BrandNewGuy

I couldn't possibly comment... ;-)

We're never going to get the tube nor were we ever going to, so there's no possibility of NIMBYism.

But these transport links (or lack of them) are nothing new. I was quite aware of the travel options when I moved here 25 years ago. Apart from the Southern Rail / unions nonsense over the last two summers, the level of service on these links (rail and bus) is either pretty much the same or better. And as has been said several times before, if ED was on the tube, the area would lose its unique qualities and would look like Balham ? give me Lordship Lane etc any day.

Just confirming I'm a 'yes'. Alas, Mrs BNG can't come as it's her work Xmas do that evening. Poor excuse, really ;-)

A chance to revive the Dulwich Hunt ? a pack of eager Jack Russells yapping down Lordship Lane in search of Rattus norvegicus.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To each his own, of course. Needs and preferences > vary greatly from person to person. But saying > that transport links are OK in the area is, > honestly, quite ridiculous! They're OK, they're not brilliant. They're a damn sight better than they were 25 years ago. And North London has always been better for transport links.

The trains to and from London Bridge from ED are pretty reliable, so I'm not fussed. You'll be aware that the situation in the summer (as last year) was to do with a long-running dispute between Southern and the unions and nothing to do with the infrastructure and plans for the future. The service is not actually 'noticeably poorer' than before. I certainly wouldn't think of moving away. Yeah it might be nice to have a few more trains but we're not noticeably worse off than those who live and commute in a number of European cities I'm familiar with (Amsterdam, Paris...). I understand the frustration when travel plans are thwarted, but I think some perspective is needed.

A welcome reversal of policy by Chris Grayling: Grayling announces Southern rail is to be split up, with some services potentially being handed to TfL http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/grayling-announces-southern-rail-is-to-be-split-up-with-some-services-potentially-being-handed-to-tfl/

"Southwark Council looks set to introduce fines for drivers who leave their vehicle engine running whilst idle, in a bid to cut air pollution." https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-will-introduce-fines-drivers-leave-engines-idling/

You'll be lucky to see one in Peckham Rye, but hop on a bus to Lower Sydenham and do the Riverview Walk to Catford and you'll stand a good chance of seeing them: https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/inmyarea/openspaces/parks/Pages/riverview-walk-and-river-pool-linear-park.aspx

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What frustrates me as a driver and as a > pedestrian, is not being able to park a vehicle > outside your own property because of ?out of town? > commuters using my road like a car park so they > can travel into town on a train/bus. This is all > well and good when you?re younger, but for older > and disabled people this can be infuriating. > Having friends and family over to visit is almost > impossible during the week, if my vehicle is moved > for a second to go shopping or to the hospital- I > expect to be parking three or four streets away on > return. Adding yellow lines to junctions by 7m > will exacerbate this problem, unless a CPZ is put > in place. I personally would be MORE than happy to > pay for the privilege of parking close to my home, > to prevent the ignorance of commuting motorists. > > Louisa. The data collected from the shelved Grove Vale area CPZ a few years back showed that the actual number of 'out of town' comnmuters parking and catching a train/bus into town was tiny. Most parking 'commuters' were workers in local schools, shops etc.

Jesus! Leave PSJ alone, you touchy lot.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd like know re TM, why now? Maybe it going to > break how the Ruskies messed with the referendum. Looks like pure distraction to me. "Dear people of Britain, Brexit is continuing to be a train crash, so I... OOH LOOK, A SQUIRREL!"

Indeed, and there's no need to bring up the whole 'offended' thing.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now, if we take ?5k per week as DHFC's wage bill, > that equates to ?200k over a 40 week season. At > this point it should be obvious that if wages = > gate income for DHFC, that doesn't leave enough > other income to cover all the other outgoings > associated with running a football club. Hence > DHFC is in trouble unless someone is willing to > put their hand in their pocket to bridge the gap. > Meadow claim they have been doing this to the tune > of ?170k per annum. I think that figure is too > high, but equally I have no doubt they have been > putting substantial sums into DHFC in order to > balance the books. And Meadow are withholding full information about bar profits, which is a huge moneyspinner ? never mind taking into account the monies that could be earned from a properly-run gym, venue hire, astroturf pitch etc etc.

