I did know he wanted to develop the areas around the ground. That is why he set up a seperate company to do this.
Both sets of developers are going to build on the car park and the community centre. I did not realise this until now because this issue is the main focus being used against renewal. Indeed, I think the defend our den petition made a specific reference to this?
It all comes down to which development you prefer. The council clearly prefer renewal (and I can see why, and also see why they have not parcelled out the land they own); and you prefer the american plan because it says it will give your club some money in the deal and, if I remember correctly, the community centre will be next to the Den?
What's the separate company you refer to?
Do you also realise it's not two rival developments, they could work hand in hand?
Millwall property Ltd.
Not rival developments? Is that why they seem so similar in that you will both build on the car park and move the community centre?
So exactly why should Renewal share with your owner? What exactly are you bringing to the table that benefits them? As your meetings with them broke down, obviously not enough - yet.
Let me guess. If they divi up, your owner will make all the opposition go away. To be fair, that's what I expect to happen. Hence you have pulled out all the stops to get the media behind you. It is a lot cheaper than hard cash.
As I have said before. I do not have a problem with that. Just wish that you would stop trying to con us that the club is one planning decision away from oblivion.
Out of intrest, if you were Renewal, how keen would you be to agree a deal with a developer who is going to give a wedge back to the council? Some may start asking for a contribution from them, and this may have been already spent 'oiling the wheels'. Should have got a George Graham in early. Never mind.
I think I would be prepared to a deal with your club to sell off a parcel of land for you to develop. I would want a market price though. Can you afford that and do the give aways?
(When I say you, I mean Millwall).
Anyway, do feel free to explain all so us simple folk can understand.
I did know he wanted to develop the areas around the ground. That is why he set up a seperate company to do this.
Both sets of developers are going to build on the car park and the community centre. I did not realise this until now because this issue is the main focus being used against renewal. Indeed, I think the defend our den petition made a specific reference to this?
It all comes down to which development you prefer. The council clearly prefer renewal (and I can see why, and also see why they have not parcelled out the land they own); and you prefer the american plan because it says it will give your club some money in the deal and, if I remember correctly, the community centre will be next to the Den?
What's the separate company you refer to?
Do you also realise it's not two rival developments, they could work hand in hand?
Millwall property Ltd.
Not rival developments? Is that why they seem so similar in that you will both build on the car park and move the community centre?
So exactly why should Renewal share with your owner? What exactly are you bringing to the table that benefits them? As your meetings with them broke down, obviously not enough - yet.
Let me guess. If they divi up, your owner will make all the opposition go away. To be fair, that's what I expect to happen. Hence you have pulled out all the stops to get the media behind you. It is a lot cheaper than hard cash.
As I have said before. I do not have a problem with that. Just wish that you would stop trying to con us that the club is one planning decision away from oblivion.
Out of intrest, if you were Renewal, how keen would you be to agree a deal with a developer who is going to give a wedge back to the council? Some may start asking for a contribution from them, and this may have been already spent 'oiling the wheels'. Should have got a George Graham in early. Never mind.
I think I would be prepared to a deal with your club to sell off a parcel of land for you to develop. I would want a market price though. Can you afford that and do the give aways?
(When I say you, I mean Millwall).
Anyway, do feel free to explain all so us simple folk can understand.
Not rival developments? Is that why they seem so similar in that you will both build on the car park and move the community centre?.
Renewals plans cover the whole "New Bermondsey" / "SCT" site, including areas they don't own and are seeking CPO orders for.
MFC plans covered the parcels of land we and the MCT currently lease and have offered to tender for.
They aren't rival plans in so much as discussions between MFC & Renewal were about how the two could stitch together to form one cohesive site. Just that MFC would generate income from land they bought & developed & Renewal develop the rest that they have bought.
So exactly why should Renewal share with your owner? What exactly are you bringing to the table that benefits them? As your meetings with them broke down, obviously not enough - yet.
Why would MFC share anything? MFC are not looking to snatch land from Renewal. Renewal don't own it. Renewal are asking Lewisham to CPO the land MFC & MCT lease for them to develop their masterplan, seek full planning & flog it on.
Just wish that you would stop trying to con us that the club is one planning decision away from oblivion.
I don't think a move will happen, but it's bene spoken about for years now since much of our support is moving further out, so it's not unlikely that it will be considered.
Out of intrest, if you were Renewal, how keen would you be to agree a deal with a developer who is going to give a wedge back to the council? Some may start asking for a contribution from them, and this may have been already spent 'oiling the wheels'. Should have got a George Graham in early. Never mind.
Renewal don't own the land MFC want to develop so there is no deal to agree between us both. It should be with LBL in conjunction with Renewal. Many developers do make contributions to the council, normally under a S106 agreement. It normally involves giving funding to build more affordable homes or improving transport links etc, all little sweeteners.
I think I would be prepared to a deal with your club to sell off a parcel of land for you to develop. I would want a market price though. Can you afford that and do the give aways?
If LBL would bother speaking to Millwall about pricing then we'd know whether we could bid. We've offered and asked what price they agreed with Renewal. LBL are currently taking this to the courts to prevent anyone finding out the great deal they secured the taxpayers.
