He was the Chair of the Planning Committee, and his stance against Charlton's plans to return to The Valley ultimately saw him unseated at the election. Twenty years on,
Scotty Kingsley caught up with a reflective Simon Oelman.....
“Wow, that was a bolt from the blue – how did you find me?” was the initial reaction from Simon Oelman when
Charlton Life contacted him about being interviewed for his views on the Valley Party and the 1990 elections, swiftly adding that
“Yes I would be more than happy” to be interviewed.
Simon Oelman was then a 29 year old labour councillor and Chair of the London Borough of Greenwich Planning Committee. As such, he was one of the key negotiators with the Club over the plans to re-open The Valley, but these talks did not go smoothly.
“It’s fair to say that the Club Directors were greedy. The final, approved, plans were a lot less than those originally submitted but we on the Greenwich side weren’t willing to compromise either, and both sides became entrenched. We had a very uncomfortable meeting with all the directors, where neither side would move.
An often voiced criticism of Greenwich Council was that they just didn’t want the Club back in the Borough.
“It’s fair to say” Oelman recalls,
“that we didn’t see the value of having a football club in the area. At that time clubs didn’t have the big level of community involvement that they do now. Maybe later we would have had a different attitude of ‘OK, we need to change the plans, but we can see that you are bringing something else to the table.”
So how much does Simon, who lives in Sydenham, know about the work that Charlton do now?
“Very aware. All the community and anti-racism work is outstanding and great news. It shows how Charlton going back was hugely important to the borough.”
In January 1990 the Planning Committee that Oelman Chaired rejected the initial application for a re-developed Valley. It was this rejection that sparked the formation of the Valley Party which, as Simon recalls,
“came as a total shock. Was I surprised? Absolutely. It was a brilliantly-run campaign and more professional than any of the established parties managed. It was a surprise to me and all the Labour party and we didn’t really take it seriously at first. But when we started to knock on doors and more and more people said they were voting Valley we though ‘Ah, there’s something going on here but we didn’t really know what to do and by then it was too late.”
“I was in a marginal seat. I knew it was a difficult situation as the SDP were very strong and it made the seat more vulnerable. It was good politics”
On the night of the vote, May 3rd 1990, it was proved just how vulnerable Simon’s seat in Eynsham ward was. His labour colleague polled nearly two hundred more votes, just 65 behind the lowest victorious SDP candidate. The 195 and 139 votes taken (ironically some of the lowest Valley Party totals of the night) by Chris Budgen and Barry Nugent respectively, had taken their toll and Oelman was unseated.
Huge cheers from Valley Party activists in the town hall greeted the announcement of his defeat, as Simon remembers.
“I did take that personally. I was the front man as the Chair but it wasn’t solely my decision. Members all voted on it but when you are the front man and chair that’s part of the role, to take that flak”
Now Oelman says that he doesn’t often think about those days but he is occasionally reminded often by people who ask
“are you the Simon Oelman who was involved with the Valley?” but he says it doesn’t go much beyond that.
“I think my CEO is a Charlton fan but I don’t think he knows what my involvement was. At least he’s never mentioned it. ” he laughed.
Oelman did stand again four years later and was elected for Herbert Ward but his job now in local government precludes any political activity. His publicly stated love for rugby continues though. Too old to play he watches Wasps and is still a member of Charlton Park Rugby Club.
Looking back Oelman says
“I think it was upsetting at the time. In the end I just don’t think I or the Labour Party handled it well. I don’t know but I suspect that the rapid change in the local labour party leadership after the election was down to pressure from Labour headquarters due to the result and how badly we’d handled it”.
“I did get threats to me and my family after the first public meeting. I understand that emotions were running high but that’s not acceptable. It wasn’t from Valley Party people but fans who were upset and not channelling it properly. The Valley Party did channel it but the threats did maybe colour my views slightly.
Bottom line is that I was young, inexperienced and maybe had a slightly inflated ego. There is a degree of regret but it was a long time ago. I’ve moved on.”Charlton Life would like to thank Simon for taking the time to speak to us and for his openness and honesty.
