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.
Two things. Their community trust is located in buildings owned by Lewisham Council. Nothing to to stop Lewisham Council relocating the trust elsewhere in the borough. They will have plenty of buildings available. The current location is not particularly great either. Hardly convenient for the majority of the borough.
Millwalls academy is not tied to the Den. It's located in Bromley and I suppose the artificial pitch going just means that aspect of training going to Bromley too. Charlton do not have training facilities at The Valley.
As already stated all this talk of the non viability of the club is just bluff and bluster. Berylson is pissed that he can't earn a few bob out of land that he doesn't own.
The only danger Millwall face is if the only reason Berylson has been hanging around and many don't know why he is, is because of the prospect of this deal earning. If that goes south then he might well pull the plug.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, is Millwall's community trust, run Fisher's new ground in Bermondsey, which has a new 3G pitch, and could cover the lack of 3G at Ilderton Road.
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
There is a S106 in place that "secures" some treats for LBL. However, as with many projects, some of these can end up being negotiated away or pushed right to the back of the queue and may never happen. By that point the developer has flogged the properties and can close ranks.
Several owners have had eyes on the redevelopment and there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. The club loses £5m a year. Another stream of income to help offset losses would be welcomed by the owner and all at the club. Many clubs do it and the chairman is very open about the self development of those areas could help secure regular income that can help us be financially stable.
In my view, it would only work (ie, generate enough income) if it's within the context of the overall redevelopment. Millwall don't want to stop the development as it would generally be welcomed by all. I think it's more that the land they have leased for 23 years is being flogged in a closed sale and they have been mollycoddled during 'negotiations'.
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.
Two things. Their community trust is located in buildings owned by Lewisham Council. Nothing to to stop Lewisham Council relocating the trust elsewhere in the borough. They will have plenty of buildings available. The current location is not particularly great either. Hardly convenient for the majority of the borough.
Millwalls academy is not tied to the Den. It's located in Bromley and I suppose the artificial pitch going just means that aspect of training going to Bromley too. Charlton do not have training facilities at The Valley.
As already stated all this talk of the non viability of the club is just bluff and bluster. Berylson is pissed that he can't earn a few bob out of land that he doesn't own.
The only danger Millwall face is if the only reason Berylson has been hanging around and many don't know why he is, is because of the prospect of this deal earning. If that goes south then he might well pull the plug.
The MCT is a separate legal entity to MFC, as it's registered as a charity. However it is obviously closely linked to MFC which heavily support the MCT.
The claim is that the MCT can't just up sticks move to elsewhere in the borough since it has to maintain close links to the club for various funding & operational reasons - this is from letters going to & forth between LBL & MFC.
I must admit, I'm not so clear on the whole Trust issue.
Regarding the training facility, to get Cat 2 status a club needs priority access to an indoor training facility that meets certain standards (bonkers in my view)
Our training ground is in Bromley, but theoretically we can use the Lions Centre if required. I bet it's never been called upon, but it enable us to get Cat 2 status.
Similarly Charlton use an inflatable dome on University of Greenwich property to get round this rule (I presume?)
When the Lions Centre goes and they build (if it ever happens) the 'Energize' centre, we won't have the same access rights, as it's for the residents of the borough and other sports teams.
The non-viability comes from potentially losing Cat 2 status which affects the youth development, not being able to generate additional income through redevelopment of current leases and the loss of current earnings through using the car park for coach parking (if that still occurs).
It's no doubt slightly exaggerated, perhaps our £5m loss becomes £6m, I don't know. But the other view was that £5m loss could become a £0 or even a profit...which would obviously provide a stable basis to stay where we are for years to come.
I feel your pain and will agree that something in the deal is very fishy. However.
The fact the the Community Trust will have to relocate is irrelevent. As you say it is not directly attached to the football club but I don't see why having offices in eg Lewisham High Street would be a problem. It will still retain the Millwall association by name just as it does now. You might argue that a more high profile location might provide a commercial opportunity currently not there at The New Den site.
As for the academy having access to an indoor pitch then use the money saved renting the existing car park and buildings to invest in an inflatable at Bromley ? Problem solved ? Future secure ?
The loss of parking is a real inconvenience but hey ho. The club doesn't own the land and can't moan too much. Land in the area is at too high a value for any sentimental issues regarding a few directors and freeloaders losing their status parking. As for coaches. I presume the team bus will drop off and pick up. Do away fans coaches park in this area ? Do they really need to anyway.