I have it on no authority whatsoever that Millwall and Charlton are to merge.
There are historical links after all.
Millwall used to be called Millwall Athletic, and in merging with Charlton Athletic in the spirit of fairness you have one name from each club. Charlton from Charlton and Athletic from Millwall.
Team colours same thing, White from Millwall, red from Charlton.
I believe in the past Millwall have played home games at The Valley, and as their ground is seemingly under threat, and we're close by, the newly merged team could play at The Valley to honour historic and cultural links.
So merging the two clubs would in all fairness get you Charlton Athletic, playing in red and white at The Valley, all sorted and fair all round.
I have it on no authority whatsoever that Millwall and Charlton are to merge.
There are historical links after all.
Millwall used to be called Millwall Athletic, and in merging with Charlton Athletic in the spirit of fairness you have one name from each club. Charlton from Charlton and Athletic from Millwall.
Team colours same thing, White from Millwall, red from Charlton.
I believe in the past Millwall have played home games at The Valley, and as their ground is seemingly under threat, and we're close by, the newly merged team could play at The Valley to honour historic and cultural links.
So merging the two clubs would in all fairness get you Charlton Athletic, playing in red and white at The Valley, all sorted and fair all round.
...apologies to Spitting Image.
And we get the attendance from both teams as well so target 12'000 would be pleased.
Good news - the whole thing stinks and needs some scrutiny. Was talking to a couple of Spanners at the weekend, they sheepishly admitted that for all the bluff and bluster around Millwall's fanbase fearing no foe this campaign has effectively been waged (and possibly won) by the Grauniad.
The deal deserves full scrutiny. It whiffs of somebody making a swift buck. In the end though the money men will win after a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Council. The capital needs housing and the proposed new station will carry a lot of weight. It may be slightly modified and that might help the football club but I doubt there is any chance that Berylsons plan will gain traction. It just doesn't tick all the boxes.
Is this fraud ? I hope the Mayor is thoroughly investigated and charged if it is believed he has committed a crime.
"The news will come as a bitter blow to the beleaguered Lewisham mayor, Sir Steve Bullock, who appears almost totally isolated in his unwavering support for the CPO plan. This comes in the wake of the revelation, first published in the Guardian, that the sports charity at the heart of the development, of which mayor Bullock is a director, has made false claims about funding."
Statement by Mayor Bullock in relation to the SCSF and New Bermondsey CPO
I have not made any public comment in regard to the proposed CPO because of my involvement with the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation (SCSF). However it has been reported in the media yesterday that I am “Unwavering in my support for the CPO” i.e. the proposed CPO which would affect Millwall FC and other property owners in the area. This is not correct and in order to clarify matters I am making the following statement.
“I have served as a Trustee of the Surrey Canal Sport Foundation for several years because I want to see excellent sports and youth facilities provided in the New Bermondsey area as well as new housing. The proposed development was given planning permission in late 2011 by the Strategic Planning Committee. That committee is independent of the Mayor and Cabinet and I am not nor ever have been a member of it. I have not taken part in any subsequent decisions that were required to be taken either by Cabinet or a Planning Committee.
“Consideration of a proposed CPO which arises from the decision taken by the Planning Committee is the responsibility of the Mayor and Cabinet and this began in February 2016. For the reasons stated above I have played no part in those discussions.
“However information has been provided by Millwall to the Council in the last few weeks that raised two concerns that appear not to have been addressed previously in regard to aspects of the future operation of the Community Sports Scheme and the operation of Millwall’s own Academy. I have always been clear that Millwall must be at the heart of the development and it is my view that these concerns need to be thoroughly addressed the CPO should not proceed and that all parties concerned should enter discussions to identify an agreed way to achieve the regeneration of this area while resolving these concerns.
“Other issues of concern have been raised in relation to the operation of the SCSF and as soon as these concerns were raised I wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive asking that an independent inquiry take place into them and I cannot comment further until the inquiry reports.”
___________________________
Sir Steve Bullock Mayor of Lewisham steve.bullock@lewisham.gov.uk
Rotten from the start - the stench coming from the politicians. Gentrification: Rich pickings for the few and b*gg*r the working class. How much money has this farce cost the public purse?
quite comical that a few millwall fans were posting to the charlton facebook group roland in and number 1 in south london with screenshots of the news article, wont be long before there out of the cup, hopefully troy deeney scores a hat trick this weekend and they can go back to tarmacing driveways and buying cars for scrap.
quite comical that a few millwall fans were posting to the charlton facebook group roland in and number 1 in south london with screenshots of the news article, wont be long before there out of the cup, hopefully troy deeney scores a hat trick this weekend and they can go back to tarmacing driveways and buying cars for scrap.
Thanks to everyone who managed to put their biases to one side and support us and the local community on this one. It was so obviously dodgy from the very start.
Comments
Not rival developments? Is that why they seem so similar in that you will both build on the car park and move the community centre?
So exactly why should Renewal share with your owner? What exactly are you bringing to the table that benefits them? As your meetings with them broke down, obviously not enough - yet.
