The cost of the stadium appeal

[Easy 10]

Pardon my suspicions here, but it seems strange that the club is saying the costs will be 90K, while Brighton council, also co-defendants, will be "up to 5K". Seems to me the club are over exaggerating the costs for 2 reasons: 1. To scare LDC residents and 2. As an excuse for limited or no further signings in the transfer window. Point 1 is OK, point 2 is not. Time will tell.

Truth is, to a large extend everyone is just pissing in the wind with these legal costs. No-one has much of a clue how long these proceedings will drag on, but you can be sure that the longer the meter is running, the more the lawyers will be absolutely coining it.

LDC's projected figures for these costs do seem to fall on the 'slightly optimistic' side though, as this kind of thing invariably seems to spiral. They are taking a massive gamble here, and they know it. They just won't admit it, obviously.

 

[Curious Orange]

I think the fact that their risk mitigation was "don't lose" spoke volumes.

 

[BensGrandad]

Exactly.

It's a pity that the people who say "why haven't we signed him" or "why don't we try to land so-and-so" don't take notice of things like that and try to recognise the constraints under which McGhee is working.

I think that most people do. what they want is there to be 2 pots one for Falmer and 1 for transfers and the playing side. Neither should dig into or be given to the other.

Most people I speak to are totally pissed off with the black hole that is FALMER but in saying so fully understand and support the need for Falmer but The rest of the club shouldn't be allowed to die because of FALMER.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The History Man and I both put questions to the Cabinet and, as expected, got little in the way of straight answers.

The Argus and BBC South East TV were there - there should be a report on tonight's South East Today and South Today.

I also had the opportunity to speak for five minutes in support of the Petition (which the Full Council meeting on 7 December had referred to today's Cabinet meeting). This is what I had to say in presenting the petition:-



When I presented this petition to the full meeting of the Council on 7 December, I expressed my astonishment that, in a little over a week, it had proved possible to gather over 5,000 signatures from residents of the District asking the Council to withdraw its action in the High Court that was designed to frustrate John Prescott’s decision to grant planning permission for Brighton and Hove Albion to go ahead with the long awaited Community Stadium on the outskirts of Brighton.

It is disappointing, to say the least, that this Council has persisted in its determination to fly in the face of the views of so many people, who, I am sure, share their opinion with an overwhelming majority of residents in the district.

The Council has now submitted its appeal and, today, I see little sign that you intend to change your minds.

But that does not take away from the fact that there is an overwhelming case for second thoughts.

It is not just that a large number of local residents oppose the Council’s decision. The question of costs is a very serious one indeed.

Councillor Commin has stated that the Council is risking no more than £25,000 on a case that he acknowledges may cost £65,000. Even if that figure is correct, the money that is available from other sources is insufficient to bridge the gap between what the case will cost and the £25,000 that has been budgeted.

Falmer Parish Council has publicly stated that it has only £15,000 available; contributions of £5,000 from the South Downs Joint Committee and a similar sum apparently promised by the South Downs Society will leave someone having to find at least £15,000. Who is that going to be?

And there are sound reasons to believe that the costs might exceed £65,000. On 7 December, I referred to the 2004 Solihull case, where that Council acknowledged that the financial risks of challenging Mr Prescott in Court were considerably higher than any figure that Lewes has discussed.

But, in the Falmer case, we can now be certain that the cost risks are higher. This Council, for reasons that I simply don’t understand, has drawn not only John Prescott into the defendant’s corner, but has served papers on Brighton and Hove City Council and the Football Club. Three parties now have to defend their position. Contrary to what the District Solicitor has said today, it is perfectly possible to leave the name of an Interested Party off the list of defendants.

The Albion have stated today that their costs alone could approach £90,000 and that, when they win, they will apply to the Court for Lewes District Council to pay those costs. No doubt the City Council will take the same view.

Your £25,000, inadequate even to meet the First Secretary of State’s costs, is not going to stretch anywhere near far enough.

And, on one of your key points, you will lose, since the Court is certain to follow the precedent that has been established in the Pembrokeshire National Park case – where, incidentally, the Chambers of your own independent legal adviser represented not the appellant, but the developer! Have you really taken sound advice?

And on your second key point – that an alternative site is available – you are simply ignoring the conclusions of Inspector Brier. There is no alternative to Falmer. To pretend otherwise is to deceive the residents of this district and football supporters everywhere.

We all know that the Cabinet Committee's decision to commit funding to this case was not subject to a proper debate within the Council. Questions have been asked today about the process and the cavalier attitude of the Cabinet to the Council’s constitution and its lack of openness about costs.

A number of members of the Council have expressed their concerns and some of them have told me that they would welcome a review of the decision. I am also told that the Scrutiny Committee will discuss a possible Review, once the Chair returns from holiday at the end of this week. Councillor Davy has even resigned from the Cabinet on this issue, and Councillor Commin’s position is beginning to look very difficult, particularly following his public pledge to resign, if costs cannot be contained.

Things are looking very difficult for you. Once again, I ask you to reconsider and withdraw this potentially very expensive and certainly very unpopular action.

 

[London Irish]

Thanks LB - some excellent points made there. It is comfort to know that at least our case has been put in the optimum way possible.

 

[The Large One]

Pardon my suspicions here, but it seems strange that the club is saying the costs will be 90K, while Brighton council, also co-defendants, will be "up to 5K". Seems to me the club are over exaggerating the costs for 2 reasons: 1. To scare LDC residents and 2. As an excuse for limited or no further signings in the transfer window. Point 1 is OK, point 2 is not. Time will tell.

