I don't think it's very neighbourly some of you taking pleasure in a nearby football club potentially being kicked out of their home...........Wait. It's the Spanners;
Very much doubt they'll move out and sincerely hope they don't have to. Have a lot of millwall friends and whilst they pretty much all take the piss when they beat us, I'd only do the same (if we ever got round to fucking beating them that is)
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
Actually feel gutted for them. Shocked and appalled that Sullivan will get away with this. Hopefully he wont.
Fair play to Barney Ronay in the Groniad for making a noise about it.
They may be a rival but I am Lewisham born n raised and it is RANK what this former councillor is allegedly trying to spin into personal profit. Cayman Islands etc etc, debelopment rights marketed publically for sell on before even bought. Shady shady shady.
All football fans and all taxpayers lose out if what has been mooted by Mr Ronay really goes ahead.
This is the nub of the matter.
Even if it isn't bent, it certainly looks it, which at least one Lewisham councillor has admitted.
It doesn't matter which club is being threatened. If they get away with this, no small club is safe so it could be us next.
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
Millwall have totally refused to support both the Olympic Stadium work and our efforts at Charlton.
I don't want to see them disappear but save your sympathy for where it makes sense and is appreciated.
Furthermore, as others have intimated in this thread, the latest news is not the full story.
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
Millwall are going nowhere. I think you could be tired.
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
What plight?
Their stadium is not at risk, but a car park is.
No one appears to be against developing the site around the ground. It is who develops it. Or more importantly, who gets their head in the trough. Millwall's beef is that their owners want to develop the area - even though they do not own any of the land or any of the surrounding houses, whereas the developers do. Some land belongs to the local council and some houses will need CP.
If the owners of the club get to develop, they will 'give' some money to the club - which they own? So, give it to themselves. No doubt a tax benefit somewhere.
Yes the current plan looks doggy. But so does Millwalls. Sorry, Millwalls owners plan.
The whole thing should be looked at, but it should not be one or the other. It should be neither.
Although this mess has been going on for a couple of years, only now at the 11th hour has the suggestion been made that they will have to leave, but it is note worthy that no explanation has been given as to why this maybe so. Why?
"Such a move would also be a stunning blow to Lewisham itself. A London borough with a population the size of Iceland would be left without a professional sports club of any kind."
Surely most London Borough's don't have a professional sports club ?
.....and while were at it. Where would they get the money to relocate? They can't sell the ground as they don't own it.
I suppose if they are hell bent on a relocation to Kent they could ask Scally for a ground share or even merge. Both play in blue and with all the extra income they could get rid of that awful temporary stand.
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
Jesus Christ man.......wake up and smell the coffee!
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
What plight?
Their stadium is not at risk, but a car park is.
No one appears to be against developing the site around the ground. It is who develops it. Or more importantly, who gets their head in the trough. Millwall's beef is that their owners want to develop the area - even though they do not own any of the land or any of the surrounding houses, whereas the developers do. Some land belongs to the local council and some houses will need CP.
If the owners of the club get to develop, they will 'give' some money to the club - which they own? So, give it to themselves. No doubt a tax benefit somewhere.
Yes the current plan looks doggy. But so does Millwalls. Sorry, Millwalls owners plan.
The whole thing should be looked at, but it should not be one or the other. It should be neither.
Although this mess has been going on for a couple of years, only now at the 11th hour has the suggestion been made that they will have to leave, but it is note worthy that no explanation has been given as to why this maybe so. Why?
Because its bollox.
This.
The argument here is whether former council members or Millwalls offshore owner should be allowed to profit from the redevelopment.
All this stuff about them moving is just noise. Nobody is talking about losing their ground apart from them.
As I understand it, if they lose the artificial pitch(es), they lose the academy status, hence they club is no longer viable in its present location, so they'd have to move.
What people are also ignoring is the loss of their Community Trust and much as one may or may not hate the spanners and their neo-brutalist ground (thanks, Garry Nelson), their Trust is praiseworthy.
As I understand it, if they lose the artificial pitch(es), they lose the academy status, hence they club is no longer viable in its present location, so they'd have to move.
What people are also ignoring is the loss of their Community Trust and much as one may or may not hate the spanners and their neo-brutalist ground (thanks, Garry Nelson), their Trust is praiseworthy.
...but the community gain the biggest indoor sports facilitity with a youth zone giving youth somewhere to go and someone to talk to.
