fucked and are a paper shell.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 2, 2022)

.


----------



## pinknblue (Mar 2, 2022)

It could just be that they're late filing their accounts. A First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off is basically a warning that they need to do something about their late filing; it doesn't necessarily mean they're in financial difficulty.


----------



## mickydoodle (Mar 2, 2022)

...one to keep an eye on...


----------



## mickydoodle (Mar 30, 2022)

Panic over....


MEADOW RESIDENTIAL LLP​You have been sent this email because you are following MEADOW RESIDENTIAL LLP (OC400730)
The following information is available from the company's filing history.

Date​Form​Description​30 Mar 2022DISS40Compulsory strike-off action has been discontinued


...as Pinknblue mentioned, it looks like the action was for late filing of accounts.


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2022)

mickydoodle said:


> Panic over....
> 
> ​
> MEADOW RESIDENTIAL LLP​You have been sent this email because you are following MEADOW RESIDENTIAL LLP (OC400730)
> ...


Doesn't instil a sense of confidence in the competency of the company though, does it?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 30, 2022)

editor said:


> Doesn't instil a sense of confidence in the competency of the company though, does it?



I suspect it's more likely to be some sort of financial dicking around more than incompetency tbh. Which isn't necessarily any better, granted.


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2022)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I suspect it's more likely to be some sort of financial dicking around more than incompetency tbh. Which isn't necessarily any better, granted.


They're scumbags anyway. Filthy scumbags.


----------



## NPDHFC (Mar 31, 2022)

Would hazard a guess that this is Meadow Residential LLP taking advantage of the Bounceback Loan scheme at the taxpayers expense


----------



## NPDHFC (Mar 31, 2022)

In fact, no need to guess, I should have just looked at the next page!


----------



## editor (Mar 31, 2022)

NPDHFC said:


> In fact, no need to guess, I should have just looked at the next page!
> View attachment 316529


Such a shitty company. I will never forgiven them - or any of their arsefaced directors - for locking us out of Champion Hill because the spiteful cunts couldn't get their petulant way.


----------



## Taper (Mar 31, 2022)

At least they're not human traffickers.


----------



## editor (Mar 31, 2022)

Taper said:


> At least they're not human traffickers.


Well, there is that. But I'd imagine there's all sorts of iffiness to be found if you dug around the financial affairs of most property developers.


----------



## Taper (Apr 14, 2022)

Chairman's programme notes on the judicial review of the decision to agree planning permission for the new stadium. Long threatened, but worrying nonetheless. 










						CHAIRMANS COLUMN - APRIL 9TH (PROGRAMME NOTES)
					

The latest from Chairman Ben Clasper, from the programme of our Home game against Oxford City Saturday April 9th.




					www.pitchero.com


----------



## B.I.G (Apr 14, 2022)

Taper said:


> Chairman's programme notes on the judicial review of the decision to agree planning permission for the new stadium. Long threatened, but worrying nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This bit was embarrassing tbf. 

I believe the bringing of this claim is an insult to what a judicial review is designed to protect. A judicial review is explicitly not there to give people who want to argue that the decision was incorrect a second bite of the cherry, it is there to protect people from an abuse of power. At the end of the planning committee meeting the individual in question made it clear that they thought the decision to approve was incorrect. That is why I believe this is an abuse of the system, despite having their voice heard over and over again none of the concerns they raised were about whether the council had followed the correct process, had they done so then I would have an ounce of respect for this action. Their complaints after the vote were based solely on disagreeing with the decision taken which is not what a judicial review is intended to defend. Presumably they are seeking a judicial review because it is the only instrument they could find to challenge the decision they disagree with and so we look forward to hearing what arguments can be concocted after the fact.

How worried should we be? This was a lengthy and complex process and so there is a risk that if enough lawyers examine every step, document and statement over the three years it took they can find one technicality on which to have the decision cancelled and sent back to be taken again. It is the legal equivalent of being 5-0 up with a minute to go and the opposition announces they are changing the rules to ‘next goal wins’.
As a calmer man than me once said ‘You've won it once. Now you'll have to go out there and win it again.’


----------



## Taper (Apr 14, 2022)

The "person" he's referring to is Peter John presumably.  

Judicial Review is increasingly used in planning decisions, by people who wish to delay.  Mais House in Sydenham was one (successful) such. Friends of Greendale have been threatening this for a while.  Quite within their rights to do so.  Even if it's a pain in the arse.  Given the amount of discussion and scrutiny the decision was subject to, it does rankle rather. The best they can hope for I suppose is to delay the inevitable.  But who knows.  Not cheap to bring a JR.  Maybe they have someone doing it pro bono.


