If you put aside for a moment that it involves that lot, you would have to say that the behaviour of some people in the Council looks increasingly questionable. And we more than most, should not approve of that sort of thing.
Ronay argues that the club's rival scheme is better for residents and the taxpayer than this one. I haven't followed this, so I am interested in whether others such as @Redrobo and @AFKABartram remain sceptical of this argument.
The only question here is whether the profit from the development goes to Millwall or Renewal, not whether the development actually goes ahead or not. That's it. There's not really a lot between the different schemes.
The Millwall side are making a lot of Renewal's ultimate offshore ownership. However, this obviously ignores the fact that the Millwall development will obviously have an ultimate offshore ownership too - Berylson.
The only question here is whether the profit from the development goes to Millwall or Renewal, not whether the development actually goes ahead or not. That's it. There's not really a lot between the different schemes.
The Millwall side are making a lot of Renewal's ultimate offshore ownership. However, this obviously ignores the fact that the Millwall development will obviously have an ultimate offshore ownership too - Berylson.
Yes thanks. I know quite a bit about it all actually.
So you know that Renewals plans involve no social housing at all and very little affordable housing? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that in itself was against the law these days isn't it? Any major development has to include a certain amount of social housing.
Anyway, if you can read that article and still think it's solely about who is going to make money out of it all then you've made your mind up, end of. You probably made your mind up when you read the word 'Millwall' and couldn't budge from there.
If I were a Millwall fan I would be extremely worried that if Berylson doesn't get his mitts on the development then there will be little there left for him and he will pull the plug. That's got to be the big concern. Not this stuff about the Café closing!
Yes thanks. I know quite a bit about it all actually.
when they say 'offshore' do you understand what that actually implies? Calling Berylson 'offshore' just because he's American would suggest that you don't.
Yes thanks. I know quite a bit about it all actually.
when they say 'offshore' do you understand what that actually implies? Calling Berylson 'offshore' just because he's American would suggest that you don't.
Lol!
Yes thanks, I know perfectly well what "offshore" means.
So, Millwall's planned development was going to be undertaken completely by UK companies was it? Not what I heard!
Yes thanks. I know quite a bit about it all actually.
when they say 'offshore' do you understand what that actually implies? Calling Berylson 'offshore' just because he's American would suggest that you don't.
Lol!
Yes thanks, I know perfectly well what "offshore" means.
So, Millwall's planned development was going to be undertaken completely by UK companies was it? Not what I heard!
Well you obviously don't know what offshore means if you're comparing Berylson to some firm set up and registered a few years ago in the BVI!
While 'we hate Millwall and we hate millwall, we hate millwall and we hate Millwall, we hate Millwall and we hate Millwall, we are the Millwall haters' is a fine chant, my son has a couple of Millwall supporting coaches who are great guys. Top notch guys
I was talking to a neighbour who isn't that into football on the train into work last season about the problems we had we Roland and Katrien and the protests, a bloke joined in commiserating with us, knowing all about it, turned out he was Millwall.
My point being that no matter how much Millwall as a club may suck, many Millwall fans do not deserve to get dicked over by dodgy planning decisions.
We have got support in our mess from these guys and I will give support back.
Yes thanks. I know quite a bit about it all actually.
when they say 'offshore' do you understand what that actually implies? Calling Berylson 'offshore' just because he's American would suggest that you don't.
Lol!
Yes thanks, I know perfectly well what "offshore" means.
So, Millwall's planned development was going to be undertaken completely by UK companies was it? Not what I heard!
Well you obviously don't know what offshore means if you're comparing Berylson to some firm set up and registered a few years ago in the BVI!
Lol
Lol. I presume you've heard of Chestnut Hill Ventures LLC?
"The Company's scheme provides an opportunity to bring more financial stability to the Club by generating non-football revenues, which are vital to the future of Millwall Football Club"
There you go. Straight from the accounts for the holding company.
But of course, it's all about providing social housing really .......
