Millwall on the move?
Comments
-
It's difficult to put aside what I think of the fans.
Within those last 25 years those fans have shown the local community the 'spirit' of burning cars and rioting before the net had stopped rippling from Stern Johns magical moment.4 -
So is it not possible to run the trust from anywhere else?MillwallFan said:
This. Our community trust wins awards nearly every year and has done for the last 25 years. Putting aside what you think of our fans, this whole thing is rotten to the core.TalBHAndreBA said:What people are forgetting is that the land that hosts the excellent Millwall Community Trust is being sold off to an offshore based private developer to build homes that surprise surprise won't be affordable for most working people.
Millwall Community Trust like our trust do excellent work. They support and help the young, the elderly and the disadvantaged. The Millwall Trust saved Lewisham council £7.5million last year but are now being thrown under the bus by the council. With this cruel and nasty government we have whose policy of decimating public services through needless austerity, these trusts have become more and more invaluable to people who need help and support. The worse thing about this, is that Lewisham council is a labour run council and some of the councillors have links to the private firm buying the land. You can't claim to be the party of anti auesterity if you're allowing your council to act like Tories.
IMHO, It comes across that the trust is being used like some sort of pawn by your owner, take it away and the trust folds.
Also, if he is allowed to develop the land, wouldn't he also be building on the land that he is moaning about losing?2 -
I don't think ideas flourish much at the Den mate. Add to that the lazy, can't be bothered attitude they showed over the Olympic stadium issue and I am afraid they will just sink back into their "no one likes us" poor little us mentality and kick the shit out of the next small bloke they see.SoundAsa£ said:
Don't give them ideas mate!Redrobo said:
But it seems to me as an outsider that it is being suggested that the only way to save your community trust is the Millwall owners development plan?MillwallFan said:
This. Our community trust wins awards nearly every year and has done for the last 25 years. Putting aside what you think of our fans, this whole thing is rotten to the core.TalBHAndreBA said:What people are forgetting is that the land that hosts the excellent Millwall Community Trust is being sold off to an offshore based private developer to build homes that surprise surprise won't be affordable for most working people.
Millwall Community Trust like our trust do excellent work. They support and help the young, the elderly and the disadvantaged. The Millwall Trust saved Lewisham council £7.5million last year but are now being thrown under the bus by the council. With this cruel and nasty government we have whose policy of decimating public services through needless austerity, these trusts have become more and more invaluable to people who need help and support. The worse thing about this, is that Lewisham council is a labour run council and some of the councillors have links to the private firm buying the land. You can't claim to be the party of anti auesterity if you're allowing your council to act like Tories.
What have you done as a supporters to engage with the council to look at alternatives? Have you set up an independent protest group? Have you contacted the developers to discuss what they could do in return for your support? What exactly have 'you' done to save it? How many meetings so far? What were the outcomes? Who is the activist's spokesman? Have you been raising any money for your campaign? What is the group called? Have you published your aims and what are they? What leaflets/ posters have you produced?
Quite frankly I would expect all of the above and more as it is what the public do in this country if they feel passionately about something.
Again as an outsider, it seems to me as it is your owner is doing all the running. Happy to be put right on all this.5 -
13
-
I'm sorry that's all irrelevent.TalBHAndreBA said:What people are forgetting is that the land that hosts the excellent Millwall Community Trust is being sold off to an offshore based private developer to build homes that surprise surprise won't be affordable for most working people.
Millwall Community Trust like our trust do excellent work. They support and help the young, the elderly and the disadvantaged. The Millwall Trust saved Lewisham council £7.5million last year but are now being thrown under the bus by the council. With this cruel and nasty government we have whose policy of decimating public services through needless austerity, these trusts have become more and more invaluable to people who need help and support. The worse thing about this, is that Lewisham council is a labour run council and some of the councillors have links to the private firm buying the land. You can't claim to be the party of anti auesterity if you're allowing your council to act like Tories.
The Millwall Trust it is true will lose its offices. Rented from Lewisham Borough. They relocate and continue to do the very good work that they undoubtedly do. The Trust do not need to be located at The Den. They are not part of the club and can remain associated by name just as they are now wherever in the borough they re locate to.