Oh, and by the way, their academy is in Bromley so should be OK ☺
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
What plight?
Their stadium is not at risk, but a car park is.
No one appears to be against developing the site around the ground. It is who develops it. Or more importantly, who gets their head in the trough. Millwall's beef is that their owners want to develop the area - even though they do not own any of the land or any of the surrounding houses, whereas the developers do. Some land belongs to the local council and some houses will need CP.
If the owners of the club get to develop, they will 'give' some money to the club - which they own? So, give it to themselves. No doubt a tax benefit somewhere.
Yes the current plan looks doggy. But so does Millwalls. Sorry, Millwalls owners plan.
The whole thing should be looked at, but it should not be one or the other. It should be neither.
Although this mess has been going on for a couple of years, only now at the 11th hour has the suggestion been made that they will have to leave, but it is note worthy that no explanation has been given as to why this maybe so. Why?
Because its bollox.
Yeh very well put.
Do we really have such short memories from Stratford that a few of those in power can personally profit from a development that is supposed to regenerate a rather delipidated part of London?
Of course any developer will make a profit. This is not communism. But supposed political representatives using their power to line their own pockets in an offshore imaginary transaction? Dodgy as feck.
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
Jesus Christ man.......wake up and smell the coffee!
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
Jesus Christ man.......wake up and smell the coffee!
what coffee?
If you have to ask, then you're....."out to lunch."
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
What plight?
Their stadium is not at risk, but a car park is.
No one appears to be against developing the site around the ground. It is who develops it. Or more importantly, who gets their head in the trough. Millwall's beef is that their owners want to develop the area - even though they do not own any of the land or any of the surrounding houses, whereas the developers do. Some land belongs to the local council and some houses will need CP.
If the owners of the club get to develop, they will 'give' some money to the club - which they own? So, give it to themselves. No doubt a tax benefit somewhere.
Yes the current plan looks doggy. But so does Millwalls. Sorry, Millwalls owners plan.
The whole thing should be looked at, but it should not be one or the other. It should be neither.
Although this mess has been going on for a couple of years, only now at the 11th hour has the suggestion been made that they will have to leave, but it is note worthy that no explanation has been given as to why this maybe so. Why?
Because its bollox.
Think you need to do some more digging.
It's certainly not as perilous as the article makes out (IMO), but not as safe as you appear to suggest.
When a council is using CPO powers to provide a developer the last remaining parcels of land to deliver themselves a profit with only 12% affordable housing, you have to ask why. Renewal already have control of enough areas to begin work. These last few parcels of land are mostly for much later phases.
The plan from Renewal is to assemble all the land, gain the full planning permission which inreases the value of all the land and then flog it on to developers phase by phase.
Tell me which developer is going to bid for the low revenue phases which include the sports centre? Not many. As the houses go up & get sold, the pleading to the council begins, "construction costs are rising", "we're not getting our anticipated margins", "we can't afford to build the sports hall"...."Lewisham please give us £50m to help complete the scheme"
There are no safeguards that Renewal have to complete the whole scheme. Read the reports on the Lewisham website.
The way Millwall have approached it isn't great and their plans may not fit in that well. However, they have offered shares of profits back to Lewisham. Millwall only want to develop on the parcels of land they currently lease. They wanted to bid for the freehold through a competitive tender process. LB refused to go to open tender and have agreed a price with Renewal. LB have refused a FOI request to disclose the agreed price and are now fighting this in the courts. Why?
The Millwall development plans are a small fraction of the overall site, it would only work in tandem with Renewal so both could benefit. However Renewal & LB have no interest in working collaboratively.
As I understand it, if they lose the artificial pitch(es), they lose the academy status, hence they club is no longer viable in its present location, so they'd have to move.
What people are also ignoring is the loss of their Community Trust and much as one may or may not hate the spanners and their neo-brutalist ground (thanks, Garry Nelson), their Trust is praiseworthy.
...but the community gain the biggest indoor sports facilitity with a youth zone giving youth somewhere to go and someone to talk to.
Oh, and by the way, their academy is in Bromley so should be OK ☺
The councillor I was talking to certainly mentioned the loss of the artificial pitch being an issue for the academy so I can only assume they have such a pitch at the New Den site.
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
What plight?
Their stadium is not at risk, but a car park is.