I fully understand why the club is miffed. It saw an opportunity to use existing rented land as a way of turning a profit and is rightly squealing that it's not going to happen. No way of knowing that even if it had gone ahead that any revenue stream would have directly benefitted the club.
Berylson is first and foremost a businessman. No idea why he got involved with Millwall other than the prospect of this development down the line. I might be cynical but if the worst happens for you then I can see him bailing out quite soon. Who knows it could be the making of you although not owning anything other than the brand and players makes your club less attractive to buyers.
A lesson in why separating the ownership of the club from the stadium is never a good idea. Who's fault was that in the first place. I presume you owned the old shit hole. Who cleaned up with that one ?
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.
Spot on mate, absolutely spot on.
This is wider than Millwall FC.
Sometimes, although sad for the individual homeowners, compulsory purchases are necessary. Utilitarianism and all that.
Sadly we cant evaluate the utility value at arms length because some allegedly dodgy local policiticians have their noses in the trough and are swilling away. Swine.
Why do u need to route this Offshore? Rank
Why sell to an intermediary that has ownership links to those involved in the sale process? Rank.
How can u realistically develop to the best interests of the local community when 30-40% of the value goes to a handful of corrupt politicians? Rank
Local government makes me sick in this Country. U wanna earn the big bucks go work for an investment bank and do 100 hour weeks. Dont steal from pensioners and families already on the breadline.
There are actually two issues here, which are in fact completely separate.
One is whether the proposed deal looks and smells a bit "fishy". There's enough been said and not denied to suggest this may be the case, ie an ex-council official cleaning up.
But the other issue, although connected, is separate. Nobody is looking to evict Millwall, at least not yet. They have their own plans to develop the area, so it's not a question of "if" it happens, just "who" does it. And to be clear, the alternative to the current favoured option isn't "millwall's plan" but "the owner of millwall's plan". Big difference.
I asked this question before and got no response from our resident (semi-tame, almost respected) Millwall chums.
Isn't the REAL threat to the club here that if the owner doesn't get his hands on the property redevelopment project then he may just pull the plug on bankrolling them to the tune of £10 million pa?
But then, even if he DOES get the gig, isn't he ultimately going to.do that anyway, or at least isn't that the worry?
I reckon "our" Millwall guys on here might understand that particular nuance. Most of them dont though, hence it's much easier to blame the Council and accuse them of a "stitch up".
And yes, who "cleaned up" with a brand spanking new ground for free in the first place. No surprises for guessing that there may have been a "catch" somewhere.
Maybe it was Reg Burr, I dunno, but if the club got shafted it was most likely by one of their own years ago, not exactly by this deal.
Let em come let em come let em come, let em all come down to Deptford Park.......
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.
Spot on mate, absolutely spot on.
This is wider than Millwall FC.
Sometimes, although sad for the individual homeowners, compulsory purchases are necessary. Utilitarianism and all that.
Sadly we cant evaluate the utility value at arms length because some allegedly dodgy local policiticians have their noses in the trough and are swilling away. Swine.
Why do u need to route this Offshore? Rank
Why sell to an intermediary that has ownership links to those involved in the sale process? Rank.
How can u realistically develop to the best interests of the local community when 30-40% of the value goes to a handful of corrupt politicians? Rank
Local government makes me sick in this Country. U wanna earn the big bucks go work for an investment bank and do 100 hour weeks. Dont steal from pensioners and families already on the breadline.
I'm not saying you are wrong but it's called capitalism and exactly the same goes on in every country on the planet.
They can sail off down the river as far as I care, you think they'd give a flying fuck if we were back in that situation? Of course not, and why should they? Therefore, why should we give a shit about them?
"Because they are our rivals"? "Because I know loads of Millwall fans"? "Because it happened to us"?
Most one sided rivalry in history, consigned to the record books Get new friends you clearly chose wrong the first time We weren't trying to stuff our greedy snouts into the trough were we
A question : The New Den is owned currently by Lewisham Council. Will they still own it when this deal is complete ? Surely the offshore developers won't be interested in being landlords to a football club ?
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.
Sounds familiar. Only the last time clubs fans were fighting against this sort of thing and joining together Millwall suporters trust weren't interested as it wasn't their problem.
Good luck to you, I have no doubt it's all just down to dodgy business dealings as usual and I don't wish to see any small clubs being shat on. But unfortunately Millwall are a club that will struggle to get support from the public or other supporters.