Yes thanks. I know quite a bit about it all actually.
when they say 'offshore' do you understand what that actually implies? Calling Berylson 'offshore' just because he's American would suggest that you don't.
Lol!
Yes thanks, I know perfectly well what "offshore" means.
So, Millwall's planned development was going to be undertaken completely by UK companies was it? Not what I heard!
Well you obviously don't know what offshore means if you're comparing Berylson to some firm set up and registered a few years ago in the BVI!
Lol
Lol. I presume you've heard of Chestnut Hill Ventures LLC?
Again, you're comparing a company that is 'offshore' to one that isn't British! Thinking that because CHV aren't on THESE shores then it's 'offshore' You're really struggling with this aren't you? Google 'offshore' mate, in regards to businesses. It might help you there.
"The Company's scheme provides an opportunity to bring more financial stability to the Club by generating non-football revenues, which are vital to the future of Millwall Football Club"
There you go. Straight from the accounts for the holding company.
But of course, it's all about providing social housing really .......
And what is actually wrong with that statement? Non football revenues are vital to the survival and future of most football clubs.
The fact that you can google the accounts of the holding company and get that info says it all. Try doing it with Renewal. See how far you get! Millwall are offering a transparent proposal that will benefit EVERYONE, the local community, the club, local residents and businesses, even Lewisham council itself!!
Renewals proposal is shady, opaque and benefits nobody other than a few dodgy mates of Lewisham who are or were once connected to the council.
I'd suggest you read the article again and actually try to absorb some of the info contained in it this time. As you quite clearly didn't the first time around. Either that or you have such an anti Millwall bias that it stops you from forming common sense opinions on the subject.
Anything that benefits millwall is a definite "no" from me but anything that benefits a community is a definite "yes" from me , so hopefully a solution can be found to suit the above
My eldest son played against Millwall Albion u-11s yesterday (maybe the scum should return to whence they came) and as an emergency keeper kept a clean sheet in a 0-1 away victory for Buckhurst Hill boys He told me he had to do it against them Last year he scored our only header of the season against them if only our wanky team could care us much when we play the filth .
Yes thanks. I know quite a bit about it all actually.
So you know that Renewals plans involve no social housing at all and very little affordable housing? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that in itself was against the law these days isn't it? Any major development has to include a certain amount of social housing.
i also thought a % of social housing had to be included.
If Berylson had won the development rights but his plans didn't include social housing, would you give a shit? is this issue purely a life line to you (Berylson) getting the go ahead on the development?
Yes thanks. I know quite a bit about it all actually.
when they say 'offshore' do you understand what that actually implies? Calling Berylson 'offshore' just because he's American would suggest that you don't.
Lol!
Yes thanks, I know perfectly well what "offshore" means.
So, Millwall's planned development was going to be undertaken completely by UK companies was it? Not what I heard!
Well you obviously don't know what offshore means if you're comparing Berylson to some firm set up and registered a few years ago in the BVI!
Lol
Lol. I presume you've heard of Chestnut Hill Ventures LLC?
Again, you're comparing a company that is 'offshore' to one that isn't British! Thinking that because CHV aren't on THESE shores then it's 'offshore' You're really struggling with this aren't you? Google 'offshore' mate, in regards to businesses. It might help you there.
No mate, I'm not struggling with this, really I'm not. This type of thing is what I do for a living and lets just say I think I have a bit of an inside track on this particular set of developments/proposals.
But lets leave it there, eh? I hope for your sake that this doesn't all end up in your club going under, which I have consistently said is the main play here, despite you insisting that its all one big community thing. I also note that you haven't answered my questions in this thread about Berylson's motivations for owning the club (genuine question - I don't know if its on public record) and what happens if he doesn't get the rights to undertake the redevelopment. That's got to be the big worry.
