Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hadley has deep pockets and the original investment was not very large. I would expect them to have a medium term plan, knowing that they may not succeed in their objective of developing the existing stadium in the short term. Allowing DHFC to go under in the interim could be a PR disaster so I would be surprised if they simply pulled the plug.
I've asked this before, but can someone detail the profitability / viability of the club excluding rent payments to Hadley? (these rent payments are derived from the value of the land, which is itself determined by whether Hadley can build on it, which seems to be driven in part by whether the club is viable)
From my limited knowledge, it appears the club has got into financial difficulties but if these plans go through, the club is going to be even worse off as it looks as though the all the existing club buildings will be knocked down and not be replaced. All they get is a pitch in a different location. Just a pitch - no club house etc. Or have I got it wrong?

tomdhu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> From my limited knowledge, it appears the club has

> got into financial difficulties but if these plans

> go through, the club is going to be even worse off

> as it looks as though the all the existing club

> buildings will be knocked down and not be

> replaced. All they get is a pitch in a different

> location. Just a pitch - no club house etc. Or

> have I got it wrong?


That's definitely wrong. The plan is for a new stadium that meets Conference National requirements.

First of all people should look at the plans more clearly...of course there will be a clubhouse, and all the facilities for a modern non-league community club.


The latest plans not only include a new stadium on the current all-weather floodlit footprint on Greendale; it includes two smaller MUGA (Multi Use Games Area) all-weather pitches, on part of the current Dulwich Hamlet Football Ground footprint.


Currently, with the stadium grass pitch, it cannot be used for more than a few hours a week, which is the main matchdays for Dulwich Hamlet & Fisher FC, who groundshare at Champion Hill.


With a modern 4G all-weather pitch, and the MUGA areas, the ground can be in use all day, and in the evenings. Games simply won't get called off, except in extreme bad weather conditions, which means revenue on weekend match days, & there is the potenial for increased income on non-matchdays from pitch & MUGA area lettings. There will be changing rooms for both, so both can used simultaneously...and there is huge scope for community use, like letting schools use the facilities in day time.


In short, the Club is not sustainable where it is currently situated, and a move next door, with a decent lease will safeguard the future of the Club not just for the rest of my life, but for future generations.


And that's without going into the benefits that will be gained from this development, with the suggestion of a public Greendale Park for the adjacent scrubland.


As for the comment about Hadley mobilising Hamlet fans...well if Hamlet fans support the new development they are more than capable of mobilising themselves, thank you very much. If we think it will benefit the future of our Club then we will support it...which is why so many of our fans have seen the plans & have seen what an excellent scheme it is...not just for our Club, but for the wider community that we have been part of since 1893.

Hadley's proposals are clear.


It is also clear that the money has already been allocated by Southwark Council to upgrade the current all weather pitch for use by Schools and community groups in addition to the local sports clubs currently benefitting from it. We have already paid for this with our council taxes. The whole Greendale rejuvination has also been funded by us already.


Yes Hadley state, probably correctly, that it is hard for the Champion Hill pitch to make a profit in its current grass state, only being useable 4.5 hours a week. THe grass also has intrinsic high maintainance costs and poor reliability. They correctly conclude that a facility can increase income several fold with an artificial surface that can potentially be rented up to 60 hours a week. I for one will be very happy to see them invest in such a new playing surface at Champion Hill Stadium. Surely this must have been their thinking when deciding to invest their capital in a Stadium facility currently not breaking even that is protected in perpetuity as a local leisure and educational property? At a single stroke making it mildly profitable.


But I jest. Hadley are not offering extra improved sporting facilities and a twenty year profit cycle. They are offering to put seats and a clubhouse on our current community facility and somehow to get permission to bulldoze the other covenant protected local facility. But that is ok, they will put a couple of small playgrounds in the middle of the hundred million profit housing estate they will build on it.

