Millwall on the move?
Comments
-
As a thick spanner, what are you on about?Redrobo said:
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.0 -
http://transpont.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/is-millwall-really-under-threat-from.html?m=1
Found this online Sparrow3 -
A better balanced analysis than some of the extreme on both sides.Friend Or Defoe said:http://transpont.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/is-millwall-really-under-threat-from.html?m=1
Found this online Sparrow2 -
Decent article that.Friend Or Defoe said:http://transpont.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/is-millwall-really-under-threat-from.html?m=1
Found this online Sparrow
Gotta love the "anonymous" comment at the bottom too.2 -
It is not a Millwall FC proposal is it? It is a proposal by a company owned by your owner. The lack of openness and honesty is what really pisses me off. Now look. You have made me swear.Sparrows Lane Lion said:
As a thick spanner, what are you on about?Redrobo said:
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.4 -
Fuck me! Here I am swearing again! So, your owner is developing the car park and the community offices as well!!!!!!Sparrows Lane Lion said:
A better balanced analysis than some of the extreme on both sides.Friend Or Defoe said:http://transpont.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/is-millwall-really-under-threat-from.html?m=1
Found this online Sparrow
This really is about who gets their noses deepest in the trough. Anyone who has signed the petition; feeling good now, or ripped?1 -
It's been adjourned until February.
The meeting that is.0 -
Nothing to see here anymore. They have been sussed. Anything they or anyone else does that includes knocking the area down is an improvement.0
-
Think you'll find I've been clear that JB has wanted to redevelop the areas of land we currently lease. If you bothered to read the information on the LBL website you'll find letters & plans going back years which detail much of this.Redrobo said:
Fuck me! Here I am swearing again! So, your owner is developing the car park and the community offices as well!!!!!!Sparrows Lane Lion said:
A better balanced analysis than some of the extreme on both sides.Friend Or Defoe said:http://transpont.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/is-millwall-really-under-threat-from.html?m=1
Found this online Sparrow
This really is about who gets their noses deepest in the trough. Anyone who has signed the petition; feeling good now, or ripped?
The 'stink' is that for years LBL have ignored MFC and did not allow the parcels of land to be tendered competitively. LBL could be securing better returns for taxpayers instead of handing them over to Renewal for an undisclosed price.
The historic links between LBL & Renewal throws a bit of murk over the whole issue, especially as the original planning app & obligations have been watered down and more onus is on the taxpayer.
Also interesting that the Mayor approved a £500k grant from LBL to the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation, which he sits on alongside the Malik's....and who would have to pay rent to Renewal.0 -
[I posted here about the postponement of the meeting....then realised that it had already been posted, so removed it]1
- Sponsored links:
-
Oh for a Lewisham Council in our history!
I can only remember Greenwich being a complete, obstructive and conniving ball ache. Willing to kill us and then fighting but losing, to stop us returning to the borough. Making sure we painstakingly redeveloped the ground, to the nth letter of the law.
Contrast that with how Lewisham and yourselves cosied up when you sold off the Den and bingo! a brand New Den.
Back to the present. Whilst I think most rational observers would agree that someone is shafting someone here, I think that in the long run Millwall Football Club have had it easy in comparison. Probably makes us much less sympathetic to any grumblings coming from Spanners and their contacts in the media...5 -
My view is the wider issues of local authorities and owners screwing clubs makes this every football fan's problem because if it can be done to one club without an outcry it can be done to others.
So Millwall fans didn't understand that, we however do, for obvious reasons.4 -
I did know he wanted to develop the areas around the ground. That is why he set up a seperate company to do this.
Both sets of developers are going to build on the car park and the community centre. I did not realise this until now because this issue is the main focus being used against renewal. Indeed, I think the defend our den petition made a specific reference to this?