No one appears to be against developing the site around the ground. It is who develops it. Or more importantly, who gets their head in the trough. Millwall's beef is that their owners want to develop the area - even though they do not own any of the land or any of the surrounding houses, whereas the developers do. Some land belongs to the local council and some houses will need CP.
If the owners of the club get to develop, they will 'give' some money to the club - which they own? So, give it to themselves. No doubt a tax benefit somewhere.
Yes the current plan looks doggy. But so does Millwalls. Sorry, Millwalls owners plan.
The whole thing should be looked at, but it should not be one or the other. It should be neither.
Although this mess has been going on for a couple of years, only now at the 11th hour has the suggestion been made that they will have to leave, but it is note worthy that no explanation has been given as to why this maybe so. Why?
Because its bollox.
Think you need to do some more digging.
It's certainly not as perilous as the article makes out (IMO), but not as safe as you appear to suggest.
When a council is using CPO powers to provide a developer the last remaining parcels of land to deliver themselves a profit with only 12% affordable housing, you have to ask why. Renewal already have control of enough areas to begin work. These last few parcels of land are mostly for much later phases.
The plan from Renewal is to assemble all the land, gain the full planning permission which inreases the value of all the land and then flog it on to developers phase by phase.
Tell me which developer is going to bid for the low revenue phases which include the sports centre? Not many. As the houses go up & get sold, the pleading to the council begins, "construction costs are rising", "we're not getting our anticipated margins", "we can't afford to build the sports hall"...."Lewisham please give us £50m to help complete the scheme"
There are no safeguards that Renewal have to complete the whole scheme. Read the reports on the Lewisham website.
The way Millwall have approached it isn't great and their plans may not fit in that well. However, they have offered shares of profits back to Lewisham. Millwall only want to develop on the parcels of land they currently lease. They wanted to bid for the freehold through a competitive tender process. LB refused to go to open tender and have agreed a price with Renewal. LB have refused a FOI request to disclose the agreed price and are now fighting this in the courts. Why?
The Millwall development plans are a small fraction of the overall site, it would only work in tandem with Renewal so both could benefit. However Renewal & LB have no interest in working collaboratively.
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
What plight?
Their stadium is not at risk, but a car park is.
No one appears to be against developing the site around the ground. It is who develops it. Or more importantly, who gets their head in the trough. Millwall's beef is that their owners want to develop the area - even though they do not own any of the land or any of the surrounding houses, whereas the developers do. Some land belongs to the local council and some houses will need CP.
If the owners of the club get to develop, they will 'give' some money to the club - which they own? So, give it to themselves. No doubt a tax benefit somewhere.
Yes the current plan looks doggy. But so does Millwalls. Sorry, Millwalls owners plan.
The whole thing should be looked at, but it should not be one or the other. It should be neither.
Although this mess has been going on for a couple of years, only now at the 11th hour has the suggestion been made that they will have to leave, but it is note worthy that no explanation has been given as to why this maybe so. Why?
Because its bollox.
Think you need to do some more digging.
It's certainly not as perilous as the article makes out (IMO), but not as safe as you appear to suggest.
When a council is using CPO powers to provide a developer the last remaining parcels of land to deliver themselves a profit with only 12% affordable housing, you have to ask why. Renewal already have control of enough areas to begin work. These last few parcels of land are mostly for much later phases.
The plan from Renewal is to assemble all the land, gain the full planning permission which inreases the value of all the land and then flog it on to developers phase by phase.
Tell me which developer is going to bid for the low revenue phases which include the sports centre? Not many. As the houses go up & get sold, the pleading to the council begins, "construction costs are rising", "we're not getting our anticipated margins", "we can't afford to build the sports hall"...."Lewisham please give us £50m to help complete the scheme"
There are no safeguards that Renewal have to complete the whole scheme. Read the reports on the Lewisham website.
The way Millwall have approached it isn't great and their plans may not fit in that well. However, they have offered shares of profits back to Lewisham. Millwall only want to develop on the parcels of land they currently lease. They wanted to bid for the freehold through a competitive tender process. LB refused to go to open tender and have agreed a price with Renewal. LB have refused a FOI request to disclose the agreed price and are now fighting this in the courts. Why?
The Millwall development plans are a small fraction of the overall site, it would only work in tandem with Renewal so both could benefit. However Renewal & LB have no interest in working collaboratively.
With the disintigration of our club it amazes me how some of you can be so dismissive of Millwall's possible plight. It makes me wonder if I have anything in commen with some of you and makes me wonder if I wish to take any further part in this forum.
