mikeb

Similar question with a twist - do you think any pubs or anywhere else would let in a 9 year old to watch it? Would be great if my son could have the same sort of experience that I had in 1984 but it's more difficult now it's not on BBC / ITV. Alternatively, is there any way of getting BT Sport on a one-off basis on Freeview?

Every 2 mins is significantly less than Heathrow's every 40 seconds. And while the peak volume of the City jets is louder than the peak of the Heathrow planes, perhaps because they are smaller, the noise lasts for a much shorter time - there is never any more than 10 seconds silence between Heathrow planes.

For the Wharf, on balance, I think Tower Bridge and CS3 is better. The Canal Path behind Peckham Library is actually really lovely at this time of year, with cow parsley crowding both sides. The junction at the north side of Tower Bridge is almost finished and will I think be slightly better than before - dedicated lights in both directions for cyclists. The only cramped part is Tower Bridge itself but it's hard for TfL to make that any wider... Take care heading north after teh bridge to the lights just by the Tower of London. And the upside of this route is that occasionally you have to wait while they lift the bridge for some tall ship to sail through!

Just to add to Kford's note, in my experience CPZs are accompanied by more road marking which reduces the number of parking spaces available overall. CPZs are only effective in increasing parking for locals if the number of spaces lost is outweighed by the reduction in the number of non-locals parking in controlled hours. I seem to remember that the survey a few years ago did not demonstrate this. Edit: I understand that Southwark is trying to reduce the number of parking spaces by increased road marking anyway, which would remove one of the arguments against CPZ.

I have no doubt that Hadley or others can put this club into administration if they choose to. Shareholders can always do that particularly if they have also made shareholder loans. And I can quite easily believe that DHFC was mismanaged for some years before Hadley got involved, potentially deliberately in order to 'prove' that the club isn't viable without development. The abbreviated accounts for Dulwich Hamlet Football Club Limited do show that the club has been loss making given the accumlated losses. However, they also show the club profitable in each of the years ended Sep-2009, Sep-2010, Sep-2011, Sep-12 and Sep-13 (i.e. a decrease in its accumulated losses). The most recent accounts filed are only for the year to Sep-14 which show a net loss of c. ?26,000 in that year. However, there is not enough detail to see why this is the case - this is simply the accounting net loss figure after all accrued expenses including interest and tax even potentially dividends. Some issues with this * it has not been audited * no split as to revenues, operating costs and other expenses * there is no verification that the expenses are all arm's length and properly incurred e.g. should include full related party disclosure * no guidance on remuneration of directors or shareholders * no disclosure as to cash flows Until Hadley provides full transparency on the club's affairs (including an independent audit), I see little reason to provide the 'in kind' public subsidy that would be represented by overturning covenants and established planning policy, irrevocably changing our local community and providing Hadley with a multi-million pound payday. I hold no ill-will to Hadley, Matt Rimmer or even its Hong Kong shareholders. Property developers develop property, that's what they do. But they hold no long-term stake in the local community: they are not residents or long-term DHFC supporters and once the development is complete, they will probably move on (unless they remain as non-resident landlord).

I'm sorry to hear that. He was a very helpful and honest guy.

BNG, I agree: there is another option that is clearly possible: Hadley is told by Southwark Council that they can't develop the football ground (the use of which is restricted by covenant to be only ever for sporting purposes) and told by Southwark Council that they can't develop /privatise Metropolitan Open Land (which is to be treated the same as greenbelt). Hadley can continue owning the club if they like or pass it on to DHST if they get bored. All this takes is a firm stand against the natural desires of property developers to develop property. Or alternatively, they can provide full financial disclosure of why the club cannot be sustainable on the current site and why it can only be sustainable if their plan goes ahead and no other. Until then, I will remain sceptical that the club with the most attendance of any in its division or two leagues above is actually one of the most at risk of going under.

A little sad to see the onions go but I think those boards look pretty good overall.