It all comes down to which development you prefer. The council clearly prefer renewal (and I can see why, and also see why they have not parcelled out the land they own); and you prefer the american plan because it says it will give your club some money in the deal and, if I remember correctly, the community centre will be next to the Den?0 -
goodbye den, goodbye den, say goodbye to his den1
-
And as he was saying good by to his den saying goodbye to his denJoshAddick said:goodbye den, goodbye den, say goodbye to his den
Fuck of you millwall bastads0 -
Millwall today Charlton tomorrow? Funny the people on here saying f*** em. Out of all the other clubs in London I'd say after us you're the ones most at risk, with that nut job running your club.0
-
Unfortunately true, even worse we've been there before 1985 to 1992.MillwallFan said:Millwall today Charlton tomorrow? Funny the people on here saying f*** em. Out of all the other clubs in London I'd say after us you're the ones most at risk, with that nut job running your club.
0 -
Exactly. Always admired the way you fought to get your ground back and was genuinely chuffed when you managed it.Henry Irving said:
Unfortunately true, even worse we've been there before 1985 to 1992.MillwallFan said:Millwall today Charlton tomorrow? Funny the people on here saying f*** em. Out of all the other clubs in London I'd say after us you're the ones most at risk, with that nut job running your club.
5 -
If you can't be bothered to explain your side of the issue how can you expect those not involved to be bothered?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.
Campaigns need you to push your message over and over and over again to get it out there. Being told to do it myself makes me think if it's not that important to you then it could never be that important to me.
As someone else said earlier this is where your reputation and history really hurt you.
But I'm sure you don't really care.1 -
rel="ground lFan">Millwall today Charlton tomorrow? Funny the people on here saying f*** em. Out of all the other clubs in London I'd say after us you're the ones most at risk, with that nut job running your club.
Your ground is not at risk because you rent it and so no one can come in and sell it off like they did to (say) Maidstone, or could do to us.
Ironically, if your owner buys the land your ground is on, you will be more at risk.
Never mind. We can all be best buddies down in Kent with our friends at Gillingham. We should have enough money between us all to finish that bloody stand!0 - Sponsored links:
-
Interesting article, I think it exaggerates the benefit of us having the ACV in place over the Valley - but it's still a better position to be in than not to have it.Friend Or Defoe said:http://transpont.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/is-millwall-really-under-threat-from.html?m=1
Found this online Sparrow1 -
-
I must be getting old millwall fan I've just given you a likeMillwallFan said:
Exactly. Always admired the way you fought to get your ground back and was genuinely chuffed when you managed it.Henry Irving said:
Unfortunately true, even worse we've been there before 1985 to 1992.MillwallFan said:Millwall today Charlton tomorrow? Funny the people on here saying f*** em. Out of all the other clubs in London I'd say after us you're the ones most at risk, with that nut job running your club.
2 -
If Millwall move out of the Toolbox then I'll have a picture of Harry Cripps tattooed on my arse.
It's all bluff and bluster.3 -
I can recommend the Tattooist in Passey place Eltham. Ask for Jamie.ShootersHillGuru said:If Millwall move out of the Toolbox then I'll have a picture of Harry Cripps tattooed on my arse.
It's all bluff and bluster.1 -
The reason they won't move out of The New Den is because if they up sticks they would have to fund the purchase of land and stadium costs themselves without any money from the New Den as they don't own it.
No idea the cost of embarking on such a project but I don't think Berylson would be up for stumping up.
3 -
They could be paid a fair wedge to exit their 100 year lease on the ground so it could be developed.ShootersHillGuru said:The reason they won't move out of The New Den is because if they up sticks they would have to fund the purchase of land and stadium costs themselves without any money from the New Den as they don't own it.
No idea the cost of embarking on such a project but I don't think Berylson would be up for stumping up.
Probably not anywhere near enough to fund land and a ground though. Maybe a return to their roots and share with Orient?0 -
Yeah yeah yeah. Getting boring now all this misinformation. You want to build on the car park and the community centre as well.MillwallFan said:1 -
What's the separate company you refer to?Redrobo said:I did know he wanted to develop the areas around the ground. That is why he set up a seperate company to do this.
Both sets of developers are going to build on the car park and the community centre. I did not realise this until now because this issue is the main focus being used against renewal. Indeed, I think the defend our den petition made a specific reference to this?
It all comes down to which development you prefer. The council clearly prefer renewal (and I can see why, and also see why they have not parcelled out the land they own); and you prefer the american plan because it says it will give your club some money in the deal and, if I remember correctly, the community centre will be next to the Den?
Do you also realise it's not two rival developments, they could work hand in hand?
0