5 -
-
What exactly is the Millwall A_M_S group ?
Edit : Assiciation of Millwall Supporters
Do one.1 -
Wonder how you'll feel when this happens to us?ShootersHillGuru said:
I'm sorry that's all irrelevent.TalBHAndreBA said:What people are forgetting is that the land that hosts the excellent Millwall Community Trust is being sold off to an offshore based private developer to build homes that surprise surprise won't be affordable for most working people.
Millwall Community Trust like our trust do excellent work. They support and help the young, the elderly and the disadvantaged. The Millwall Trust saved Lewisham council £7.5million last year but are now being thrown under the bus by the council. With this cruel and nasty government we have whose policy of decimating public services through needless austerity, these trusts have become more and more invaluable to people who need help and support. The worse thing about this, is that Lewisham council is a labour run council and some of the councillors have links to the private firm buying the land. You can't claim to be the party of anti auesterity if you're allowing your council to act like Tories.
The Millwall Trust it is true will lose its offices. Rented from Lewisham Borough. They relocate and continue to do the very good work that they undoubtedly do. The Trust do not need to be located at The Den. They are not part of the club and can remain associated by name just as they are now wherever in the borough they re locate to.
You got an eye on one of the new flats?
1 -
Surely this has got to make anyone's blood boil. From the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/09/millwall-stadium-sadiq-khan-conservatives-letter)
'Concerns are also raised about the small amount of affordable and social housing planned by developer, Renewal, and the fact the proposed new Surrey Canal Road overground station will no longer be paid for by the developer, as originally proposed, with the costs to be met by the taxpayer.2 - Sponsored links:
-
What sites does cact rent from the council?TalBHAndreBA said:
Wonder how you'll feel when this happens to us?ShootersHillGuru said:
I'm sorry that's all irrelevent.TalBHAndreBA said:What people are forgetting is that the land that hosts the excellent Millwall Community Trust is being sold off to an offshore based private developer to build homes that surprise surprise won't be affordable for most working people.
Millwall Community Trust like our trust do excellent work. They support and help the young, the elderly and the disadvantaged. The Millwall Trust saved Lewisham council £7.5million last year but are now being thrown under the bus by the council. With this cruel and nasty government we have whose policy of decimating public services through needless austerity, these trusts have become more and more invaluable to people who need help and support. The worse thing about this, is that Lewisham council is a labour run council and some of the councillors have links to the private firm buying the land. You can't claim to be the party of anti auesterity if you're allowing your council to act like Tories.
The Millwall Trust it is true will lose its offices. Rented from Lewisham Borough. They relocate and continue to do the very good work that they undoubtedly do. The Trust do not need to be located at The Den. They are not part of the club and can remain associated by name just as they are now wherever in the borough they re locate to.
You got an eye on one of the new flats?
I thought they are based at sparrows lane and carry out their work at a number of sites.0 -
We're not listening... No one likes us!TalBHAndreBA said:Surely this has got to make anyone's blood boil. From the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/09/millwall-stadium-sadiq-khan-conservatives-letter)
'Concerns are also raised about the small amount of affordable and social housing planned by developer, Renewal, and the fact the proposed new Surrey Canal Road overground station will no longer be paid for by the developer, as originally proposed, with the costs to be met by the taxpayer.0 -
If for any reason CACT were to lose its base at the club I feel confident that it is well run enough and valued enough to survive elsewhere in the borough. Like Millwalls Community Trust our award winning Community Trust is independent and not connected to the club. It is a charity. It is connected in name only.TalBHAndreBA said:
Wonder how you'll feel when this happens to us?ShootersHillGuru said:
I'm sorry that's all irrelevent.TalBHAndreBA said:What people are forgetting is that the land that hosts the excellent Millwall Community Trust is being sold off to an offshore based private developer to build homes that surprise surprise won't be affordable for most working people.