I don't remember getting too much sympathy from the spanners when we lost the valley and had to play at sellout park. In fact when we played millwall at selhurst i can remember them singing (where's your valley gone). Any other club apart from palarce of course i would be more sympathetic but as it's the spanners f###c em
Not sure how true this is and I'm unaware of the source as someone I know posted it on social media
I am sure this will be fake. I know I suggested it, but it was very much tounge in cheek. I can't see any supporters of the two clubs being happy with this. At the end of the day I would not want any club to move out of their area.
Picking up on something sparrows lane chap said, you are only losing £5mil! Lucky you! We are losing £10mil. You want to break even or even make a profit - you could end up a bigger club than us in 50 years. For that reason, I'm out.☺
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.
Sounds familiar. Only the last time clubs fans were fighting against this sort of thing and joining together Millwall suporters trust weren't interested as it wasn't their problem.
Good luck to you, I have no doubt it's all just down to dodgy business dealings as usual and I don't wish to see any small clubs being shat on. But unfortunately Millwall are a club that will struggle to get support from the public or other supporters.
Exactly. My instinct is to get behind the Millwall fans on this, because we know better than most about local authority chicanery. But which Millwall fans exactly, what do they actually want, and why? Charlton Supporters Trust discussed whether to offer support, but for pretty much the reasoning in my previous sentence, we decided not to bother. Because whom exactly would we contact? The Supporters Trust, who ignored us over the OS, and is the only London Trust to do so? The Supporters Club, who apparently vote a supporter on to the Club Board? (Who knew that? And what does this supporter have to say on the issue? ). or the entirely separate mob on Twitter called Millwall ARM or something?
And now I read that they are going to court over an FOI. Well there is one Supporters Trust in the country who recently did just that, and won. The one next door. We could offer them so much advice on that. And yet they just plough on themselves, a dysfunctional rabble. I feel sorry for @Sparrows Lane Lion, who wrote me a couple of years ago about this, but he seems to remain just an individual fan. Millwall need to find their Airman Brown. Barney Ronay can only take liberties with his day job for so long...
I don't remember getting too much sympathy from the spanners when we lost the valley and had to play at sellout park. In fact when we played millwall at selhurst i can remember them singing (where's your valley gone). Any other club apart from palarce of course i would be more sympathetic but as it's the spanners f###c em
Comments
Millwalls academy is not tied to the Den. It's located in Bromley and I suppose the artificial pitch going just means that aspect of training going to Bromley too. Charlton do not have training facilities at The Valley.
As already stated all this talk of the non viability of the club is just bluff and bluster. Berylson is pissed that he can't earn a few bob out of land that he doesn't own.
The only danger Millwall face is if the only reason Berylson has been hanging around and many don't know why he is, is because of the prospect of this deal earning. If that goes south then he might well pull the plug.
Several owners have had eyes on the redevelopment and there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. The club loses £5m a year. Another stream of income to help offset losses would be welcomed by the owner and all at the club. Many clubs do it and the chairman is very open about the self development of those areas could help secure regular income that can help us be financially stable.
In my view, it would only work (ie, generate enough income) if it's within the context of the overall redevelopment. Millwall don't want to stop the development as it would generally be welcomed by all. I think it's more that the land they have leased for 23 years is being flogged in a closed sale and they have been mollycoddled during 'negotiations'.
The claim is that the MCT can't just up sticks move to elsewhere in the borough since it has to maintain close links to the club for various funding & operational reasons - this is from letters going to & forth between LBL & MFC.
I must admit, I'm not so clear on the whole Trust issue.
Regarding the training facility, to get Cat 2 status a club needs priority access to an indoor training facility that meets certain standards (bonkers in my view)
Our training ground is in Bromley, but theoretically we can use the Lions Centre if required. I bet it's never been called upon, but it enable us to get Cat 2 status.
Similarly Charlton use an inflatable dome on University of Greenwich property to get round this rule (I presume?)
When the Lions Centre goes and they build (if it ever happens) the 'Energize' centre, we won't have the same access rights, as it's for the residents of the borough and other sports teams.
The non-viability comes from potentially losing Cat 2 status which affects the youth development, not being able to generate additional income through redevelopment of current leases and the loss of current earnings through using the car park for coach parking (if that still occurs).
It's no doubt slightly exaggerated, perhaps our £5m loss becomes £6m, I don't know. But the other view was that £5m loss could become a £0 or even a profit...which would obviously provide a stable basis to stay where we are for years to come.