Bottom line to me is that Millwall were effectively given the ground by Lewisham Council years back - at a time when I was a Lewisham resident, so effectively thats where my Council Tax was going - and the price you have paid for that is that you have no direct say in what goes on with it. In fact, even if Millwall owned their stadium land they would still have no direct say in what the Council does with their own adjoining land - and nor should they.
Sure, the background noise means the Renewal deal might look a bit iffy at first sight, but in truth its no different to the structure in place for most other property deals you would come across, or that I come across on a daily basis.
Do I have an anti-Millwall bias? Yes, most definitely. But it only offsets your obvious pro-Millwall bias in this instance. The bottom line is that Millwall want this for themselves. If the Renewal deal was more transparent you would still be wanting it for yourselves, naturally, so that really is a red herring.
Yes thanks. I know quite a bit about it all actually.
when they say 'offshore' do you understand what that actually implies? Calling Berylson 'offshore' just because he's American would suggest that you don't.
Lol!
Yes thanks, I know perfectly well what "offshore" means.
So, Millwall's planned development was going to be undertaken completely by UK companies was it? Not what I heard!
Well you obviously don't know what offshore means if you're comparing Berylson to some firm set up and registered a few years ago in the BVI!
Lol
Lol. I presume you've heard of Chestnut Hill Ventures LLC?
Again, you're comparing a company that is 'offshore' to one that isn't British! Thinking that because CHV aren't on THESE shores then it's 'offshore' You're really struggling with this aren't you? Google 'offshore' mate, in regards to businesses. It might help you there.
Sure, the background noise means the Renewal deal might look a bit iffy at first sight, but in truth its no different to the structure in place for most other property deals you would come across, or that I come across on a daily basis.
Do I have an anti-Millwall bias? Yes, most definitely. But it only offsets your obvious pro-Millwall bias in this instance. The bottom line is that Millwall want this for themselves. If the Renewal deal was more transparent you would still be wanting it for yourselves, naturally, so that really is a red herring.
While 'we hate Millwall and we hate millwall, we hate millwall and we hate Millwall, we hate Millwall and we hate Millwall, we are the Millwall haters' is a fine chant, my son has a couple of Millwall supporting coaches who are great guys. Top notch guys
I was talking to a neighbour who isn't that into football on the train into work last season about the problems we had we Roland and Katrien and the protests, a bloke joined in commiserating with us, knowing all about it, turned out he was Millwall.
My point being that no matter how much Millwall as a club may suck, many Millwall fans do not deserve to get dicked over by dodgy planning decisions.
We have got support in our mess from these guys and I will give support back.
Whom exactly do you mean, and what kind of support? The support from the Lions Trust has been precisely zero, both re Charlton, and re the Londonwide Olympic Stadium campaign.
There is also a classic Millwall irony in your second para. which sums up the problem they have, when issues like this crop up. Your neighbour sounds like mate out here who "is 'Wall". In fact, he has never been to the New Den, even though he has been to their Wembley games, and could not name any member of the team who capitulated on Saturday. He comes from Peckham and likes to parade his "Wall heritage, but he won't know anything about this issue. I feel sorry for genuine fans like @MillwallFan and @Sparrows Lane Lion , because they do not get support from the allegedly vast 'Wall diaspora, and their Supporters Trust doesn't know how to engage the rest of football to get their help (and possible useful advice).
If you put aside for a moment that it involves that lot, you would have to say that the behaviour of some people in the Council looks increasingly questionable. And we more than most, should not approve of that sort of thing.
Ronay argues that the club's rival scheme is better for residents and the taxpayer than this one. I haven't followed this, so I am interested in whether others such as @Redrobo and @AFKABartram remain sceptical of this argument.
The moral standards of our elected representatives past and present so often fall so short of the standard we expect I would be surprised if they were not involved in shady deals. When anything comes to light, those whose behaviour is suspect should be fully investigated and it should be part of the conditions of public service that personal financial records be made routinely made available on request. If found guilty they should throw away the keys and sell their homes to repay the money and a 100% fine on top. It will never happen as so many have their snouts in the trough. I think it highly unlikely that something stinky has not gone on. I would also think it highly unlikely that a public servant will not benefit, even if in only a small way, if Millwall get their way.