Could you please clarify who actually "owns" the AstroTurf pitch which you state is a community facility. Additionally I am led to believe that those who claim their is a covenant on both Greendales and the current Champion Hill Stadium may be misinformed. Could you provide more information about these covenants, when they were put in place and what exactly they cover. Additionally I am rather unsure of your maths in regards to the profit margins of ?100 million which you quote. Given that Hadley's proposals call for around 200 properties that means each property would produce a profit of ?500,000. Housebuilders tend to operate on on margins of around 10% which puts some of these properties on a par with multistory townhouses in Belgravia as opposed to apartments in East Dulwich. The area may be "up and coming" but...

The astroturf is owned by the council and the stadium have leased it for the last twenty odd years. But they have not maintained it as they should and it has now fallen into such a state of disrepair that for some time now it has been unavailable to schools on health and safety grounds. As a result the council sort to fund rennovating it themseves when they can take back ownership of it at the end of the lease term which is year end 2014. They have found the money and it is a done deal.


I know nothing about any covenant on greendale. But the contract between King's College School of Medicine, Southwark Council and Sainsburys that granted the Supermarket planning pernission to be built stated that Sainsburys had to provide, maintain and secure St Francis Park and build what is now called Champion Hill Stadium which would be allowed restricted planning as a Sports, leisure or educational facility. Now presumably it could be used as a library or shcool without seeking to change the planning restrictions upon it. But Southwark would have to vote to change it's policy on the premises and I see no clear public interest reason why they would.


I believe Ipool is dead right in his thinking about both the timeframe that Hadley will be looking at and the unlikelyhood that they will try to force the club out and risk leaving a devalued asset and a bad smell around their reputation.

Have done a little research and I see that the planning covenant is a section 106 one which is not irrevocable and tends to be no more than a way of a local authority getting a bit of "squeeze" out of any developer.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200152/section_106

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

    • The coop of Forest Hill Road is very different- cheerful and helpful staff 
    • Would you expose your young people to 'that man'? That is apparently a real question. 'That man' is in fact a retired Oxford Professor of Moral & Pastoral Theology who wrote a book setting out to provide a moral reckoning on the vexed subject of Britain's Empire and its history. What might formerly have been a purely academic matter has become highly contentious, and according to one Cambridge academic "serious shit" that needed to be CLOSED DOWN. It's all rather amazing, the stuff of satire or nightmare but not of the real world. Anyway, Lord Biggar accepted an invitation to visit Peckham and speak to and with a small audience that was due to include young Black students ... who in the end didn't come on the day! Having set the whole thing up to facilitate this encounter for them, the outcome was a disappointment. The conversation with Lord Biggar and audience was not:   
    • Entertaining a visitor from Philippines, she's been here before but I've promised lunch.  Somewhere a little different maybe, quirky?
    • Surely a very simple: "how much does the council receive from the organisers of the Gala festival for payment for use of Peckham Rye" would smoke out a response. The "commercial sensitivity" could be because the council are giving it away or it could be because Gala don't want others to know how much they are paying - it is really tough to make money from any type of festival these days and Wide Awake in Brockwell, for example, sent out a plea for people to buy tickets via a reduced price "Tell a Friend" special offer because (they said much of it linked to the problems Lambeth were having with the High Court) things were entering "squeaky bum time"  and they were struggling to hit their break-even point. It does make me wonder whether expansion is baked-in to the agreements the council has with the organisers for events like Gala as the organisers have to be able to scale the size of the event each year to try to make money. I do also how much of the "revenue" from these events might be swallowed up by the provision of the "free community" event element of them. The comment piece in the Guardian sums it up quite nicely: The heart of this issue seems to be how cash-strapped councils are becoming increasingly beholden to commercial interests to the detriment of the public. A weekend festival that welcomes 50,000 people can expect to raise about £500,000 for local authorities. Councils argue that this money goes back in the public purse, allowing them to continue funding free community events such as Lambeth’s beloved Country Show, though there doesn’t seem to be much transparency over exactly how much cash is raised or where it is allocated.   The issue for councils may well be that if people found out how much was actually being raised by these events that the community would say the disruption is not worth it and I do wonder how much of the revenue is being swallowed up by the provision of the "free event" using the same infrastructure. Any time a council doesn't want to share something openly very much suggests that it is because they think constituents won't like the answer.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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