Falmer - Another View

[Jim D]

Are there local elections in May? If so, I can't see Prescott giving us a 'No' before then - and it would be good politics to say 'Yes' in April (if he's going to).

My guess would be that if we don't hear before the elections (assuming there are some) then it's a 'No'.

 

[fatbadger]

Or, rather, if the party political issue is strong, wait until after the local elections to see what happens - if Sussex-based Seagulls campaign hard and show that they can influence the vote (particularly by eviscerating the LibDems), that might lead to a yes.

But, realistically, the party-political consideration is only one of several that Prescott must attend to.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Jim


Exactly what I was going to say.

I have heard (not from someone in the know) that the decision will be delayed until after the local elections; which of course can only mean 1 outcome, a great big NO. I guess Prescott hasn't read Build a Bonfire, and doesn't fully comprehend just how militant we can be. Over the last 5 or 6 years, that side of our 'campaigning' has been put on hold, as we needed to keep many disparate groups 'onside' to our agrguments; but if it does get turned down I can see it getting messy, especially for the local labour MPs. I of course don't mean violence, but there will be some concerted protests outside the labour party conference, and we almost certainly WILL put up candidates against everyone who has been seen to be complicite in the NO decision.

As someone mentioned earlier, the taint will stay with the local labour party, the same way Bellotti has ruined the Lib Dems chances over the years (at least in the eyes of Albion fans). And as for Norman Baker!!

Papa

 

[Lammy]

I think it will be a yes (although I wish they's get on with it! I want to start digging!) purely due to the fact that no one has offered an alternative. Withdean cannot ever be an option as the residents (quite rightly) would not allow it. Other than that there is NO alternative site! The only possible other site that could host a sizable ground and provide good transport links is Waterhall and that my friends will never happen.

It' really is Falmer or bust.

 

[Lammy]

If we haven't heard anything by the local elections I would expect us to have candidates ready anyway. Who could then step down if we got the correct result.

 

[The Large One]

I have heard (not from someone in the know) that the decision will be delayed until after the local elections; which of course can only mean 1 outcome, a great big NO.

What local elections? There aren't any in Brighton & Hove this year. So that would be a bit of a meaningless argument.

FFS everyone, are we not getting tired of this 'I have heard from a good source' shit? The point is, this is handled from within the ODPM. No-one is privy to this information except the civil servants in question. Everyone is the dark - the council, the club, the fans, the MPs, EVERYONE. The only 'leaks' are from authorised sources.

The reason for the 'delay', if you can call it that, is that civil servants work in their own time at their own pace. Certain projects have priority over others. Clearly, Falmer is not top of the ODPM's priority list.

Sorry, Beach Hut, but unless your 'source' works in the ODPM and is privy to information that they believe should be in the public domain before it is officially released, then this information is worthless and meaningless.

 

[FG aka Football Genius.]

the decision may well have been (or may be in time) passed onto the club but they may be under strict 'orders' NOT to publish the deciion coz of potential trouble and the feelings generated lately may have influced the timing of the no (if indeed it is no, which i dont think it will be) a public announcement once the season is over would be less disruptive protest /violence wise so there has to be a very strong likelihood we wont get a public decision until the seaosn has ended.

I recieved this comment from a mate and it wood not surprise me if true ....

"rumour i heard was Prescott will say NO during Euro 2004, good timing cos everyone else be watching England etc so BHA problems wont even make back pages and no-one will take any notice !!??"

 

[Bwian]

I think it will be a yes (although I wish they's get on with it! I want to start digging!) purely due to the fact that no one has offered an alternative. Withdean cannot ever be an option as the residents (quite rightly) would not allow it. Other than that there is NO alternative site! The only possible other site that could host a sizable ground and provide good transport links is Waterhall and that my friends will never happen.

It' really is Falmer or bust.

Falmer or Bust is 100% right and that's why this delay is bothering me.

There are enough people working on this issue within Government departments to have reached a conclusion by now. If the decision is in favour of Falmer why wait any longer to announce the Yes? The only logical reason for a delay is to prevent unsavoury scenes between now and the end of the season (especially as there is an Olympic bid underway).

Unless all of our efforts ARE having an impact?

I guess we should start worrying if the responsibilty is handed to somebody else so Prescott can wash his hands of the matter....somebody like The Rt Hon Keith Hill MP for instance!

Keith Hill

 

[The Large One]

I don't buy this 'getting the timing right for minimum reaction' shit for a second. Just because WE know how we feel about it, it does not follow that a bunch of faceless civil servants will. If they say no, they have to give detailed reasons why. THEN we proceed to the next stage.

Sorry, the only logical reason for the 'delay' (and I don't believe that there has been a 'delay') is that they haven't made their minds up. They may not have even looked at the report. We just don't know. And don't forget, there is an awful lot of information to go through - it was a very complex application and inquiry.

FG: if the ODPM did not want the club to say or reveal anything, they wouldn't tell them anything. Simple really.

Christ, we really are creating monsters here on this thread, aren't we?

 

[CHAPPERS]

I don't buy this 'getting the timing right for minimum reaction' shit for a second. Just because WE know how we feel about it, it does not follow that a bunch of faceless civil servants will. If they say no, they have to give detailed reasons why. THEN we proceed to the next stage.

Sorry, the only logical reason for the 'delay' (and I don't believe that there has been a 'delay') is that they haven't made their minds up. They may not have even looked at the report. We just don't know. And don't forget, there is an awful lot of information to go through - it was a very complex application and inquiry.