Looking at the two development plans, the Renewel plan appears to be the better one to me and likely to bring more jobs and prosperity to the area which is much needed. As for social housing, I think the area could do with balancing the current level with more private housing. Again, just my opinion but neither of the above are my main issue with the Millwall bit.
As I understand it, the car park is leased to Millwall so actually belongs to the council. This and the other land does not belong to them. Basically they are suggesting that a football club is the best placed buisness to be given the land and develop it.
If they owned the land and were asking for planning permission to develop it and the council were going to CP it and give it to someone else that would be completely different. Renewal have bought up a lot of land in the area which is what you do if you are a proper development company. Millwall do not even own their own ground!
Millwall Football Club have not got the money to even buy the land, let alone develop it. How can they end up with a buisness stream when they have not put anything in? Equally smelly to me. Or is it the owners that will be doing the development and then giving some money to the club they own. How generous. Taking the money from one pocket and putting it in the other one. How does the money back to the council equate to the money they would get from business rates etc from the other development? At least that would be more reliable than from a business that could disappear at some stage.
Please investigate the councilors, tell the developers they must provide parking for the club and provide a community centre, split the development somehow, or leave the plan as is. If none of these, put it out to tender and have a transparent process.
Yes thanks. I know quite a bit about it all actually.
when they say 'offshore' do you understand what that actually implies? Calling Berylson 'offshore' just because he's American would suggest that you don't.
Lol!
Yes thanks, I know perfectly well what "offshore" means.
So, Millwall's planned development was going to be undertaken completely by UK companies was it? Not what I heard!
Well you obviously don't know what offshore means if you're comparing Berylson to some firm set up and registered a few years ago in the BVI!
Lol
Lol. I presume you've heard of Chestnut Hill Ventures LLC?
Again, you're comparing a company that is 'offshore' to one that isn't British! Thinking that because CHV aren't on THESE shores then it's 'offshore' You're really struggling with this aren't you? Google 'offshore' mate, in regards to businesses. It might help you there.
Sure, the background noise means the Renewal deal might look a bit iffy at first sight, but in truth its no different to the structure in place for most other property deals you would come across, or that I come across on a daily basis.
Do I have an anti-Millwall bias? Yes, most definitely. But it only offsets your obvious pro-Millwall bias in this instance. The bottom line is that Millwall want this for themselves. If the Renewal deal was more transparent you would still be wanting it for yourselves, naturally, so that really is a red herring.
Yep, might. "There is of course no evidence here of undue influence, or any evidence of an ongoing, current connection between former mayor Sullivan, Lewisham council and the current Renewal project to redevelop Millwall’s leased land."
I seem to recall there was allegedly something of a carve up between Millwall, the Council and a developer (Fairview?) back when the new ground was developed. But I don't have any firm evidence of that either, do you?
The key thing for me is the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation - current directors include Lewisham elected mayor Steve Bullock and Renewal's Jordana Malik (as well as Tanni Grey-Thompson, John Inverdale, former Tory mayoral candidate Steve Norris and Southwark Council leader Peter John).
Happy to be corrected by the Millwall fans here, but my understanding is that Bullock did at least not take part in the debate that led to Lewisham's cabinet approving the compulsory purchase order. However, it's so bloody close for comfort that it's crazy that Lewisham ever supported this.
Add in Bullock's old rival Dave Sullivan (former Renewal director) and the whole thing looks incredibly dodgy. Local councils tend to have these webs of influence (look at Greenwich and leisure provider GLL, or the odd service companies it uses) but if something smells iffy, they shouldn't be doing it.
I know that Lewisham Council has been worse-hit than others by the cuts, and the only explanation I can think of is that they're rushing this through because they need the income from new homes bonuses, section 106 payments and all that.