Millwall Community Trust like our trust do excellent work. They support and help the young, the elderly and the disadvantaged. The Millwall Trust saved Lewisham council £7.5million last year but are now being thrown under the bus by the council. With this cruel and nasty government we have whose policy of decimating public services through needless austerity, these trusts have become more and more invaluable to people who need help and support. The worse thing about this, is that Lewisham council is a labour run council and some of the councillors have links to the private firm buying the land. You can't claim to be the party of anti auesterity if you're allowing your council to act like Tories.
The Millwall Trust it is true will lose its offices. Rented from Lewisham Borough. They relocate and continue to do the very good work that they undoubtedly do. The Trust do not need to be located at The Den. They are not part of the club and can remain associated by name just as they are now wherever in the borough they re locate to.
You got an eye on one of the new flats?
I think you might be confusing the issues surrounding Millwall Football Club and Millwall Community Trust.
0 -
As opposed to the Supporters Club, the Lions Trust, or the Supporter Director (yes, they have one).ShootersHillGuru said:What exactly is the Millwall A_M_S group ?
Edit : Assiciation of Millwall Supporters
Do one.
And there's the attitude problem, right there in that tweet.
2 -
Again, do more research, you don't come close to understanding the proposed schemes and are coming to the wrong conclusions.Redrobo said:
I tried to find out a bit, but to be honest it is difficult to understand the motives of anyone who would want to own a football club, let alone Millwall who don't actually own anything of substance. One then can't help concluding that he had an eye on the development opportunities surrounding the ground as these were known at the time. Or was it just coincidence? I would suggest not.PragueAddick said:I was just trying to get to grips with the Millwall side of the story. I think it has been said on this thread that Berylson is a property developer. But that does not seem to be a fair description of his business interests, which seem to be varied. He was a director of Vision Express for a while in the 90s, for example.
I start to think that perhaps we are a bit suspicious of the Millwall side because the club itself is making all the public running, rather than the fans (per the Valley Party). We the fans resolutely defended Charlton's plans to redevelop the Valley, while being critical of elements of it. Nobody could mistake Airman Brown for a property developer, so the Council and local residents' portrayal of the plan as "crazy" or "monstrous" got no traction in the press.
Several articulate Lifers obviously know much more than I do about Millwall's plans. Are my remarks naive?
The impact is very small on Millwall IF the development is completed. (See sparrowlane's comments).
I do not think his own plans include the club buying the ground either. It appears that they wish to be given the land that Millwall currently rent to develop it, and then give an income back to the council. I know I keep on banging on about this, but this is not a proposal by Millwall for Millwall. So why should they be given any preference over any other developer? At least the prefered developers actually own a substantial proportion of the land they wish to develop.
If it was just about Millwall and their needs, one can't help but believe that reasonable discussion could not easily solve the question of the car parking spaces and the community centre (see also proposals on the indoor sports and youth centre). At the moment I suspect that he does not want to resolve these issues as he wants to use them for his own political reasons i.e make some money.0 -
No. You explain it. Without all the bullshit.Sparrows Lane Lion said:
Again, do more research, you don't come close to understanding the proposed schemes and are coming to the wrong conclusions.Redrobo said:
I tried to find out a bit, but to be honest it is difficult to understand the motives of anyone who would want to own a football club, let alone Millwall who don't actually own anything of substance. One then can't help concluding that he had an eye on the development opportunities surrounding the ground as these were known at the time. Or was it just coincidence? I would suggest not.PragueAddick said:I was just trying to get to grips with the Millwall side of the story. I think it has been said on this thread that Berylson is a property developer. But that does not seem to be a fair description of his business interests, which seem to be varied. He was a director of Vision Express for a while in the 90s, for example.
I start to think that perhaps we are a bit suspicious of the Millwall side because the club itself is making all the public running, rather than the fans (per the Valley Party). We the fans resolutely defended Charlton's plans to redevelop the Valley, while being critical of elements of it. Nobody could mistake Airman Brown for a property developer, so the Council and local residents' portrayal of the plan as "crazy" or "monstrous" got no traction in the press.
Several articulate Lifers obviously know much more than I do about Millwall's plans. Are my remarks naive?