What plight?
Their stadium is not at risk, but a car park is.
No one appears to be against developing the site around the ground. It is who develops it. Or more importantly, who gets their head in the trough. Millwall's beef is that their owners want to develop the area - even though they do not own any of the land or any of the surrounding houses, whereas the developers do. Some land belongs to the local council and some houses will need CP.
If the owners of the club get to develop, they will 'give' some money to the club - which they own? So, give it to themselves. No doubt a tax benefit somewhere.
Yes the current plan looks doggy. But so does Millwalls. Sorry, Millwalls owners plan.
The whole thing should be looked at, but it should not be one or the other. It should be neither.
Although this mess has been going on for a couple of years, only now at the 11th hour has the suggestion been made that they will have to leave, but it is note worthy that no explanation has been given as to why this maybe so. Why?
Because its bollox.
Think you need to do some more digging.
It's certainly not as perilous as the article makes out (IMO), but not as safe as you appear to suggest.
When a council is using CPO powers to provide a developer the last remaining parcels of land to deliver themselves a profit with only 12% affordable housing, you have to ask why. Renewal already have control of enough areas to begin work. These last few parcels of land are mostly for much later phases.
The plan from Renewal is to assemble all the land, gain the full planning permission which inreases the value of all the land and then flog it on to developers phase by phase.
Tell me which developer is going to bid for the low revenue phases which include the sports centre? Not many. As the houses go up & get sold, the pleading to the council begins, "construction costs are rising", "we're not getting our anticipated margins", "we can't afford to build the sports hall"...."Lewisham please give us £50m to help complete the scheme"
There are no safeguards that Renewal have to complete the whole scheme. Read the reports on the Lewisham website.
The way Millwall have approached it isn't great and their plans may not fit in that well. However, they have offered shares of profits back to Lewisham. Millwall only want to develop on the parcels of land they currently lease. They wanted to bid for the freehold through a competitive tender process. LB refused to go to open tender and have agreed a price with Renewal. LB have refused a FOI request to disclose the agreed price and are now fighting this in the courts. Why?
The Millwall development plans are a small fraction of the overall site, it would only work in tandem with Renewal so both could benefit. However Renewal & LB have no interest in working collaboratively.
I agree that there is a lot that stinks, and one would have thought that some of the "goodies" should be required before they are allowed to develop all. A bit like in Spain where the developer has to put in the roads and street lighting before they build so this bit is not left undone as had been the case in so many developments before.
I thank you for your honest view that the claims on the affect on Millwall maybe exaggerated, but I note you still use the expression "Millwall" plans. I would suggest that your owner had at least one eye on development when he bought the club. This maybe the biggest threat to your fortunes if he does not get to develop he maybe off.
Will the freehold be bought by Millwall the club or by your owner? Yes, he is offering the Council and the club a cash back deal, but is he not just another developer?
If Millwall were only trying to keep what they hold I think there would be widespread support. But the impression I get is that a few sops are being offered so he can get a piece of the action. Nothing wrong in that, but let's all be a bit more honest about it.
Oh, and let's not forget. "No one likes us, we don't care", and neither do I
The thing with this outrageous scam from LBL is it's not just about Millwall, there's people losing their homes. How would you like to have your home compulsorily purchased for around £60K? Where do you think you could live afterwards? There are other businesses being forced out. This is dodgy as f*** and it potentially threatens lots of other historic London areas that are seen as down-at-heel. (There are probably parallels with the Charlton Riverside developments - old-style businesses forced out because developers know a river view means they can charge loads more.) And for a borough with an enormous bill for B&Bs for the homeless, you'd have thought a higher proportion of social housing might be a priority. Well, I guess it would if there wasn't a property developer pulling the strings.
"Such a move would also be a stunning blow to Lewisham itself. A London borough with a population the size of Iceland would be left without a professional sports club of any kind."
Surely most London Borough's don't have a professional sports club ?
Most have at least a semi-professional club, like Welling in Bexley or Dulwich Hamlet in Southwark. In other sports Lambeth has Surrey CC and Lords is in Westminster. Richmond has Harlequins and Hendon has Saracens. If the Spanners go, Lewisham will have nothing as there isn't even a decent non-league team.
Comments
Even if it isn't bent, it certainly looks it, which at least one Lewisham councillor has admitted.
It doesn't matter which club is being threatened. If they get away with this, no small club is safe so it could be us next.
