Falmer another delay!!!

[Parson Henry]

Didn't Ruth Kelly answer a question in Parliament about the date by which a verdict would be given, and said by the closing date of 9th July?

What is the point of a deadline if it is ignored and overridden with no recourse? These delays are costing the club MONEY!

I don't buy the argument that even if the decision has been taken you need to wait 2 weeks just to be seen to be giving it consideration. If the decision WAS made it should have been announced, and if Kelly was fully conversant with the case she should have briefed her colleague so that the deadline of 9th July could still have applied.

It seems to me that the longer a decision is dragged out the more outside factors can come in to delay it. Ministerial changes, COBRA meetings, National Park boundaries? Rubbish. Government deadlines build in other factors and workload.

You wouldn't get away with this in the private sector - it's like a building firm saying you can't have you conservatory for 2 more weeks because Barry's left and didn't tell Dave what was going on. If you engage a firm (i.e. the government) to perform a service (i.e. decision on Falmer) and they give you a deadline why should a change of personnel make a blind bit of difference?

When the last decision was quashed we were told it was a civil servant and that Prescott probably didn't know much about the content of the verdict. Now we're expected to believe that, unlike Prescott, Blears is going to try and get a personal handle on all things Falmer in the next 2 weeks - do me a favour!

Thy speaks sense.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Didn't Ruth Kelly answer a question in Parliament about the date by which a verdict would be given, and said by the closing date of 9th July?

What is the point of a deadline if it is ignored and overridden with no recourse? These delays are costing the club MONEY!

I don't buy the argument that even if the decision has been taken you need to wait 2 weeks just to be seen to be giving it consideration. If the decision WAS made it should have been announced, and if Kelly was fully conversant with the case she should have briefed her colleague so that the deadline of 9th July could still have applied.

It seems to me that the longer a decision is dragged out the more outside factors can come in to delay it. Ministerial changes, COBRA meetings, National Park boundaries? Rubbish. Government deadlines build in other factors and workload.

You wouldn't get away with this in the private sector - it's like a building firm saying you can't have you conservatory for 2 more weeks because Barry's left and didn't tell Dave what was going on. If you engage a firm (i.e. the government) to perform a service (i.e. decision on Falmer) and they give you a deadline why should a change of personnel make a blind bit of difference?

When the last decision was quashed we were told it was a civil servant and that Prescott probably didn't know much about the content of the verdict. Now we're expected to believe that, unlike Prescott, Blears is going to try and get a personal handle on all things Falmer in the next 2 weeks - do me a favour!

That is spot on. I just think its taking the piss now.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

only if I can hold your hand :safeway2:

tell you what, you bring the flask,I will bring the tartan rugs....


then again no doubt the facists will not allow flasks in just in case we chuck it on the pitch( or opposing grannies)

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

The Labour Government

" They used to be indecisive but now their not so sure "

 

[DTES]

Well then, I think that you are sadly misguided, I don't think Blears and Co are particularly bothered about Brighton Hove Albion FC full stop.

Sorry, where in my post did I mention that they care about the club? I didn't at all. They really don't have to care about us to be more that pissed off with Lewes & Baker's constant appeals. They do not have to care about the club at all to just want this over and done with, and not have to bother defending their own decision in the High Court.

 

[The Large One]

Fair comments Roz but enough really is enough, can we believe 25th July will be kept and then there the obligatory 6 week delay when LDC stick their Spade in again. This decision should have been made a week ago before the reshuffle, there really is no more excuses.

Why? It wasn't ready.

It was in the government schedule for 9th July. Where on earth did the idea come from that it would magically be promoted up the government roster by two to three weeks? As I said before, it's only conceited arrogance (or arrogant conceit) that would leave anyone to believe that we are that important enough for that scenario to take place...

 

[Scoffers]

Reading through the streams of pessimism that persist on this topic despite a couple of INFORMED people who have DIRECT experience of working in the Civil Service (I am not one of them) attempting to explain what actually happens when there's a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet, I'm left wondering whether some people want the f***ing stadium in the first place or would simply prefer to grizzle for another ten f***ing years.

Well, just because I don't have direct experience in the inner workings of the Civil Service, and have a different view to Lord B and others, doesn't mean that I don't respect their points of view, or understand how they come to their opinions.

And, quite frankly, to suggest that people who happen to disagree with Lord B somehow don't want the "f***ing stadium" is quite frankly insulting.

I have a basic belief that this government have f***ed up on more than one occasion, and it's cost us dearly as a result.

