Dulwich chairman attacks Charlton in Hamlet programme
Comments
-
You may wish to do a bit of homework on this one.smudge7946 said:Perhaps if Dulwich Hamlet paid rent once in a while they could have had a friendly in there own ground.
5 -
He's non executive, which means he has no dealings with the day to day running of the club.mistrollingin said:What the fuck is Murray doing all day while the clubs downward spiral continues on a daily basis?
1 -
I cant wait for some bilge to come out of the club along the lines of "we only tried to renege on the fixture, because of the increased journey distance and the impact it would have on our carbon footprint"
Charlton saving the planet.25 -
Can perfectly understand the Dulwich take on this (mind you we’re only hearing one side of the story here), but I hope that they realise we are being run by a bunch of leaderless unprofessional twats, many of whom we are thoroughly ashamed of.
That is not the club we know and love......hopefully some day soon we can begin to rebuild that respect.3 -
Just don't hold your breath.SoundAsa£ said:Can perfectly understand the Dulwich take on this (mind you we’re only hearing one side of the story here), but I hope that they realise we are being run by a bunch of leaderless unprofessional twats, many of whom we are thoroughly ashamed of.
That is not the club we know and love......hopefully some day soon we can begin to rebuild that respect.0 -
What, you mean the outstanding rent charge that has now been withdrawn as it had no basis legally?smudge7946 said:Perhaps if Dulwich Hamlet paid rent once in a while they could have had a friendly in there own ground.
You need to do some research before making statements like that.3 -
Didn't someone say that Roland's been charging non-league clubs expenses for the friendlies because he knows they make money from them? Although I believe the Hamlet game was part of the Mascoll deal.0
-
Apparently Dulwich responded that they would accept it being an U23s fixture, as long as Charlton paid the £30k they would have had to pay Dulwich for Mascoll had they not agreed to the first XI friendly. The 'unnamed official' said he was very disappointed with their attitude and would send the first XI.
We support a pack of *****.5 -
I believe taking violin lessons in the hot Italian capital.mistrollingin said:What the fuck is Murray doing all day while the clubs downward spiral continues on a daily basis?
9 -
HarryLime said:
I cant wait for some bilge to come out of the club along the lines of "we only tried to renege on the fixture, because of the increased journey distance and the impact it would have on our carbon footprint"
Charlton saving the planet.HarryLime said:I cant wait for some bilge to come out of the club along the lines of "we only tried to renege on the fixture, because of the increased journey distance and the impact it would have on our carbon footprint"
Charlton saving the planet.
If there is no Charlton we won’t need a planet!
Charlton is life
1 - Sponsored links:
-
What’s he moaning about? We do not have a first team.2
-
*theirsmudge7946 said:Perhaps if Dulwich Hamlet paid rent once in a while they could have had a friendly in there own ground.
3 -
I think this needs to be a thing after today's spin.HarryLime said:I cant wait for some bilge to come out of the club along the lines of "we only tried to renege on the fixture, because of the increased journey distance and the impact it would have on our carbon footprint"
Charlton saving the planet.0 -
I had a pop at Watford for doing similar to Welwyn Garden City... Ashamed that our club are trying to pull similar stunts.1
-
That's why Lyle Taylor was on the train back from Sunderland... good work Charlton.RodneyCharltonTrotta said:
I think this needs to be a thing after today's spin.HarryLime said:I cant wait for some bilge to come out of the club along the lines of "we only tried to renege on the fixture, because of the increased journey distance and the impact it would have on our carbon footprint"
Charlton saving the planet.1 -
You mean there actually is someone in charge?0
-
If there rent was paid in full and on time, they would still play at champions hill. Probably.Tom_Hovi said:
What, you mean the outstanding rent charge that has now been withdrawn as it had no basis legally?smudge7946 said:Perhaps if Dulwich Hamlet paid rent once in a while they could have had a friendly in there own ground.
You need to do some research before making statements like that.
It's a great feeling to stick up for your own team. Some of you should give it a go sometime.0 -
Meadow Residential were responsible for the club’s finances for the period that was allegedly unpaid. So they effectively hadn’t paid themselves supposedly and then when they handed over control to the football committee, used that as the excuse they were looking for to evict the club as a result of not getting their planning application approved by Southwark Council.smudge7946 said:
If there rent was paid in full and on time, they would still play at champions hill. Probably.Tom_Hovi said:
What, you mean the outstanding rent charge that has now been withdrawn as it had no basis legally?smudge7946 said:Perhaps if Dulwich Hamlet paid rent once in a while they could have had a friendly in there own ground.
You need to do some research before making statements like that.
It's a great feeling to stick up for your own team. Some of you should give it a go sometime.
In reality, there was no debt and the fact that it has been challenged successfully and the “debt” withdrawn proves this.
There was no rent to pay, the whole thing was spurious and the fact that we’re not playing at Champion Hill is more to do with the machinations of Meadow Residential and their ambition to build on the land rather than any supposed debts of DHFC. That was just an excuse - they expected us to roll over and die but didn’t expect people to rally round the club as has happened.