The impact is very small on Millwall IF the development is completed. (See sparrowlane's comments).
I do not think his own plans include the club buying the ground either. It appears that they wish to be given the land that Millwall currently rent to develop it, and then give an income back to the council. I know I keep on banging on about this, but this is not a proposal by Millwall for Millwall. So why should they be given any preference over any other developer? At least the prefered developers actually own a substantial proportion of the land they wish to develop.
If it was just about Millwall and their needs, one can't help but believe that reasonable discussion could not easily solve the question of the car parking spaces and the community centre (see also proposals on the indoor sports and youth centre). At the moment I suspect that he does not want to resolve these issues as he wants to use them for his own political reasons i.e make some money.1 -
Can't the trust find a different office space/community centre/warehouse or something to run out of?0
-
15 -
Great David Squires cartoon, but most councils have unelected chief executives and all have unregulated cabinets - the difference is that Lewisham has an elected mayor, but as a whole most councils, Labour or Tory, are ripe for abuse by the unscrupulous.
The political bandwagon-jumping is getting hilarious, mind.0 -
Surely as per of a CPO they will get compensation to do just so?sam3110 said:Can't the trust find a different office space/community centre/warehouse or something to run out of?
Edit: Ignore that, the offices are being rented from the council!
0 - Sponsored links:
-
The documentation freely available online gives you the explanation you need.Redrobo said:
No. You explain it. Without all the bullshit.Sparrows Lane Lion said:
Again, do more research, you don't come close to understanding the proposed schemes and are coming to the wrong conclusions.Redrobo said:
I tried to find out a bit, but to be honest it is difficult to understand the motives of anyone who would want to own a football club, let alone Millwall who don't actually own anything of substance. One then can't help concluding that he had an eye on the development opportunities surrounding the ground as these were known at the time. Or was it just coincidence? I would suggest not.PragueAddick said:I was just trying to get to grips with the Millwall side of the story. I think it has been said on this thread that Berylson is a property developer. But that does not seem to be a fair description of his business interests, which seem to be varied. He was a director of Vision Express for a while in the 90s, for example.
I start to think that perhaps we are a bit suspicious of the Millwall side because the club itself is making all the public running, rather than the fans (per the Valley Party). We the fans resolutely defended Charlton's plans to redevelop the Valley, while being critical of elements of it. Nobody could mistake Airman Brown for a property developer, so the Council and local residents' portrayal of the plan as "crazy" or "monstrous" got no traction in the press.
Several articulate Lifers obviously know much more than I do about Millwall's plans. Are my remarks naive?
The impact is very small on Millwall IF the development is completed. (See sparrowlane's comments).
I do not think his own plans include the club buying the ground either. It appears that they wish to be given the land that Millwall currently rent to develop it, and then give an income back to the council. I know I keep on banging on about this, but this is not a proposal by Millwall for Millwall. So why should they be given any preference over any other developer? At least the prefered developers actually own a substantial proportion of the land they wish to develop.
If it was just about Millwall and their needs, one can't help but believe that reasonable discussion could not easily solve the question of the car parking spaces and the community centre (see also proposals on the indoor sports and youth centre). At the moment I suspect that he does not want to resolve these issues as he wants to use them for his own political reasons i.e make some money.
You can read through the Millwall & LBL bullshit and decide who produces the most.
0 -
My sources are telling me that even as we speak Millwall Community Trust are looking at office space in and around Chatham.sam3110 said:Can't the trust find a different office space/community centre/warehouse or something to run out of?
0 -
Since the CEO of the Spanner Community Trust is none other than Seriously Red's best friend Steve Bradshaw, late of this parish, I expect he has no idea what he is doing or why.ShootersHillGuru said:
My sources are telling me that even as we speak Millwall Community Trust are looking at office space in and around Chatham.sam3110 said:Can't the trust find a different office space/community centre/warehouse or something to run out of?
3 -
Gills will be happy to have them on their doorstep!ShootersHillGuru said:
My sources are telling me that even as we speak Millwall Community Trust are looking at office space in and around Chatham.sam3110 said:Can't the trust find a different office space/community centre/warehouse or something to run out of?