Shame the Millwall fan groups are so disorganised - the links between Sullivan/Malik and Renewal, and Bullock/Malik with Surrey Canal Foundation have been on the public record for years; the Companies House website is a goldmine for finding out this kind of thing. Ronay's piece is great but Millwall groups should have got this aspect of the story out long ago.
I think in the current climate, Lewisham just seem to be in hock to property developers. And does anyone believe their promises to pay their taxes? The heat is on and Renewal want to cash in before the proverbial hits the fan. It's a lot like why all our transfers are "undisclosed": if you have something to hide you pretend it is natural to hide everything.
Yes thanks. I know quite a bit about it all actually.
when they say 'offshore' do you understand what that actually implies? Calling Berylson 'offshore' just because he's American would suggest that you don't.
Lol!
Yes thanks, I know perfectly well what "offshore" means.
So, Millwall's planned development was going to be undertaken completely by UK companies was it? Not what I heard!
Well you obviously don't know what offshore means if you're comparing Berylson to some firm set up and registered a few years ago in the BVI!
Lol
Lol. I presume you've heard of Chestnut Hill Ventures LLC?
Again, you're comparing a company that is 'offshore' to one that isn't British! Thinking that because CHV aren't on THESE shores then it's 'offshore' You're really struggling with this aren't you? Google 'offshore' mate, in regards to businesses. It might help you there.
No mate, I'm not struggling with this, really I'm not. This type of thing is what I do for a living and lets just say I think I have a bit of an inside track on this particular set of developments/proposals.
But lets leave it there, eh? I hope for your sake that this doesn't all end up in your club going under, which I have consistently said is the main play here, despite you insisting that its all one big community thing. I also note that you haven't answered my questions in this thread about Berylson's motivations for owning the club (genuine question - I don't know if its on public record) and what happens if he doesn't get the rights to undertake the redevelopment. That's got to be the big worry.
Bottom line to me is that Millwall were effectively given the ground by Lewisham Council years back - at a time when I was a Lewisham resident, so effectively thats where my Council Tax was going - and the price you have paid for that is that you have no direct say in what goes on with it. In fact, even if Millwall owned their stadium land they would still have no direct say in what the Council does with their own adjoining land - and nor should they.
Sure, the background noise means the Renewal deal might look a bit iffy at first sight, but in truth its no different to the structure in place for most other property deals you would come across, or that I come across on a daily basis.
Do I have an anti-Millwall bias? Yes, most definitely. But it only offsets your obvious pro-Millwall bias in this instance. The bottom line is that Millwall want this for themselves. If the Renewal deal was more transparent you would still be wanting it for yourselves, naturally, so that really is a red herring.
Oh sorry mate, I thought you'd said in an earlier post that CHV and Renewal were both Offshore companies. When one obviously isn't, and one clearly is. But yes, lets leave it there. Done to death that.
I suspect JB's initial interest in Millwall was down solely to the regeneration, of course. However, he has been with us a good few years now and I believe has developed a real passion for the club and the community. Having met him on a few occasions and having a very good mutual friend I can tell you that he is a man of integrity and I'm almost pretty sure he wouldn't leave us in sh*t street if the regen fell through. But we'd have to wait and see on that front.
We wasnt 'given the ground' by Lewisham council. They gave us Senegal Fields, which was a poxy bit of wasteland that no one really used for much, for a peppercorn rent, we built and funded the ground, in doing so they gave us a 100 year lease.
Anyway, it's all by the by, the real bottom line is, that despite whatever Millwalls benefits would be, or JB's motives are for buying Millwall were, Millwall would go about doing this the right way, in the right manner, that would clearly benefit all involved. All Renewal are interested in benefiting are themselves. Jesus, all the local residents and businesses are supporting Millwall on this. Just that alone, what does that tell you?
Comments
If you put aside for a moment that it involves that lot, you would have to say that the behaviour of some people in the Council looks increasingly questionable. And we more than most, should not approve of that sort of thing.