... but that 'revisiting' will not include Green Dale, because Southwark have taken back the lease.

"Mayor of London Sadiq Khan reveals 'deep concerns' over the perilous future of Dulwich Hamlet The club has been left with obligations it cannot meet, leaving fans resorting to helping out with the wage bill through PayPal for the foreseeable future Now Dulwich manager Gavin Rose is furious at Meadow?s claims in their own statement that the wage bill was running as high as ?8,000 per week, when the correct figure is just under ?5,000. ?The club?s playing budget has never been ?8,000 per week, not once,? Rose said. ?Even with bonuses it has not got close to it. These kind of numbers are thrown around without consequence but cannot be backed up at all.? " http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/dulwich-hamlet-southwark-council-meadow-residential-champion-hill-crowdfunding-paypal-a8043731.html

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BrandNewGuy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Surma? Haven't been there for ages. > > We haven't been anywhere for ages. Well, apart from Dulwich Tandoori five days ago :-)

Gavin spoke to The Independent and said that, over the summer break, Meadow wanted to reduce the wage bill from ?5,000 to ?4,000 a week, but he managed to negotiate them back up to ?5,000, although I've also heard that the player budget is slightly less this season than last. Attached are the average attendances in DHFC's league and the one above from towards the end of last season. The revenue from those differences will be significant.

Well, the wage bill is a huge part of the outgoings of any football club. But no-one else in the Isthmian Prem is pulling in an average gate of 1,400. Meadow are in the business of ramping up club-related costs ? look how they unceremoniously got rid of all the volunteer stewards at the first home game of last season and replaced them with security company goons. And ask them how much they spend on cleaning...

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The explanation is ?8k per WEEK on players' wages! > There are clubs in the National League that > operate on smaller budgets than that! For the > level of football DHFC are playing at, that's some > serious bankrolling. I mean, apart from Billericay > and Hereford, how many other clubs at Step 3 can > even get close to that level of playing budget? > > I know Meadow are coming across as the bad guys in > this situation, but if they've funded an ?8k per > week playing budget for the past few seasons then > as an investor they've actually been pretty nice > to DHFC. I wouldn't believe a word Meadow say. In this article in the Independent from just a few weeks ago, the figure was ?5K a week. Who knows if they have been nice to DHFC, given that they won't reveal any of the finances to the club, the supporters trust or anyone else? Their 'niceness' as I see it consisted in betting on a ?5.7million freehold with the hope that they could swing an ?80million development. They've lost the bet and are now taking it out on the club. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/dulwich-hamlet-future-southwark-council-developers-champion-hill-green-dale-meadow-partners-gavin-a7994291.html

No, nearly all will be on a 40-week contract.