FG: if the ODPM did not want the club to say or reveal anything, they wouldn't tell them anything. Simple really.

Christ, we really are creating monsters here on this thread, aren't we?

 

[Jim D]

Perhaps I'd be inclined to agree with TLO if we weren't talking about the same Government that decided 9/11 was 'a good day to bury bad news'.

The fact is they have a track record of announcing controversial decisions at the same time that the public's attention is focussed elsewhere.

 

[Bwian]

I don't buy this 'getting the timing right for minimum reaction' shit for a second. Just because WE know how we feel about it, it does not follow that a bunch of faceless civil servants will. If they say no, they have to give detailed reasons why. THEN we proceed to the next stage.

Which is what?

Sorry, the only logical reason for the 'delay' (and I don't believe that there has been a 'delay') is that they haven't made their minds up. They may not have even looked at the report. We just don't know. And don't forget, there is an awful lot of information to go through - it was a very complex application and inquiry.

If you're right (and I hope you are) then it is clear that we have to influence the decision as much as we can until the announcement is made



Christ, we really are creating monsters here on this thread, aren't we?

Not at all-NONE of us know what is going on in the ODPM so it's just opinions

 

[coach03]

Perhaps I'd be inclined to agree with TLO if we weren't talking about the same Government that decided 9/11 was 'a good day to bury bad news'.

The fact is they have a track record of announcing controversial decisions at the same time that the public's attention is focussed elsewhere.

Good Call !

 

[coach03]

Keeping up the pressure is most important-we still need to find that killer idea!

What about getting an agency to provide us with a John Prescott look-a-like to deliver a huge message(possibly an Easter card with an Easter Bunny in Blue and White in attendance !) to the ODPM ?
Anyone with connections on here that can arrange something like that?

 

[The Large One]

Perhaps I'd be inclined to agree with TLO if we weren't talking about the same Government that decided 9/11 was 'a good day to bury bad news'.

The fact is they have a track record of announcing controversial decisions at the same time that the public's attention is focussed elsewhere.

Hmmm.

That 9/11 crap was one stupid spin doctor talking off the record. The Falmer decision comes through official channels, and certainly won't have any spin on it. Don't forget this is supposed to be a planning issue, not a political issue. We can try and make it political (in fact, to a point, we already have), but it's down to the opinions of a few people who have no reason to sugar coat any bad news.

My point is that this will not create sufficient worry for the Government if they said no.

Our flowers, banners, letters, petitions etc ARE being taken into consideration (ref: Keith Hill's answer to Norman Baker's question in the House of Commons 26/2/04)

 

[coach03]

Our flowers, banners, letters, petitions etc ARE being taken into consideration (ref: Keith Hill's answer to Norman Baker's question in the House of Commons 26/2/04)

Large One, I missed that. What was the response?

 

[The Large One]

February 26, 2004

Norman Baker: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whether the report of the planning inspector into the Brighton and Hove Local Plan will constitute a material consideration in respect of his determination of the called-in application proposing a football stadium at Falmer; [156368]


(2) what weight he intends to attach to representations he receives between the closing of the public inquiry into the proposal for a football stadium at Falmer and his decision on the report of the inspector handling that inquiry. [156369]




Keith Hill: The Inspector's report into the applications made by Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club are currently with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for decision. For reasons of procedural propriety the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is unable to discuss the details of the case.

The decisions will be made on the basis of all the relevant available evidence. Representations received after the close of the public inquiry will be taken into account as far as they are relevant. In general terms the weight to be given to a material consideration will be considered as part of the decision process. It will be clear from the decision letter when issued what matters have been taken into account and the weight that has been attached to any particular matter.

 

[Curious Orange]

Perhaps I'd be inclined to agree with TLO if we weren't talking about the same Government that decided 9/11 was 'a good day to bury bad news'.

The fact is they have a track record of announcing controversial decisions at the same time that the public's attention is focussed elsewhere.

You think that they think that we won't notice the decision made about our stadium?

 

[Yorkie]

(2) what weight he intends to attach to representations he receives between the closing of the public inquiry into the proposal for a football stadium at Falmer and his decision on the report of the inspector handling that inquiry. [156369]




Keith Hill: The Inspector's report into the applications made by Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club are currently with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for decision. For reasons of procedural propriety the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is unable to discuss the details of the case.

The decisions will be made on the basis of all the relevant available evidence. Representations received after the close of the public inquiry will be taken into account as far as they are relevant.

I wrote to my local Labout MP Barry Sheerman regarding the stadium, who contacted John Prescott.

I had a letter in return on House of Commons paper showing Keith Hill's reply to Barry.
It said exactly what TLO has quote here.

The most relevant part being 'Representations received after the close of the public inquiry will be taken into account as far as they are relevant in making his decision'

That says to me that ODPM is taking notice of all this lobbying the fans, clubs and FFA are doing.

I think the longer it goes on the more likely it is to be YES. If JP had wanted to say no, the easiest time to do it would have been as soon as the Planning Inspector's report came out. It could have been rubber stamped.

Keep up the campaign.

 

[The Large One]

I think the longer it goes on the more likely it is to be YES. If JP had wanted to say no, the easiest time to do it would have been as soon as the Planning Inspector's report came out. It could have been rubber stamped.

Keep up the campaign.

Woah, Yorkie. By saying this, you are making an assumption that the Planning Inspector has recommended rejection. We don't know what he has said.