----------



## Taper (Oct 3, 2022)

Update on the JR in Ben's programme notes.  Bit worrying. 









						Chairman Column vs Folkestone Invicta, 1/10/22
					

Read Ben Clasper's Column from our weekend's game with Folkestone Invicta




					www.pitchero.com


----------



## Al Crane (Oct 3, 2022)

Taper said:


> Update on the JR in Ben's programme notes.  Bit worrying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's more than a bit worrying, but it's been the case since at least the DHST AGM in the summer where Ben spoke about this and outlined the threats to us as an ongoing concern then. The fact that you only say 'bit worrying' highlights my concern entirely in that I don't think 99% of fans don't really understand the potential gravity of the situation if the JR doesn't go in our favour AND we can't get a longer lease to play at Champion Hill.

These two things in the article don't tally:

"...we have reached the point where time is now very much against us"

"We will publish the timeline in the coming weeks as well as information on how and when you can help."

If the first statement is true then the second part needs to get a serious shift on. The timeline up to the JR is known. I don't see what we can do to materially affect the JR now beyond telling the world who has brought this case, finding out who is funding it, and then hoping they do their best imitation of our government and pull it. 

As I see it:

Best Case Scenarios: 
JR applicant pulls the case completely and we can start to make some progress with building a new ground OR Southwark Council win the JR and the scheme starts to make some headway from the start of next year.

Worst Case Scenario:
Southwark Council lose the JR and the planning process has to be re-run with the risk that consent isn't achieved. DHFC left with just months on the lease to play at Champion Hill and have to negotiate with the National League / FA to allow them to continue playing at the ground without security of tenure.

Of course all of those concerns subside a little if the owners of Champion Hill decide that the Club can continue playing there for at least 3 years, preferably 99.


----------



## Taper (Oct 3, 2022)

"Bit Worrying" was studied understatement!


----------



## Paula_G (Oct 3, 2022)

A lot of people at the club have been aware of this impending judicial review for some time now. Ben himself mentioned it in his programme notes back in April whilst the CPRE picked up on it around the same time. I for one can’t believe that the club and the trust have been doing nothing for more than six months but it’s frustrating that we have not had some campaign mobilised until now bringing on board the experience of those involved with the previous Save Dulwich Hamlet campaign as well as newer fans with potential skills to combat these sort of vexatious reviews.


----------



## Taper (Oct 3, 2022)

Who would the campaign be aimed at?


----------



## Hamlet Pete (Oct 3, 2022)

Paula_G said:


> A lot of people at the club have been aware of this impending judicial review for some time now. Ben himself mentioned it in his programme notes back in April whilst the CPRE picked up on it around the same time. I for one can’t believe that the club and the trust have been doing nothing for more than six months but it’s frustrating that we have not had some campaign mobilised until now bringing on board the experience of those involved with the previous Save Dulwich Hamlet campaign as well as newer fans with potential skills to combat these sort of vexatious reviews.


The CPRE article calls Greendale a public park and Dulwich Hamlet a professional football club. Neither of those are true are they? The club doesn't own the ground, we're in a can't win situation being tied up with a property developer, doesn't mention that though...


----------



## Paula_G (Oct 3, 2022)

Hamlet Pete said:


> The CPRE article calls Greendale a public park and Dulwich Hamlet a professional football club. Neither of those are true are they? The club doesn't own the ground, we're in a can't win situation being tied up with a property developer, doesn't mention that though...


How does one define a “public park”? There is open access to the public via the link path that runs from the back of Sainsbury’s to the Green Dale pathway on the far side. As for professional club well we are given that our players are paid. I’m guessing that not a lot of CPRE readers would know, or worry about, the distinction between professional, semiprofessional or amateur footballers or more technically correct contract & non-contract players.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 4, 2022)

It is true that an open space which is currently accessible to the public would be fenced off though isn't it. I don't think many of us would buy 'well it's not technically a park' in other circumstances to be honest.


----------



## Taper (Oct 4, 2022)

So who are we meant to be aiming the campaign at?  Is it to put pressure on the developer to not kick us out again if the JR goes against us?


----------



## NPDHFC (Oct 4, 2022)

Are we even still dealing with the same developers?


----------



## Hamlet Pete (Oct 4, 2022)

Yep


----------



## Moroccan Sunset (Dec 9, 2022)

Does anyone know what's going on with the JR? Note in Ben's column v Folkestone that it was scheduled for 6th Dec. Obviously that's been and gone, though. Were we expecting a decision on 6th Dec? Or was that just the start of a process that will ultimately give us a decision?