Here's Meadow's appalling statement yesterday, deliberately trying to strangle the club financially. A shameful document full of untruths. I don't want to say "I told you so" but I told you so... These predators have no interest whatsoever in the survival and future of the football club. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQOjkHcEDIG_HOykx2V2P4Tn2XXmVXL5VpUrwsqQ-CQ3orJzG4YDZLM_yTjHXfrbQXG89TG6J1pWYRh/pub "Statement from Meadow Residential Re: Dulwich Hamlet Football Club Following the recent Court hearing between Dulwich Hamlet Football Club (DHFC) and the London Borough of Southwark and the subsequent withdrawal of our planning appeal in respect of the Champion Hill site, there has been considerable public comment regarding the relationship between Meadow Residential and DHFC. This statement clarifies our position and the main facts. For many years, one of the main difficulties faced by DHFC is that the stadium and the football club are separated. This was the situation when Meadow Residential became involved with the Club, along with DHFC?s former partners, Hadley Property Group. We purchased the Champion Hill ground from the liquidators at a point when DHFC had no future and was potentially homeless. Meadow did not buy and does not own Dulwich Hamlet Football Club (DHFC). As developers, clearly our intention was to work with DHFC, to successfully develop the site and in doing so build a new stadium and a secure financial future for the Club. Since 2014, along with Hadley, we have managed the stadium, and with the agreement of the director of, and majority shareholder in, DHFC, provided funds on a monthly basis to meet the costs to run the football club. This funding has allowed DHFC to continue to operate, despite having a significant trading deficit. We have pursued a solution that wipes out DHFC?s substantial debts and provides a new stadium that can sustain a growing club. As well as guaranteeing the future security of the club, we have insisted that as part of the deal, the club itself becomes owned by the community, using the model pioneered by experts Supporters Direct. As the club has grown exponentially in this period, we have built a new bar in the corner of the stadium, and refurbished parts of the ground that were previously unusable. We have also paid the salary of an experienced venue manager to overhaul operations, to ensure that DHFC can provide as good a match day experience as possible. We have also provided financial support for fundraising events for important local and international causes that the supporters care about. We have supported the manager, Gavin Rose, ensuring that he has the resources to operate the playing side. We have not sought to ?run? the footballing side of the Club. We do not own DHFC and our interest has been focused on the planning opportunity, rather than tackling the many operational issues that give rise to DHFC?s unstable finances. We have always taken the view that as much as possible we want DHFC to be able to operate without our direct involvement, aside from providing the financial support and resources for it to meet what is required and expected of it, with agreement from the major shareholder. Whilst acting in the best of intentions at the time, with the benefit of hindsight we might have been unwise in not intervening to address the substantial playing budget of over ?8,000 a week gross, including a generous bonus structure for the players. It may also have been unwise to have agreed to pay the fines of players. We have, perhaps belatedly, attempted to address these issues and our recent attempts to try to improve cost management and increase revenue at the stadium have caused some upheaval. Our investors provided the funding for us to support DHFC, because it was part of a wider development project. We are currently funding in excess of ?170,000 a year to keep DHFC afloat and to meet the shortfall in income. However, the recent Court case and the fact that the Club has lost its lease on the Green Dale astroturf site, means we have had to fundamentally review our position. We have withdrawn our planning appeal and we are now considering our legal and commercial positions. Our investors will not allow us to continue providing the financial support without a viable development solution for the site and some prospect of our recovering the very substantial funds that have been invested. We accept that all parties: Meadow, London Borough of Southwark and above all DHFC, are now in a very difficult situation. Without Meadow?s funding DHFC will be forced to close in the near future. Without the support of Southwark Council we will not be able to develop the site and recover our investment. We are now actively seeking to work with DHFC and to talk to Southwark Council, to see if a way forward can be found to build a spirit of cooperation and allow DHFC and the stadium project to continue."

Having had their redevlopment plans scuppered, Meadow Residential are now playing hardball with the foobtall club. Utterly reprehensible behaviour. Here's the statement from the football committee released today: "A Statement from The Football Committee Monday, 6th November 2017 On the 26th of October 2017, the football committee were informed that Meadow Residential (current ground owners, and club management company as appointed by Nick McCormack) were to end their contractual obligations in regards to player payment and club finances. We were told that as of November 1st 2017, all financial management and payments would revert back to DHFC Ltd?s majority shareholder and Director, Nick McCormack. As a football committee, made up of fans of the club who volunteer 1000?s of hours a year to help run the club we love, we were asked to take on what we feel are untenable positions and responsibilities without detailed information on the health of the club in terms of its finances, or without a say in the management of what we see as club facilities. We have been told that as per the terms of our license, we are entitled to net profit from match day activities (after costs have been deducted from the turnstiles and the bar). However we have no say in the management, pricing or efficiency of the match day operations, therefore our profit is dictated to us. On the 2nd of November, we sent a large list of concerns, and urgent questions to be answered to try and make sense of the situation, that have yet to be fully addressed. We hope that Meadow and it?s subsidiaries will be forthcoming with information ASAP, in an effort to rectify what has been a very worrying period for the football club since their planning appeal was pulled after the greendale lease appeal was lost and ending Meadow's development plans. We want to assure the fans, players, and all those associated with the club we will do all in our power, along with our partners at DHST and at Aspire, to secure a future for the football club that puts the community and club first. The Football Committee - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club #DHFC Updated 11:58 - 6 Nov 2017 by Liam Hickey" http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dulwichhamlet/news/club-statement-regarding-ongoing-developments-with-2065612.html

Surma? Haven't been there for ages.