Lord Bracknell
On fire
From the official website:-
Perry Refutes Lewes Claim
By Tim Dudding
Albion chief-executive Martin Perry has reacted angrily to claims made by Lewes Councillor David Neighbour that the club has only just "jumped on the scene" with regards to Lewes District Council's High Court Appeal against the new stadium at Falmer.
In a council press release, Neighbour said, "Since this dispute is one between the Council and the Secretary of State there is no need for the football club to get involved. However, having chosen to do so one might have hoped they'd not left it so late. We filed our case in December 2005 and the club has jumped on the scene just 8 weeks before the trial date."
Neighbour also goes on to suggest that the club has no need to defend itself at the hearing because it is not a main party in proceedings.
In a letter to the Argus, Perry wrote, 'Is there no limit to the extent that Lewes District Council will go to try to mislead the public about their position on the stadium?
'Not content with doctoring photographs and publishing them they are now sending out press releases which don't bear any relation to the facts whatsoever.
'Let's examine the real facts. Lewes named the football club as a co-defendant in their claim to the High Court in December - if we are a defendant we are entitled to defend ourselves. If it is shown that the hearing was unnecessary we are entitled to recover our costs.
'The Treasury Solicitor made his offer to concede on one ground on 6th April.
'Lewes did not respond to the Treasury Solicitor until 8th May and didn't even bother to send that response to the club, we had to chase it and received it four days later.
'We agreed some proposed amendments with Brighton & Hove City Council and sent these to the Treasury Solicitor and Lewes on 11th May. The Treasury Solicitor accepted our amendments on 23rd May.
'Lewes proposed some further amendments on 1st June which were rejected by the Treasury Solicitor on 2nd June.
'We put forward some compromise wording on 5th June which was followed up by e-mails and letter. We received no response from Lewes.
'The Treasury Solicitor wrote on 4th August advising the court that the a substantive hearing was not in the interests of any party. The club and Brighton & Hove City Council wrote to the Treasury Solicitor agreeing to this position.
'We followed up our compromise suggestions again by letter dated 11 August, e-mail on 22nd August and letter on 13th September. No response from Lewes.
'Having failed to elicit a response from Lewes we made our application to the Court on 31st August. Eventually we received a response from Lewes rejecting our suggestions on 15th September.
'It is quite obvious from the above, that once we were made aware of the Treasury Solicitor's position in April we have actively been involved but have been obstructed the whole way by Lewes District Council who want to delay this process for as long as possible.
'No Mr Neighbour, we haven't just "jumped on the scene". Your residents need to know that you have failed to respond promptly and failed to agree to the reasonable offers you have been made. A substantive hearing is unnecessary and you run the risk of incurring substantial costs
'Is Mr Neighbour deliberately being disingenuous or perhaps he doesn't he know what's going on? Scary, given the amount of money involved.'
Perry Refutes Lewes Claim
By Tim Dudding
Albion chief-executive Martin Perry has reacted angrily to claims made by Lewes Councillor David Neighbour that the club has only just "jumped on the scene" with regards to Lewes District Council's High Court Appeal against the new stadium at Falmer.
In a council press release, Neighbour said, "Since this dispute is one between the Council and the Secretary of State there is no need for the football club to get involved. However, having chosen to do so one might have hoped they'd not left it so late. We filed our case in December 2005 and the club has jumped on the scene just 8 weeks before the trial date."
Neighbour also goes on to suggest that the club has no need to defend itself at the hearing because it is not a main party in proceedings.
In a letter to the Argus, Perry wrote, 'Is there no limit to the extent that Lewes District Council will go to try to mislead the public about their position on the stadium?
'Not content with doctoring photographs and publishing them they are now sending out press releases which don't bear any relation to the facts whatsoever.
'Let's examine the real facts. Lewes named the football club as a co-defendant in their claim to the High Court in December - if we are a defendant we are entitled to defend ourselves. If it is shown that the hearing was unnecessary we are entitled to recover our costs.
'The Treasury Solicitor made his offer to concede on one ground on 6th April.
'Lewes did not respond to the Treasury Solicitor until 8th May and didn't even bother to send that response to the club, we had to chase it and received it four days later.
'We agreed some proposed amendments with Brighton & Hove City Council and sent these to the Treasury Solicitor and Lewes on 11th May. The Treasury Solicitor accepted our amendments on 23rd May.
'Lewes proposed some further amendments on 1st June which were rejected by the Treasury Solicitor on 2nd June.
'We put forward some compromise wording on 5th June which was followed up by e-mails and letter. We received no response from Lewes.
'The Treasury Solicitor wrote on 4th August advising the court that the a substantive hearing was not in the interests of any party. The club and Brighton & Hove City Council wrote to the Treasury Solicitor agreeing to this position.
'We followed up our compromise suggestions again by letter dated 11 August, e-mail on 22nd August and letter on 13th September. No response from Lewes.
'Having failed to elicit a response from Lewes we made our application to the Court on 31st August. Eventually we received a response from Lewes rejecting our suggestions on 15th September.
'It is quite obvious from the above, that once we were made aware of the Treasury Solicitor's position in April we have actively been involved but have been obstructed the whole way by Lewes District Council who want to delay this process for as long as possible.
'No Mr Neighbour, we haven't just "jumped on the scene". Your residents need to know that you have failed to respond promptly and failed to agree to the reasonable offers you have been made. A substantive hearing is unnecessary and you run the risk of incurring substantial costs
'Is Mr Neighbour deliberately being disingenuous or perhaps he doesn't he know what's going on? Scary, given the amount of money involved.'
Home run by Perry 