----------



## edcraw (Dec 10, 2022)

Moroccan Sunset said:


> Does anyone know what's going on with the JR? Note in Ben's column v Folkestone that it was scheduled for 6th Dec. Obviously that's been and gone, though. Were we expecting a decision on 6th Dec? Or was that just the start of a process that will ultimately give us a decision?


 Not sure what’s happened but think the decision is usually at least couple of months after the hearing.


----------



## Roger D (Dec 10, 2022)

I believe the hearing is over and it's now pending a decision. As per above, it usually takes a while I believe. We'll probably hear more early next year.


----------



## Al Crane (Dec 10, 2022)

Believe we will probably hear the outcome next week rather than next year.


----------



## JoeBoy1959 (Dec 10, 2022)

One-day hearing done. Now waiting for decision, could be days or weeks


----------



## Don't Slow Down (Dec 11, 2022)

Be nice if the club could put something out even if it was to say watch this space!


----------



## baleboy_93 (Dec 11, 2022)

Don't Slow Down said:


> Be nice if the club could put something out even if it was to say watch this space!


There really isn’t anything to put out right now, as has been said previously we should hear the outcome hopefully this week


----------



## NPDHFC (Dec 15, 2022)

JR dismissed having failed on all four counts!


----------



## Taper (Dec 15, 2022)

What terrific news that is.


----------



## Taper (Dec 15, 2022)

Is there a link to the judgement?


----------



## lwrs79 (Dec 15, 2022)

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2022/3211/data.pdf


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2022)

lwrs79 said:


> https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2022/3211/data.pdf


Thank you and goodnight!


----------



## scousedom (Dec 15, 2022)

NPDHFC said:


> JR dismissed having failed on all four counts!


Looking forward to a balanced and humble write-up by the “Friends”.


----------



## iamwithnail (Dec 15, 2022)

I'm a little bit lost with all the back and forth on the planning thing. 

The planning app was granted, the JR was objecting to how the decision was made/run and trying to stop it, is that right?  So the redevelopment/new stadium will/should be going ahead?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 15, 2022)

Champagne time at the developers' offices!

They have very successfully played everyone on this.


----------



## barnsleydulwich (Dec 15, 2022)

Wishing all our 'Friends' a very merry Christmas. Onwards!


----------



## Taper (Dec 15, 2022)

Have read the judgement.  Pretty conclusive. Who bankrolled the Claimant's case I wonder?


----------



## tonysingh (Dec 15, 2022)

Taper said:


> Have read the judgement.  Pretty conclusive. Who bankrolled the Claimant's case I wonder?



A bucket collection at Tooting?


----------



## Moroccan Sunset (Dec 15, 2022)

iamwithnail said:


> The planning app was granted, the JR was objecting to how the decision was made/run and trying to stop it, is that right?  So the redevelopment/new stadium will/should be going ahead?



Yeh, I agree: is this confirmation that the stadium definitely will go ahead now? Does anyone know when they can actually start building it?


----------



## Roger D (Dec 15, 2022)

tonysingh said:


> A bucket collection at Tooting?


When.Tooting put in for planning application for their current ground Mishi was going to object. He was talked him out of it


----------



## scousedom (Dec 15, 2022)




----------



## scousedom (Dec 15, 2022)

The big problem now will come in what gets built. Construction cost inflation has been insane in the last couple of years, while house prices will fall 10-15% next year. Basically if when permission was granted Meadow were budgeting on building for 85 something they would then sell for 100 (standard-ish developer margin) then the cost is now probably 110 and the sale price 85-90. 
In other words, they will go back to the Council to change the permission, or will skimp on costs - including the stadium… or both. Almost certainly both.


----------



## Taper (Dec 15, 2022)

Good points. A long and difficult road ahead. But so good for the club. And so good to see those dismal sorts set against us lose so resoundingly in court.


----------



## scousedom (Dec 15, 2022)

Taper said:


> Good points. A long and difficult road ahead. But so good for the club. And so good to see those dismal sorts set against us lose so resoundingly in court.


Have they lost though? Hopeless case they must have known was a loser. Their idea was delay in the hope something comes up to stop it. Well, something has come up - inflation and a housing crash - that might stop it…


----------



## Taper (Dec 15, 2022)

Fecking Cassandra.


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2022)

scousedom said:


> The big problem now will come in what gets built. Construction cost inflation has been insane in the last couple of years, while house prices will fall 10-15% next year. Basically if when permission was granted Meadow were budgeting on building for 85 something they would then sell for 100 (standard-ish developer margin) then the cost is now probably 110 and the sale price 85-90.
> In other words, they will go back to the Council to change the permission, or will skimp on costs - including the stadium… or both. Almost certainly both.


I expect nothing but the absolute worst from these developer scumbags.  They'd put up a Subbuteo pitch if they could get away with it.