Most people, me included, think we'll get there in the end, but if we had had a competant government, the stadium would have been half built by now.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Why? It wasn't ready.

It was in the government schedule for 9th July. Where on earth did the idea come from that it would magically be promoted up the government roster by two to three weeks? As I said before, it's only conceited arrogance (or arrogant conceit) that would leave anyone to believe that we are that important enough for that scenario to take place...

ALAN JUST BLOODY WELL AGREE WITH ME FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE

 

[Publius Ovidius]

But you keep forgetting - the Government can have courage of their convictions, they can even be absolutely right. That won't make a blind bit of difference if Norman Baker challenges. He doesn't have to be right, he doesn't have to win - he can still cause a delay if he has the tiniest glimmer of a possible, potential, crack in the case. And like I said, that would be more than 16 days...

what are you talking about?

Why would Norman baker challenge?

This is to do with LDC and FPC, its nothing whatsoever to do with Baker! he can only advise

 

[Pavilionaire]

What worries me is that the whole South Downs National Park boundary issue is kicking off, and the anti-Falmer Brigade will climb aboard and cause more delays.

What I find also irritating is by the time we get the decision it will then be too late to influence potential signings for next season.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

How ANYONE can defend the Labour Government over this whole sorry affair is beyond me.

 

[Lawro's Lip]

If a 16 day delay means the decision will be a watertight YES then i for one am happy to wait.

Should mean a complete sell out for the Kerry Mayo testimonial 3 days later.
Bring it on.

 

[Scoffers]

Didn't Ruth Kelly answer a question in Parliament about the date by which a verdict would be given, and said by the closing date of 9th July?

What is the point of a deadline if it is ignored and overridden with no recourse? These delays are costing the club MONEY!

I don't buy the argument that even if the decision has been taken you need to wait 2 weeks just to be seen to be giving it consideration. If the decision WAS made it should have been announced, and if Kelly was fully conversant with the case she should have briefed her colleague so that the deadline of 9th July could still have applied.

It seems to me that the longer a decision is dragged out the more outside factors can come in to delay it. Ministerial changes, COBRA meetings, National Park boundaries? Rubbish. Government deadlines build in other factors and workload.

You wouldn't get away with this in the private sector - it's like a building firm saying you can't have you conservatory for 2 more weeks because Barry's left and didn't tell Dave what was going on. If you engage a firm (i.e. the government) to perform a service (i.e. decision on Falmer) and they give you a deadline why should a change of personnel make a blind bit of difference?

When the last decision was quashed we were told it was a civil servant and that Prescott probably didn't know much about the content of the verdict. Now we're expected to believe that, unlike Prescott, Blears is going to try and get a personal handle on all things Falmer in the next 2 weeks - do me a favour!

At last, some common sense

 

[Scoffers]

How ANYONE can defend the Labour Government over this whole sorry affair is beyond me.

Agreed

 

[Monkster]

Oh my days...

How on earth can a decision be ring-fenced? It's only conceited arrogance which can presume that the Falmer Stadium application is so important that all other affairs of state, together with the 350 other applications that week, can be pushed aside.

Well if she is making decisions on 350 applications everyweek, I hope she is paid overtime........

 

[Publius Ovidius]

ALAN JUST BLOODY WELL AGREE WITH ME FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE

ask him about the REMF programmes.........ooops sorry...coundn't resist it

 

[The Large One]

When the government made the announcement that the decision was going to be on or before July 9th, what we didn't know at the time was Tony Blair's exact departure date. Therefore, under all other circumstances, 9th July was the intended date.

As for the contention that Ruth Kelly could have 'briefed' someone on the case,why would Ruth Kelly brief someone on only one (pretty complex) application, and not the hundreds, possibly thousands of others current going through the system. It's also highly likely that, even if the decision had been made, it would not have reached Ruth Kelly yet anyway - and certainly not by June 26, especially when she was not due to decide on the recommendations given to her by her civil servants until two weeks later.

 

[Scoffers]

Well if she is making decisions on 350 applications everyweek, I hope she is paid overtime........

I wonder how many of those actually require her to fully read up on and understand, and how many of these are deemed "low risk" and are taken on the advice of others?

 

[DTES]

what are you talking about?

Why would Norman baker challenge?

This is to do with LDC and FPC, its nothing whatsoever to do with Baker! he can only advise

Dave, I apologise. Replace the words "Norman Baker" with "LDC & FPC" then, and re-read the post, it still applies.

 

[The Large One]

ask him about the REMF programmes.........ooops sorry...coundn't resist it

Couldn't resist what? Mentioning a complete f***-up by the printers?