DHFC planning application

[savedulwichhamlet]

Knowing Ben quite well, he does not really do 'grumpy'.

He has however patiently and diligently answered all the questions that been asked over and over again (despite his answers not being accepted by some) so maybe you are getting 'grumpy' mixed up with 'exasperated'.

Thanks for your input Ben. It is appreciated.

[creditwheredue]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's true AP, and only you have to look at the

> success of AFC Wimbledon to see how strong that

> constitution can be.

That's bollocks. Wimbledon FC had a large fan base many years ago, even the groundshare at Palace and then the re-franchising to Milton Keynes never stopped their supporters aim of getting back to playing in Merton which they're are imminently about to do. The new AFC Wimbledon fans packed out Champion Hill in their second ever match and repeated it against Fisher a few years after. There's no comparison with a club of Hamlet's present status.

Not to mention their bullying of their then landlords at Kingstonian.

[geh]

yup, agreed. Thanks Ben for coming on here and answering the varied queries.

Fingers crossed for next week

savedulwichhamlet Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Knowing Ben quite well, he does not really do

> 'grumpy'.

>

> He has however patiently and diligently answered

> all the questions that been asked over and over

> again (despite his answers not being accepted by

> some) so maybe you are getting 'grumpy' mixed up

> with 'exasperated'.

>

> Thanks for your input Ben. It is appreciated.

[Gary P]

almost peckham Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On this view

> 'the club' could plausibly play football at any

> number of spaces, it is not limited to the

> proposition on the table. This is evidenced by

> 'the club' playing at Tooting but it could be

> elsewhere.

Sorry but that's just not correct. The only thing the move to Tooting evidenced was that any prolonged absence from the Dulwich area would kill the club.

For all the arguments back and forth, I'm yet to see a single person suggest how they would expect the club to survive if the stadium plan is blocked.

[AnotherPaul]

almost peckham Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a fair point, Anotherpaul. "The club", the

> entity that is evoking such strong feelings is an

> amalgam of people. The club is constituted by

> people: their work, support, feelings, and

> kinship. It is not constituted by architecture.

> People make places, not buildings. On this view

> 'the club' could plausibly play football at any

> number of spaces, it is not limited to the

> proposition on the table. This is evidenced by

> 'the club' playing at Tooting but it could be

> elsewhere.

And that was not in any way the point of what I wrote, as you probably understand.

So, to be clear Almost Peckham, there are no viable alternatives for Hamlet to relocate. Ground shares result in a significant reduction in income, if one does not own one's own stadium and bar then it is virtually impossible to finance a non-league football club. We learned that in our time at Tooting. Also, the history of ground shares does not suggest that is a good idea. Charlton, Palace, Wimbledon, Coventry, they've all done it but not as a preferable choice - it causes long-term problems which still need fixing by eventually finding a permanent home.

In attempting to suggest The Hamlet could move you have drawn attention to the fact that you think your opinion should cause the uprooting of a local institution. Champion Hill is the home of Dulwich Hamlet, as it has been for over 100 years. This redevelopment project was conceived to perpetuate that, to keep the club in Dulwich where it does a lot of good.

You're entitled to your opinion but suggesting the football club could simply relocate is not a useful, practical or evidence based opinion.

[Abe_froeman]

" This redevelopment project was conceived to perpetuate that"

Er, no, this redevelopment project was conceived solely to generate tens of millions of pounds of profit for an offshore property fund.

[Ben Clasper]

rahrahrah and orangeowl

The concern you both raise is one I share, I wouldn't be involved in this if it was to achieve a short or medium term position as you are right, without the right protection, goalposts get moved. If we manage to save the club with this application I don't ever want to have to think about the safety of the club ever again and those who have been involved for much longer than I have will no doubt feel even more strongly about that.

So, I think there is something symbolic about this move as it is brings the club back home to the original site of the stadium when they first moved to East Dulwich from the Village over 100 years ago and everything we are doing will ensure that is the long term position. The council are very hot on this hence the condition that they will own the freeholds which means they will have the freehold of all of the surrounding land and then the long term lease to the club will also have to protect the site in terms of use and what can and can't be done. For what's it worth I also believe that with DHFC back on its original pitch it can help defend the surrounding lands to keep the wild open space around the astroturf protected because whilst we do really take exception to the description of our old run down pitch as 'rural' or 'open green space' we fully agree that is what borders it and that should be protected as should the other football pitch next to the astroturf.

Of course I know agreements have been in place before that sought the same outcome so community fan ownership is the difference this time and the club's ownership structure will therefore provide a second buffer to the protections that will no doubt be put in place by the freehold and leasehold agreements with the council. We have made it clear that the club does not need any interest in owning land it only needs a new facility that it is free to operate to the benefit of the community.

Every single one of those actions has 'no more moving of the goalposts' at its heart.

Ben

[AnotherPaul]

Abe, clearly it?s not ?solely?.

[Abe_froeman]

Clearly it is. Putting the stadium on greendale and all the other incidental parts of the application are the usual sop to get it through the council, such as those normally found in a s106 agreement.

The sole purpose of the redevelopment for the property developer owner of the land is to generate profit.

[Abe_froeman]

So today is the day. I'm still expecting this to be rubber stamped.

[dulwichfolk]

Will be interesting to see the councillors/decision makers being held to account on their voting actions in relation to local residents. If indeed the votes are publicly available.

[creditwheredue]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So today is the day. I'm still expecting this to

> be rubber stamped.

And it was.

[matttee]

To say that this was rubber stamped is laughable. This application received five hours of detailed scrutiny by a committee that by law couldn't be whipped to vote along party lines. The questioning of the propersers, objectors and community supporters was extermely robust. The objection to thhe scheme by local councillor and current council leader Peter John was very strongly expressed. In the end it passed by 5-2 with one abstention. One Labour councillor voted against, the two LibDems split. The votes are completely public, you can write to any councillor involved. I'm delighted and I know others aren't. That's what a robust planning process is supposed to resolve and tonight it did.

[shebe]

Well said, matttee. It was a very long, well-chaired meeting with all sides treated fairly and thoroughly scrutinised. It was/is all on YouTube, so of course the votes are publicly available, as are the entire proceedings. Whether people agree with the decision or not, there?s no way this was ?rubber-stamped? by tonight?s Planning Committee.

IMHO it was the right decision (no, I have no connections with anyone involved). Congratulations to all at DHFC, who?ve been tireless in achieving this, not to mention exercising patience and restraint in the face of some of the more fact-light accusations they?ve had to deal with on the way.

[geh]

Delighted for the club and supporters, although appreciate how divisive the process has been. Let?s work to mend the riftS caused and work to prove the doubters and detractors wrong in a positive way.