This is one of the key documents - the justification for the whole thing, contained in section 6. From a quick look through, the primary justification for building on MOL is the contention that the club is financially unsustainable in its current form, yet I have not so far found any accounts or financial statements in the submission that support this (frankly surprising) assertion. http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!s5yeW%2bePQpbhAWzOWHVWkg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

Actually, I remember this thread now - it's apparently owned by Grainger http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,47157 http://www.londongardensonline.org.uk/gardens-online-record.asp?ID=SOU031

Final annual return

Oddly enough for a tax haven, the Jersey Financial Services Commission has a website that does actually publish shareholders of Jersey companies, for ?4 a time: https://www.jerseyfsc.org/ So far, I have traced * GRIP NomCo 3 LIMITED is 100% owned by * G:RES-CO4 LIMITED, which is 100% owned by * Crestbridge Corporate Trustees Limited, which is 100% owned by * Crestbridge Limited, which is 100% owned by * Crestbridge Jersey Holdings Limited Now that I've spent ?16 so far, perhaps someone else would like to pick up the baton? I suspect it will roll up to these guys at some point and then the trail will go cold http://www.crestbridge.com/

@Blackcurrant - you need to think in three dimensions: they are planning 6 stories, using the goddawful King's nursing accommodation as a precedent (btw, how did _that_ get built?). But you're right in your general point: this is going to change the area completely, including the "open" aspect of the remaining Metropolitan Open Land.

Done! http://www.dkhap.org.uk/donate.php http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/charity-web/charity/finalCharityHomepage.action?charityId=1006023

To follow Jay66's post, the s106 agreement I got from Kings is available on their website. I believe that this contains the restrictive covenant on the stadium land. I would be interested in views from any disinterested property lawyers / developers as to any implications for this for a change of use. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Ht_hAPixkZM0xZM1dkdWJqbmc/view The 2003 appeal notice looks interesting particularly para 43, which comes to the question I have raised repeatedly: why is DHFC not sustainable in its current location and what would change in a new location that would improve this? Also I note that average crowds are now 3x what they were back then.

Homes need communal local facilities - the Victorians understood this which is why we are still using their parks, schools, libraries and pubs.

[edit]

@rabbitears - the 37 is neither reliably regular nor (more to the point) frequent.

@ Fazer71 - no, you have misunderstood: I completely agree with LondonMix. The value of the land is determined by what the community decides can be built there, not the other way around. We need to stand firm on 106 / CIL otherwise developers will buy land at inflated prices expecting to overturn these obligations and develop land at the detriment of local communities. BNG - yes I have the restrictive covenant deed for DHFC which I obtained from King's under freedom of information laws. I need to work out how to post it to the forum as it is too big to be an attachment. It also contains some interesting obligations on Sainsbury's re St Francis's Park.

Well said Londonmix. In passing, I would note that everything you've written applies to Hadley and its purchase of the land under DHFC for more than it's worth with the restrictive covenant, with the expectation that they will be able to remove the restrictions and build flats. The value of the land depends on what can be built there, as does the rent that should be paid for the land.

I think there might be a local problem. I'm on BT infinity but this weekend only getting 1.6mb download (3.6mb upload! for all the use that is). [Edited to say that various reboots seemed to have fixed this, back up to 16mbs (though this itself isn't that impressive)]

This is a prescient post from 2014 http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/dulwich-hamlet-fc-2013-2014-season-chat-rumours-reports.310974/page-59 (the post on footballwebpages quoted in the first post, not the following commentary)

Building a 2.4m high wall ( http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=209981 ) which restricts access and public visibility would seem to me to have an adverse impact on the 'openness' of MOL; building a stadium (external wall, a stand, a bar, other ancillary buildings?) does not seem like a "small scale structure". There is probably a load of case law on this and it would be interesting to hear more from a disinterested developer / property lawyer. [Edited to add: this isn't really about the precise legal interpretation of some local authority guidelines...]

Some guidance on MOL from the Mayor of London / London Assembly here: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-7/policy-717-metropolitan

John K's point still stands even if ownership of the new enclosed ground transfers to some sort of supporters' trust or even if it remains owned by Southwark Council and rented to DHFC.