Ronay argues that the club's rival scheme is better for residents and the taxpayer than this one. I haven't followed this, so I am interested in whether others such as @Redrobo and @AFKABartram remain sceptical of this argument.
The Millwall side are making a lot of Renewal's ultimate offshore ownership. However, this obviously ignores the fact that the Millwall development will obviously have an ultimate offshore ownership too - Berylson.
Nothing new there.
You probably made your mind up when you read the word 'Millwall' and couldn't budge from there.
Yes thanks, I know perfectly well what "offshore" means.
So, Millwall's planned development was going to be undertaken completely by UK companies was it? Not what I heard!
Lol
I was talking to a neighbour who isn't that into football on the train into work last season about the problems we had we Roland and Katrien and the protests, a bloke joined in commiserating with us, knowing all about it, turned out he was Millwall.
My point being that no matter how much Millwall as a club may suck, many Millwall fans do not deserve to get dicked over by dodgy planning decisions.
We have got support in our mess from these guys and I will give support back.
There you go. Straight from the accounts for the holding company.
But of course, it's all about providing social housing really .......
The fact that you can google the accounts of the holding company and get that info says it all. Try doing it with Renewal. See how far you get! Millwall are offering a transparent proposal that will benefit EVERYONE, the local community, the club, local residents and businesses, even Lewisham council itself!!
Renewals proposal is shady, opaque and benefits nobody other than a few dodgy mates of Lewisham who are or were once connected to the council.
I'd suggest you read the article again and actually try to absorb some of the info contained in it this time. As you quite clearly didn't the first time around. Either that or you have such an anti Millwall bias that it stops you from forming common sense opinions on the subject.
Probably the latter.
Lol
My eldest son played against Millwall Albion u-11s yesterday (maybe the scum should return to whence they came) and as an emergency keeper kept a clean sheet in a 0-1 away victory for Buckhurst Hill boys
He told me he had to do it against them
Last year he scored our only header of the season against them if only our wanky team could care us much when we play the filth .
If Berylson had won the development rights but his plans didn't include social housing, would you give a shit? is this issue purely a life line to you (Berylson) getting the go ahead on the development?
But lets leave it there, eh? I hope for your sake that this doesn't all end up in your club going under, which I have consistently said is the main play here, despite you insisting that its all one big community thing. I also note that you haven't answered my questions in this thread about Berylson's motivations for owning the club (genuine question - I don't know if its on public record) and what happens if he doesn't get the rights to undertake the redevelopment. That's got to be the big worry.
Bottom line to me is that Millwall were effectively given the ground by Lewisham Council years back - at a time when I was a Lewisham resident, so effectively thats where my Council Tax was going - and the price you have paid for that is that you have no direct say in what goes on with it. In fact, even if Millwall owned their stadium land they would still have no direct say in what the Council does with their own adjoining land - and nor should they.
Sure, the background noise means the Renewal deal might look a bit iffy at first sight, but in truth its no different to the structure in place for most other property deals you would come across, or that I come across on a daily basis.
Do I have an anti-Millwall bias? Yes, most definitely. But it only offsets your obvious pro-Millwall bias in this instance. The bottom line is that Millwall want this for themselves. If the Renewal deal was more transparent you would still be wanting it for yourselves, naturally, so that really is a red herring.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/sep/25/millwall-goal-ultimate-home-win-lewisham-council-the-den-renewal-property-developer
There is also a classic Millwall irony in your second para. which sums up the problem they have, when issues like this crop up. Your neighbour sounds like mate out here who "is 'Wall". In fact, he has never been to the New Den, even though he has been to their Wembley games, and could not name any member of the team who capitulated on Saturday. He comes from Peckham and likes to parade his "Wall heritage, but he won't know anything about this issue.
I feel sorry for genuine fans like @MillwallFan and @Sparrows Lane Lion , because they do not get support from the allegedly vast 'Wall diaspora, and their Supporters Trust doesn't know how to engage the rest of football to get their help (and possible useful advice).