----------



## DaphneM (Dec 15, 2022)

Taper said:


> Good points. A long and difficult road ahead. But so good for the club. And so good to see those dismal sorts set against us lose so resoundingly in court.


It certainly seems like very positive news indeed. Good for the club and good for the local community.


----------



## scousedom (Dec 15, 2022)

editor said:


> I expect nothing but the absolute worst from these developer scumbags.  They'd put up a Subbuteo pitch if they could get away with it.


Not entirely sure subbuteo would be a worse surface than 3G…


----------



## Roger D (Dec 15, 2022)

I believe there was supposed to be more cover and terracing at the current ground but it was cut back as the developers argued they couldn't afford to do what had been promised. I arrived when the ground was being built but remember Mishi telling me that


----------



## Moroccan Sunset (Dec 15, 2022)

scousedom said:


> The big problem now will come in what gets built. Construction cost inflation has been insane in the last couple of years, while house prices will fall 10-15% next year. Basically if when permission was granted Meadow were budgeting on building for 85 something they would then sell for 100 (standard-ish developer margin) then the cost is now probably 110 and the sale price 85-90.
> In other words, they will go back to the Council to change the permission, or will skimp on costs - including the stadium… or both. Almost certainly both.



All true, and like editor I wouldnt trust them an inch, but they have got a reputation to rebuild - the backlash from evicting us from CH was much greater than they expected I think. I've heard anecdotally that ole Andrew McDaniel (remember him?) was in a right old flap at some of the meetings they had with the club and council when they started to realise that kicking us out our stadium was not a wise move.

A quick Google of Meadow Residential does not bring up many positive news stories. These people are greedy and will without doubt want to develop more land and make more money. But if they start dicking around again and stirring up more negative press, then how many councils are going to want to get into bed with them? Why wouldnt they sell to or deal with another cash-laden developer without the dirty image (not that there are many tbf).

This is their chance to get things right, to wipe the shit off the good name Meadow Residential, and add a bit of gloss. Yes, they'll want to save money, but they'll want to make more of it long-term, and to do that they could really do with a feel-good story that's got their name tied into it. They don't hold all the aces, IMO.


----------



## scousedom (Dec 15, 2022)

Moroccan Sunset said:


> All true, and like editor I wouldnt trust them an inch, but they have got a reputation to rebuild - the backlash from evicting us from CH was much greater than they expected I think. I've heard anecdotally that ole Andrew McDaniel (remember him?) was in a right old flap at some of the meetings they had with the club and council when they started to realise that kicking us out our stadium was not a wise move.
> 
> A quick Google of Meadow Residential does not bring up many positive news stories. These people are greedy and will without doubt want to develop more land and make more money. But if they start dicking around again and stirring up more negative press, then how many councils are going to want to get into bed with them? Why wouldnt they sell to or deal with another cash-laden developer without the dirty image (not that there are many tbf).
> 
> This is their chance to get things right, to wipe the shit off the good name Meadow Residential, and add a bit of gloss. Yes, they'll want to save money, but they'll want to make more of it long-term, and to do that they could really do with a feel-good story that's got their name tied into it. They don't hold all the aces, IMO.


It’s a nice thought but… Not one I subscribe to I’m sad to say. Glass half empty on this one. If that. 

Developers imo (especially if they are overseas like these) don’t need to care about reputation because they don’t work with councils. They don’t buy land off them, they buy it off other owners than go into battle with under-resourced councils who have unreachable house building targets. And they don’t need to worry about their name because they’ll just change it or move the assets around to a different company or what have you and try again.

As for this lot… We know their form with us. And you’ve seen their other schemes from the sounds of it. There was one I saw, Barnet I think, where they were asking to build flats less than half the permitted size. Like, not 95% or some small little diddle. Less than 50%. It was unreal.

So basically, developers aren’t to be trusted to worry about their reputation, and this lot in particular give developers a bad name. Which gives me cause to think - even without the inflation/price crash mix I said earlier - that what they will now try to deliver will be very different from what was agreed.


----------



## Paula_G (Dec 22, 2022)

Protected characteristics? Presumably referring to the Equalities Act in relation to the doctors who have informal games of cricket on the astroturf? A most interesting attempt to use the EA to get this development blocked.


----------



## Al Cunningham (Jan 3, 2023)

I know a decision has not been made yet regarding the recommendations of the review into football governance. We have particular interest in the potential trial of drinking pitchside in the level above us and I was just wondering how does it work at the moment for food and drink. Am I right in thinking that we get a proportion of the profits from the food outlets so the bigger the crowd the more money?. Also how does it work with the bar sales inside and outside. Is it the same or do we get all the profits?


----------