0 -
It would be very funny thoughSE10Addick said:
Gills will be happy to have them on their doorstep!ShootersHillGuru said:
My sources are telling me that even as we speak Millwall Community Trust are looking at office space in and around Chatham.sam3110 said:Can't the trust find a different office space/community centre/warehouse or something to run out of?
0 -
If Millwall really want to break into the commercial world outside of football then perhaps they could build their new toolbox next to Paramount Studios.blackpool72 said:
It would be very funny thoughSE10Addick said:
Gills will be happy to have them on their doorstep!ShootersHillGuru said:
My sources are telling me that even as we speak Millwall Community Trust are looking at office space in and around Chatham.sam3110 said:Can't the trust find a different office space/community centre/warehouse or something to run out of?
Mickey Mouse world anybody ?
0 -
let em come let em come let em come let em all come down to north kent4
-
I do like a compliment.SoundAsa£ said:
Smart arse!AddicksAddict said:
Probably ecause that spelling of 'no one' is becoming acceptable, on the grounds that it eliminates any ambiguity with 'no one' meaning 'not one'.Henry Irving said:Why is there a hyphen between no and one?
1 -
Not at all, that's just a spelling mistake.SoundAsa£ said:
So I guess the spelling of the word 'because' also falls into the same grammatical grounds of ambiguity!AddicksAddict said:
Probably ecause that spelling of 'no one' is becoming acceptable, on the grounds that it eliminates any ambiguity with 'no one' meaning 'not one'.Henry Irving said:Why is there a hyphen between no and one?
1 -
There you go again, "Millwall". It's not, is it.Sparrows Lane Lion said:
The documentation freely available online gives you the explanation you need.Redrobo said:
No. You explain it. Without all the bullshit.Sparrows Lane Lion said:
Again, do more research, you don't come close to understanding the proposed schemes and are coming to the wrong conclusions.Redrobo said:
I tried to find out a bit, but to be honest it is difficult to understand the motives of anyone who would want to own a football club, let alone Millwall who don't actually own anything of substance. One then can't help concluding that he had an eye on the development opportunities surrounding the ground as these were known at the time. Or was it just coincidence? I would suggest not.PragueAddick said:I was just trying to get to grips with the Millwall side of the story. I think it has been said on this thread that Berylson is a property developer. But that does not seem to be a fair description of his business interests, which seem to be varied. He was a director of Vision Express for a while in the 90s, for example.
I start to think that perhaps we are a bit suspicious of the Millwall side because the club itself is making all the public running, rather than the fans (per the Valley Party). We the fans resolutely defended Charlton's plans to redevelop the Valley, while being critical of elements of it. Nobody could mistake Airman Brown for a property developer, so the Council and local residents' portrayal of the plan as "crazy" or "monstrous" got no traction in the press.
Several articulate Lifers obviously know much more than I do about Millwall's plans. Are my remarks naive?
The impact is very small on Millwall IF the development is completed. (See sparrowlane's comments).
I do not think his own plans include the club buying the ground either. It appears that they wish to be given the land that Millwall currently rent to develop it, and then give an income back to the council. I know I keep on banging on about this, but this is not a proposal by Millwall for Millwall. So why should they be given any preference over any other developer? At least the prefered developers actually own a substantial proportion of the land they wish to develop.
If it was just about Millwall and their needs, one can't help but believe that reasonable discussion could not easily solve the question of the car parking spaces and the community centre (see also proposals on the indoor sports and youth centre). At the moment I suspect that he does not want to resolve these issues as he wants to use them for his own political reasons i.e make some money.
You can read through the Millwall & LBL bullshit and decide who produces the most.
Can't find anything about either proposals that involves the demolishing of the Den, and as others have said, the community centre can relocate.
Did see something about the biggest sports centre and a youth centre.
All good news for your club then. Phew.
Did see something being said about your owners plan gifting the club £5mil a year so you break even. Can there be a better reason for objecting to this plan!
If he has the money to do all this developing, why is he not spending a bit more on players? Very odd.0