Let me guess. If they divi up, your owner will make all the opposition go away. To be fair, that's what I expect to happen. Hence you have pulled out all the stops to get the media behind you. It is a lot cheaper than hard cash.
As I have said before. I do not have a problem with that. Just wish that you would stop trying to con us that the club is one planning decision away from oblivion.
Out of intrest, if you were Renewal, how keen would you be to agree a deal with a developer who is going to give a wedge back to the council? Some may start asking for a contribution from them, and this may have been already spent 'oiling the wheels'. Should have got a George Graham in early. Never mind.
I think I would be prepared to a deal with your club to sell off a parcel of land for you to develop. I would want a market price though. Can you afford that and do the give aways?
(When I say you, I mean Millwall).
Anyway, do feel free to explain all so us simple folk can understand.
MFC plans covered the parcels of land we and the MCT currently lease and have offered to tender for.
They aren't rival plans in so much as discussions between MFC & Renewal were about how the two could stitch together to form one cohesive site. Just that MFC would generate income from land they bought & developed & Renewal develop the rest that they have bought.
Why would MFC share anything? MFC are not looking to snatch land from Renewal. Renewal don't own it. Renewal are asking Lewisham to CPO the land MFC & MCT lease for them to develop their masterplan, seek full planning & flog it on. I don't think a move will happen, but it's bene spoken about for years now since much of our support is moving further out, so it's not unlikely that it will be considered. Renewal don't own the land MFC want to develop so there is no deal to agree between us both. It should be with LBL in conjunction with Renewal. Many developers do make contributions to the council, normally under a S106 agreement. It normally involves giving funding to build more affordable homes or improving transport links etc, all little sweeteners. If LBL would bother speaking to Millwall about pricing then we'd know whether we could bid. We've offered and asked what price they agreed with Renewal. LBL are currently taking this to the courts to prevent anyone finding out the great deal they secured the taxpayers.
Turn subtitles on (bottom right hand corner). Very good, I thought.
There are historical links after all.
Millwall used to be called Millwall Athletic, and in merging with Charlton Athletic in the spirit of fairness you have one name from each club.
Charlton from Charlton and Athletic from Millwall.
Team colours same thing, White from Millwall, red from Charlton.
I believe in the past Millwall have played home games at The Valley, and as their ground is seemingly under threat, and we're close by, the newly merged team could play at The Valley to honour historic and cultural links.
So merging the two clubs would in all fairness get you Charlton Athletic, playing in red and white at The Valley, all sorted and fair all round.
...apologies to Spitting Image.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/19/millwall-stadium-false-funding-claims-the-den
Good luck though!
"The news will come as a bitter blow to the beleaguered Lewisham mayor, Sir Steve Bullock, who appears almost totally isolated in his unwavering support for the CPO plan. This comes in the wake of the revelation, first published in the Guardian, that the sports charity at the heart of the development, of which mayor Bullock is a director, has made false claims about funding."
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/25/millwall-cpo-scrapped-lewisham-mayor
Statement by Mayor Bullock in relation to the SCSF and New Bermondsey CPO
I have not made any public comment in regard to the proposed CPO because of my involvement with the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation (SCSF). However it has been reported in the media yesterday that I am “Unwavering in my support for the CPO” i.e. the proposed CPO which would affect Millwall FC and other property owners in the area. This is not correct and in order to clarify matters I am making the following statement.
“I have served as a Trustee of the Surrey Canal Sport Foundation for several years because I want to see excellent sports and youth facilities provided in the New Bermondsey area as well as new housing. The proposed development was given planning permission in late 2011 by the Strategic Planning Committee. That committee is independent of the Mayor and Cabinet and I am not nor ever have been a member of it. I have not taken part in any subsequent decisions that were required to be taken either by Cabinet or a Planning Committee.
“Consideration of a proposed CPO which arises from the decision taken by the Planning Committee is the responsibility of the Mayor and Cabinet and this began in February 2016. For the reasons stated above I have played no part in those discussions.
“However information has been provided by Millwall to the Council in the last few weeks that raised two concerns that appear not to have been addressed previously in regard to aspects of the future operation of the Community Sports Scheme and the operation of Millwall’s own Academy. I have always been clear that Millwall must be at the heart of the development and it is my view that these concerns need to be thoroughly addressed the CPO should not proceed and that all parties concerned should enter discussions to identify an agreed way to achieve the regeneration of this area while resolving these concerns.
“Other issues of concern have been raised in relation to the operation of the SCSF and as soon as these concerns were raised I wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive asking that an independent inquiry take place into them and I cannot comment further until the inquiry reports.”
___________________________
Sir Steve Bullock
Mayor of Lewisham
steve.bullock@lewisham.gov.uk
Gentrification: Rich pickings for the few and b*gg*r the working class.
How much money has this farce cost the public purse?
https://amp.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/jan/26/millwall-fans-cpo-threat-the-den-lifted
Thanks to everyone who managed to put their biases to one side and support us and the local community on this one. It was so obviously dodgy from the very start.
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/15069380.Millwall_say_Lewisham_Council_created__hostile_environment__in_New_Bermondsey_CPO_decision_making_process/