Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Bognor Regis Town ground at Nyewood Lane (the "Nye Camp"!) has a capacity of 4,500 so getting in shouldn't be a problem. Probably best not to turn up at the last minute though.


This will be the fourth time since 2011 that Dulwich have met Bognor Regis Town in the play-offs. All the ties have been away but, despite that, Dulwich are 2-1 up in the Win/Loss stakes. Bognor won the only play-off final tie - in 2012 - but Dulwich won the only Ryman Premier play-off tie - last year (the earlier ones were Ryman South).

From the South London Press: "Budget cut fears could see boss Gavin Rose leave Dulwich Hamlet"


Gavin Rose is set for crunch talks over his Dulwich Hamlet future this week ? amid fears that a cut to his playing budget may see him walk away.


The South Londoners missed out on promotion to the Vanarama National South after a 2-1 defeat to Bognor Regis Town in their Ryman League Premier Division play-off final yesterday.


Rose is in his eighth season at Champion Hill, during which period they have not only won promotion and consistently challenged in their current division but also developed a number of talented youngsters who have made the jump into the Football League.


?My contract runs down in July and I haven?t signed a new one because the current owners basically want the budget cut,? Rose told the South London Press. ?If feels as if that would be pretty hard for us to get any success, because our budget is quite moderate as it is.


?If it gets cut further it would mean we wouldn?t have a chance of competing or getting the club.


?I?ve not committed at the moment because I don?t want to be a disservice to myself or the football club.


?I?ll have a chat with the club this week. I want to do the best job I can for the club. We have a moderate budget but get gates that are three times more than anybody else?s.


?For me to look myself in the eye I have to give myself and the club a good chance of being successful next season ? I don?t want to be going backwards from the work we have done so far.


?I?ve put my own personal security to the side because I felt I had a job to do.


?We are nowhere near some of the other budgets in this division. I don?t want to name other teams.


?Myself, Junior Kadi and Kevin James have put the club first ? we wouldn?t just spend money for the sake of it.?


https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/23584/budget-cut-fears-see-boss-gavin-rose-leave-dulwich-hamlet/

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...