The fact the the Community Trust will have to relocate is irrelevent. As you say it is not directly attached to the football club but I don't see why having offices in eg Lewisham High Street would be a problem. It will still retain the Millwall association by name just as it does now. You might argue that a more high profile location might provide a commercial opportunity currently not there at The New Den site.
As for the academy having access to an indoor pitch then use the money saved renting the existing car park and buildings to invest in an inflatable at Bromley ?
Problem solved ? Future secure ?
The loss of parking is a real inconvenience but hey ho. The club doesn't own the land and can't moan too much. Land in the area is at too high a value for any sentimental issues regarding a few directors and freeloaders losing their status parking. As for coaches. I presume the team bus will drop off and pick up. Do away fans coaches park in this area ? Do they really need to anyway.
I fully understand why the club is miffed. It saw an opportunity to use existing rented land as a way of turning a profit and is rightly squealing that it's not going to happen. No way of knowing that even if it had gone ahead that any revenue stream would have directly benefitted the club.
Berylson is first and foremost a businessman. No idea why he got involved with Millwall other than the prospect of this development down the line. I might be cynical but if the worst happens for you then I can see him bailing out quite soon. Who knows it could be the making of you although not owning anything other than the brand and players makes your club less attractive to buyers.
A lesson in why separating the ownership of the club from the stadium is never a good idea. Who's fault was that in the first place. I presume you owned the old shit hole. Who cleaned up with that one ?
This is wider than Millwall FC.
Sometimes, although sad for the individual homeowners, compulsory purchases are necessary. Utilitarianism and all that.
Sadly we cant evaluate the utility value at arms length because some allegedly dodgy local policiticians have their noses in the trough and are swilling away. Swine.
Why do u need to route this Offshore? Rank
Why sell to an intermediary that has ownership links to those involved in the sale process? Rank.
How can u realistically develop to the best interests of the local community when 30-40% of the value goes to a handful of corrupt politicians? Rank
Local government makes me sick in this Country. U wanna earn the big bucks go work for an investment bank and do 100 hour weeks. Dont steal from pensioners and families already on the breadline.
There are actually two issues here, which are in fact completely separate.
One is whether the proposed deal looks and smells a bit "fishy". There's enough been said and not denied to suggest this may be the case, ie an ex-council official cleaning up.
But the other issue, although connected, is separate. Nobody is looking to evict Millwall, at least not yet. They have their own plans to develop the area, so it's not a question of "if" it happens, just "who" does it. And to be clear, the alternative to the current favoured option isn't "millwall's plan" but "the owner of millwall's plan". Big difference.
I asked this question before and got no response from our resident (semi-tame, almost respected) Millwall chums.
Isn't the REAL threat to the club here that if the owner doesn't get his hands on the property redevelopment project then he may just pull the plug on bankrolling them to the tune of £10 million pa?
But then, even if he DOES get the gig, isn't he ultimately going to.do that anyway, or at least isn't that the worry?
I reckon "our" Millwall guys on here might understand that particular nuance. Most of them dont though, hence it's much easier to blame the Council and accuse them of a "stitch up".
Maybe it was Reg Burr, I dunno, but if the club got shafted it was most likely by one of their own years ago, not exactly by this deal.
Let em come let em come let em come, let em all come down to Deptford Park.......
"Because they are our rivals"?
"Because I know loads of Millwall fans"?
"Because it happened to us"?
Most one sided rivalry in history, consigned to the record books
Get new friends you clearly chose wrong the first time
We weren't trying to stuff our greedy snouts into the trough were we
Good luck to you, I have no doubt it's all just down to dodgy business dealings as usual and I don't wish to see any small clubs being shat on. But unfortunately Millwall are a club that will struggle to get support from the public or other supporters.
In fact when we played millwall at selhurst i can remember them singing (where's your valley gone).
Any other club apart from palarce of course i would be more sympathetic but as it's the spanners f###c em
Conspiracy theories are easy to create
Picking up on something sparrows lane chap said, you are only losing £5mil! Lucky you! We are losing £10mil. You want to break even or even make a profit - you could end up a bigger club than us in 50 years. For that reason, I'm out.☺
Edit : North Kent my arse.
The 'missing link' will be found in New Cross.
And now I read that they are going to court over an FOI. Well there is one Supporters Trust in the country who recently did just that, and won. The one next door. We could offer them so much advice on that. And yet they just plough on themselves, a dysfunctional rabble. I feel sorry for @Sparrows Lane Lion, who wrote me a couple of years ago about this, but he seems to remain just an individual fan. Millwall need to find their Airman Brown. Barney Ronay can only take liberties with his day job for so long...