Looking at the two development plans, the Renewel plan appears to be the better one to me and likely to bring more jobs and prosperity to the area which is much needed. As for social housing, I think the area could do with balancing the current level with more private housing. Again, just my opinion but neither of the above are my main issue with the Millwall bit.
As I understand it, the car park is leased to Millwall so actually belongs to the council. This and the other land does not belong to them. Basically they are suggesting that a football club is the best placed buisness to be given the land and develop it.
If they owned the land and were asking for planning permission to develop it and the council were going to CP it and give it to someone else that would be completely different. Renewal have bought up a lot of land in the area which is what you do if you are a proper development company. Millwall do not even own their own ground!
Millwall Football Club have not got the money to even buy the land, let alone develop it. How can they end up with a buisness stream when they have not put anything in? Equally smelly to me. Or is it the owners that will be doing the development and then giving some money to the club they own. How generous. Taking the money from one pocket and putting it in the other one. How does the money back to the council equate to the money they would get from business rates etc from the other development? At least that would be more reliable than from a business that could disappear at some stage.
Please investigate the councilors, tell the developers they must provide parking for the club and provide a community centre, split the development somehow, or leave the plan as is. If none of these, put it out to tender and have a transparent process.
"There is of course no evidence here of undue influence, or any evidence of an ongoing, current connection between former mayor Sullivan, Lewisham council and the current Renewal project to redevelop Millwall’s leased land."
I seem to recall there was allegedly something of a carve up between Millwall, the Council and a developer (Fairview?) back when the new ground was developed. But I don't have any firm evidence of that either, do you?
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07523847
Happy to be corrected by the Millwall fans here, but my understanding is that Bullock did at least not take part in the debate that led to Lewisham's cabinet approving the compulsory purchase order. However, it's so bloody close for comfort that it's crazy that Lewisham ever supported this.
Add in Bullock's old rival Dave Sullivan (former Renewal director) and the whole thing looks incredibly dodgy. Local councils tend to have these webs of influence (look at Greenwich and leisure provider GLL, or the odd service companies it uses) but if something smells iffy, they shouldn't be doing it.
I know that Lewisham Council has been worse-hit than others by the cuts, and the only explanation I can think of is that they're rushing this through because they need the income from new homes bonuses, section 106 payments and all that.
Shame the Millwall fan groups are so disorganised - the links between Sullivan/Malik and Renewal, and Bullock/Malik with Surrey Canal Foundation have been on the public record for years; the Companies House website is a goldmine for finding out this kind of thing. Ronay's piece is great but Millwall groups should have got this aspect of the story out long ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/sep/26/millwall-property-developer-the-den-offshore-renewal
I think in the current climate, Lewisham just seem to be in hock to property developers. And does anyone believe their promises to pay their taxes? The heat is on and Renewal want to cash in before the proverbial hits the fan. It's a lot like why all our transfers are "undisclosed": if you have something to hide you pretend it is natural to hide everything.
I suspect JB's initial interest in Millwall was down solely to the regeneration, of course. However, he has been with us a good few years now and I believe has developed a real passion for the club and the community. Having met him on a few occasions and having a very good mutual friend I can tell you that he is a man of integrity and I'm almost pretty sure he wouldn't leave us in sh*t street if the regen fell through. But we'd have to wait and see on that front.
We wasnt 'given the ground' by Lewisham council. They gave us Senegal Fields, which was a poxy bit of wasteland that no one really used for much, for a peppercorn rent, we built and funded the ground, in doing so they gave us a 100 year lease.
Anyway, it's all by the by, the real bottom line is, that despite whatever Millwalls benefits would be, or JB's motives are for buying Millwall were, Millwall would go about doing this the right way, in the right manner, that would clearly benefit all involved. All Renewal are interested in benefiting are themselves. Jesus, all the local residents and businesses are supporting Millwall on this. Just that alone, what does that tell you?