I didn't realise they were limiting the signings any further than necessary. There is littlel money in the kitty before this nonsense. Falmer IS the priority - we can survive relegation, but we cannot survive homeless.

 

[BensGrandad]

Lord B

Did you get a feeing that you had 'reached the parts others can't' or that it had all fallen on 'stony ground'.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Thanks LI. Both Tim and I concentrated on the cost aspects ... since this is the area where we think that we can be most effective in forcing an LDC rethink.

Having heard from the District Solicitor, Catherine Knight, that it is "normal" for Court papers to be served on the planning applicant as well as the ODPM, the Councillors attempted to argue that it was entirely "up to the Albion" to take the financial consequences of defending their position.

This is, of course, complete nonsense. What defendant in a High Court case would dream of saying "I don't think I'll bother turning up"? Even the ODPM have said that it is in the power of the Court to order the losing side to pay the costs of all their opponents.

And it isn't "normal" for the applicant to be named as a defendant in a case like this.

I got the distinct feeling that there was a degree of unease among the Councillors about how their officers had handled the case. But they weren't going to say so in public.

 

[The Large One]

Thanks LI. Both Tim and I concentrated on the cost aspects ... since this is the area where we think that we can be most effective in forcing an LDC rethink.

Having heard from the District Solicitor, Catherine Knight, that it is "normal" for Court papers to be served on the planning applicant as well as the ODPM, the Councillors attempted to argue that it was entirely "up to the Albion" to take the financial consequences of defending their position.

This is, of course, complete nonsense. What defendant in a High Court case would dream of saying "I don't think I'll bother turning up"? Even the ODPM have said that it is in the power of the Court to order the losing side to pay the costs of all their opponents.

And it isn't "normal" for the applicant to be named as a defendant in a case like this.

I got the distinct feeling that there was a degree of unease among the Councillors about how their officers had handled the case. But they weren't going to say so in public.

Are you going to ask Ms Knight (copying in the Council Leader, District Auditor etc) if she accepts she has f***ed up in serving these papers? Maybe if a solicitor suggested this to her, it may carry more weight. Perhaps if she was rounded upon, it may undermine her position. Just a thought, but then I am feeling like that today.



PS Sorry, well done to you and Tim for your wise words once again.

 

[Albion Dan]

Lets hope they have royally f***ed up in naming us as a defendant and they bottle it.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Once again LB we are totally indebted to your thorough contibution to the cause.

 

[Curious Orange]

Nicely put, as ever, Lord B.

I don't hold out much hope of them withdrawing the action, but at least we should be able to tell them that we told them so when all is FINALLY said and done.

 

[perseus]

Truth is, to a large extend everyone is just pissing in the wind with these legal costs. No-one has much of a clue how long these proceedings will drag on, but you can be sure that the longer the meter is running, the more the lawyers will be absolutely coining it.

LDC's projected figures for these costs do seem to fall on the 'slightly optimistic' side though, as this kind of thing invariably seems to spiral. They are taking a massive gamble here, and they know it. They just won't admit it, obviously.

It has happened before and the costs were about £115K for ther first stage so when the Albion say it will cost LDC and their d cohorts about £160K if costs are awarded, that rings true.

The Court may reckon their case is "in the national interest" and waive the costs. Nobody else sems to have paid them.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Good little article covering on South Today and a 100% "drop the action" from Lewes residents that were questioned (all two of them).

Good work again Lord B.

 

[Screaming J]

Having heard from the District Solicitor, Catherine Knight, that it is "normal" for Court papers to be served on the planning applicant as well as the ODPM, the Councillors attempted to argue that it was entirely "up to the Albion" to take the financial consequences of defending their position.

f***ing wanky toss. If the Albion didn't turn up the first thing LDC woudl do would be to try to turn it to their advantage by claiming the club's non appearance was due to the fact that they were not interested in the outcome or didn't think getting Falmer was important to the clubs future.

Is this not all part of a cunning plan to actually cripple the club financially? There was a thread on here a while ago (it discussed the Glyndebourne application) where an ex Lewes Employee said that various senior officers at LDC were very anti-football.

 

[perseus]

£160K plus for a load of CRAP

CRAP = Carrying Resentments against Prescott.

 

[Screaming J]

Well done again to Lord B and Tim.

The problem we have is that most politicans (and certainly the intellectually challenged elected to Lewes Council) find it congenitally impossible to ever admit that they have made a complete horlicks of something. They would therefore rather waste tax payers money than pull the plug.

Is there something about the politics within the LDC Lib Dem group which is behind all this? Does de Veggy need Commin's support to stay as Leader? Is part of the price of his support her continuing to push this issue because of the ward he represents??

We may regard being leader of LDC as being akin to being king of a dung-hill. However politicians are not like us, give them a sniff of this kind of status and it acts as both an amazing stimulant to them and something they'll be desparate to cling on to, mostly at any price.

 

[Rangdo]

I think that most people do. what they want is there to be 2 pots one for Falmer and 1 for transfers and the playing side. Neither should dig into or be given to the other.

Most people I speak to are totally pissed off with the black hole that is FALMER but in saying so fully understand and support the need for Falmer but The rest of the club shouldn't be allowed to die because of FALMER.

Thats just not possible. The number one priority for us as a business is to survive. The key to that is a new stadium which is where our resources must be placed when required. If we don't make any signings and get relegated it will not be the end of us. We will still be in a far better position than if we don't sufficiently fund Falmer and put it in jeapordy.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

Well done Lord B and Tim

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Thanks as ever Lord B for your efforts on behalf of all us Albion fans.