I don't want to see them disappear but save your sympathy for where it makes sense and is appreciated.
Furthermore, as others have intimated in this thread, the latest news is not the full story.
I hope the chavvy go out of business and are never heard of again.
Their stadium is not at risk, but a car park is.
No one appears to be against developing the site around the ground. It is who develops it. Or more importantly, who gets their head in the trough. Millwall's beef is that their owners want to develop the area - even though they do not own any of the land or any of the surrounding houses, whereas the developers do. Some land belongs to the local council and some houses will need CP.
If the owners of the club get to develop, they will 'give' some money to the club - which they own? So, give it to themselves. No doubt a tax benefit somewhere.
Yes the current plan looks doggy. But so does Millwalls. Sorry, Millwalls owners plan.
The whole thing should be looked at, but it should not be one or the other. It should be neither.
Although this mess has been going on for a couple of years, only now at the 11th hour has the suggestion been made that they will have to leave, but it is note worthy that no explanation has been given as to why this maybe so. Why?
Because its bollox.
I suppose if they are hell bent on a relocation to Kent they could ask Scally for a ground share or even merge. Both play in blue and with all the extra income they could get rid of that awful temporary stand.
The argument here is whether former council members or Millwalls offshore owner should be allowed to profit from the redevelopment.
All this stuff about them moving is just noise. Nobody is talking about losing their ground apart from them.
I'm sure Palace would love to share
What people are also ignoring is the loss of their Community Trust and much as one may or may not hate the spanners and their neo-brutalist ground (thanks, Garry Nelson), their Trust is praiseworthy.
Oh, and by the way, their academy is in Bromley so should be OK ☺
Yeh very well put.
Do we really have such short memories from Stratford that a few of those in power can personally profit from a development that is supposed to regenerate a rather delipidated part of London?
Of course any developer will make a profit. This is not communism. But supposed political representatives using their power to line their own pockets in an offshore imaginary transaction? Dodgy as feck.
It's certainly not as perilous as the article makes out (IMO), but not as safe as you appear to suggest.
When a council is using CPO powers to provide a developer the last remaining parcels of land to deliver themselves a profit with only 12% affordable housing, you have to ask why. Renewal already have control of enough areas to begin work. These last few parcels of land are mostly for much later phases.
The plan from Renewal is to assemble all the land, gain the full planning permission which inreases the value of all the land and then flog it on to developers phase by phase.
Tell me which developer is going to bid for the low revenue phases which include the sports centre? Not many. As the houses go up & get sold, the pleading to the council begins, "construction costs are rising", "we're not getting our anticipated margins", "we can't afford to build the sports hall"...."Lewisham please give us £50m to help complete the scheme"
There are no safeguards that Renewal have to complete the whole scheme. Read the reports on the Lewisham website.
The way Millwall have approached it isn't great and their plans may not fit in that well. However, they have offered shares of profits back to Lewisham. Millwall only want to develop on the parcels of land they currently lease. They wanted to bid for the freehold through a competitive tender process. LB refused to go to open tender and have agreed a price with Renewal. LB have refused a FOI request to disclose the agreed price and are now fighting this in the courts. Why?
The Millwall development plans are a small fraction of the overall site, it would only work in tandem with Renewal so both could benefit. However Renewal & LB have no interest in working collaboratively.
I thank you for your honest view that the claims on the affect on Millwall maybe exaggerated, but I note you still use the expression "Millwall" plans. I would suggest that your owner had at least one eye on development when he bought the club. This maybe the biggest threat to your fortunes if he does not get to develop he maybe off.
Will the freehold be bought by Millwall the club or by your owner? Yes, he is offering the Council and the club a cash back deal, but is he not just another developer?
If Millwall were only trying to keep what they hold I think there would be widespread support. But the impression I get is that a few sops are being offered so he can get a piece of the action. Nothing wrong in that, but let's all be a bit more honest about it.
Oh, and let's not forget. "No one likes us, we don't care", and neither do I
There are other businesses being forced out. This is dodgy as f*** and it potentially threatens lots of other historic London areas that are seen as down-at-heel. (There are probably parallels with the Charlton Riverside developments - old-style businesses forced out because developers know a river view means they can charge loads more.)
And for a borough with an enormous bill for B&Bs for the homeless, you'd have thought a higher proportion of social housing might be a priority.
Well, I guess it would if there wasn't a property developer pulling the strings.