For a link to other articles in this Valley Party series,
CLICK HERE 
Comments
yeah. i was going to say arrested but wasn't sure of my stuff. but there was an incident though
I think he was involved in a fracas with the VOTV photographer as he left the count and got nicked but I guess there were no need to mention it in this interview.
I saw a current labour councillor moaning on Twitter on saturday that: "Plans to carry on talking to Charlton folk stymied by discovery of yet another ***** football game. Thought they didn't play in the summer!"
so doesnt sound like she's a fan.
How to win friends and influence people... What a plumb(ess).
Speak to Roger Alwen if you think this is untrue.
It was never a black and white issue, but you don't campaign with one eye on the other guy's point of view. Anyone who thinks the club wasn't at fault too doesn't understand the planning process, which to be fair isn't unusual in my experience.
Open and honest... fair play...
To be fair, he probably couldn't have gone much further down!
I saw a current labour councillor moaning on Twitter on saturday that: "Plans to carry on talking to Charlton folk stymied by discovery of yet another ***** football game. Thought they didn't play in the summer!"
so doesnt sound like she's a fan.[/quote]
Who tweeted that?
i've read this article a couple of times as I wasnt around during these times so its a great read for me.
It feels like some kind of closure to me.
he's right that Labour HQ came down hard on them, Chris Powell my boss told me that. What on earth, they asked, was a Labour council doing, pissing off football fans.
I was thinking recently that the club were very insistent on the bowling alley as part of the scheme and it turned out that Charlton didnt need it to survive financially. But on the other hand, in 1990 nobody knew what a wall of money was coming from Sky.
Fair play.
Politicians treating their electorate with contempt? Wouldn't happen now, of course!
Lets just be clear that 'a load of Charlton' didn't "have a go at him". One guy called Andy, whose surname I forget, took a foto of him, and Oelman attacked him. Andy was one of the most mild mannered people you could meet, the only "load of Charlton' he was associated with was a Reminiscence class for older supporters.
Later on I took my taxi home, and standing by my taxi was another Labour councillor. After I got in the driver said to me "what was up with that geezer, he was just about to lump you". I'd been too euphoric to notice, but I remembered that the councillor had a strong Glasgow accent.
In those days I too voted Labour. But I'd learnt that politicians of all colours get drunk on power.
And on that night, the hangover kicked in.
He was a brilliant councillor and set a high standard. He didn't stand for re-election which definately helped me get in in his place representing Labour in 2006.
Reading the history now, you do have to wonder about the justification for a bowling alley in the ground open till 2 in the morning. And you definately have to remember that football wasn't the touch feely game it is now but was at the end of the era where football fans had to keep their hobby quiet in polite company. The real trouble was not the argument about the first refused planning application but that Grenwich had let it get that far in the first place.
Airman will doubtless have more to say if he sees this.
I recall for certain that we agreed the goal was not to get anyone elected. The goal was to get our message about the Valley across and up the agenda, so that no winning council could ignore it. So then we had to be disciplined enough not to get involved in discussions about other policies. It was also the better approach for most of the 60+ candidates who had no political ambition, and were just putting themselves on the line for Charlton. (I wasn't one of them, as I lived outside the Borough, and once again I salute all of them, because it must have been terrifying at times). There were a few who did have those ambitions, such as Airman himself (who again lived outside the Borough) and Wendy Perfect. I guess they are the ones who worked out the tactical issue they passed on to the Brentford guys. It's true that Kevin Fox would have been a superb councillor, and I regret we didnt get him in, if only for the stupendous roof raising racket we would have made in the Town Hall if that had been the result, and the sensational national headlines next day; on the other hand the strategy did serve us well. If you look at Quentin Marsh on Thames Reports,(its on Vimeo somewhere) he is desperately trying to make the point that we don't have any policies. But the interviewer ignores that point. He only wants to know why Marsh won't give us planning permission for a feasible development.
While you make a good point about football not being where it is now in British society, in fact, though we did not know it, we were very close to the beginning of the great fight-back. This is widely considered to be Gascoigne bursting into tears at Italia 90, only some eight weeks after the election. On reflection, the failure of the 'nimby' argument by the local residents was down to a sense that the alienation of football fans by Thatcher and her cohorts had gone too far. So we may have played a small part in the rehabilitation of football fans.
Whatever. We won :-)))