14 -
*theirsmudge7946 said:
If there rent was paid in full and on time, they would still play at champions hill. Probably.Tom_Hovi said:
What, you mean the outstanding rent charge that has now been withdrawn as it had no basis legally?smudge7946 said:Perhaps if Dulwich Hamlet paid rent once in a while they could have had a friendly in there own ground.
You need to do some research before making statements like that.
It's a great feeling to stick up for your own team. Some of you should give it a go sometime.1 -
Dulwich who?1
- Sponsored links:
-
What happened with Dulwich Hamlet is like Duchatelet evicting charlton from the valley because the club had “failed” to pay rent to staprix. Despite the fact both are owned by the same company and there would clearly be no rent to pay.smudge7946 said:
If there rent was paid in full and on time, they would still play at champions hill. Probably.Tom_Hovi said:
What, you mean the outstanding rent charge that has now been withdrawn as it had no basis legally?smudge7946 said:Perhaps if Dulwich Hamlet paid rent once in a while they could have had a friendly in there own ground.
You need to do some research before making statements like that.
It's a great feeling to stick up for your own team. Some of you should give it a go sometime.
Meadow have thrown their toys out of the pram because they can’t get planning permission and are using the ground and the football club as a hostage to the local council. In fact Southwark council have threatened a compulsory purchase order on champion hill to get the club back there it’s so daft and clearly malicious.
It’s not very difficult to look this stuff up.6 -
Don't feed the troll11
-
As for “supporting your own team” I do support the manager and the players. Not some dickhead in a poorly fitted suit that decides to be a cunt to a local club that’s fallen on hard times through no fault of their own.
Dulwich Hamlet have a great system in place getting players through that go on to be pro footballers. You can garuntee they won’t be selling us the next oztumer or in this case mascoll that they discover now. Other non league clubs may well do the same.2 -
1
-
Of course the irony of the comment is that we are paying rent and thats why we ate playing at arch rivals Tooting0
-
We’re ?Tom_Hovi said:
Meadow Residential were responsible for the club’s finances for the period that was allegedly unpaid. So they effectively hadn’t paid themselves supposedly and then when they handed over control to the football committee, used that as the excuse they were looking for to evict the club as a result of not getting their planning application approved by Southwark Council.smudge7946 said:
If there rent was paid in full and on time, they would still play at champions hill. Probably.Tom_Hovi said:
What, you mean the outstanding rent charge that has now been withdrawn as it had no basis legally?smudge7946 said:Perhaps if Dulwich Hamlet paid rent once in a while they could have had a friendly in there own ground.
You need to do some research before making statements like that.
It's a great feeling to stick up for your own team. Some of you should give it a go sometime.
In reality, there was no debt and the fact that it has been challenged successfully and the “debt” withdrawn proves this.
There was no rent to pay, the whole thing was spurious and the fact that we’re not playing at Champion Hill is more to do with the machinations of Meadow Residential and their ambition to build on the land rather than any supposed debts of DHFC. That was just an excuse - they expected us to roll over and die but didn’t expect people to rally round the club as has happened.
Us?
0 -
We?Kap10 said:Of course the irony of the comment is that we are paying rent and thats why we ate playing at arch rivals Tooting
0 -
As a former resident, I can't blame Charlton for not fancying spending an evening in Mitcham.4
-
Pleae try to moderate your language.kentaddick said:As for “supporting your own team” I do support the manager and the players. Not some dickhead in a poorly fitted suit that decides to be a cunt to a local club that’s fallen on hard times through no fault of their own.
Dulwich Hamlet have a great system in place getting players through that go on to be pro footballers. You can garuntee they won’t be selling us the next oztumer or in this case mascoll that they discover now. Other non league clubs may well do the same.
Thank you .2 -
Maybe Meadow are planning to house refugees in the propertirs they build on Champions Hill.Tom_Hovi said:
Meadow Residential were responsible for the club’s finances for the period that was allegedly unpaid. So they effectively hadn’t paid themselves supposedly and then when they handed over control to the football committee, used that as the excuse they were looking for to evict the club as a result of not getting their planning application approved by Southwark Council.smudge7946 said:
If there rent was paid in full and on time, they would still play at champions hill. Probably.Tom_Hovi said:
What, you mean the outstanding rent charge that has now been withdrawn as it had no basis legally?smudge7946 said:Perhaps if Dulwich Hamlet paid rent once in a while they could have had a friendly in there own ground.
You need to do some research before making statements like that.
It's a great feeling to stick up for your own team. Some of you should give it a go sometime.
In reality, there was no debt and the fact that it has been challenged successfully and the “debt” withdrawn proves this.
There was no rent to pay, the whole thing was spurious and the fact that we’re not playing at Champion Hill is more to do with the machinations of Meadow Residential and their ambition to build on the land rather than any supposed debts of DHFC. That was just an excuse - they expected us to roll over and die but didn’t expect people to rally round the club as has happened.
That would be a massive irony.
#refugeeswelcone.1
