The tories steal a march on Labour/Caplin

[zefarelly]

why?

the council screwed up by not securing us a new site before sanctioning the demolition of the Goldstone . . . . . .politics is irrelevant surely, it should never have been granted without an alternative being safely in place . . . .who was on the council then . . .hopefully theyre dead !

 

[The Large One]

Bernard Jordan was leader of Hove Borough Council then. And he was a nutter. Brighton Borough Council didn't really have say in it, as neither the Goldstone nor any prospective sites were in Brighton.

The current council as we know it didn't exist then, and most councillors responsible for the Hove decisions have lost their seats. Anyway, the City Council has backed the Albion the whole way. They have done what they can - I think an 11-1 decision is a pretty hefty endorsement. It's a better ratio than all the 'pro' v 'anti' petitions have mustered.

 

[Storer68]

You might also want to ask why Albion supporters wrote to the council in support of the planning application on the Goldstone. It still amazes me that so many Albion fans don't understand what happened.

Because at the time the club was said to be trying to remortgage the Goldstone. And it was a far bigger deal with planning permission than without.

 

[triptolemus]

Great bit of revisionism. Caplin and the 6-strong Labour group strongly supported the planning application on the Goldstone, but it was a Conservative-controlled planning committee on Hove Borough Council that voted it through. That is a fact. I was at the meeting.

Most people seem to have conveniently forgotten, or don't understand, that pretty much every Albion fan supported the planning application at that time. I was one of those who wrote to the council in support.

No, yours is the revisionism. It was Labour faction who were pressing for the retail planning permission in the first place. Their proposal was rejected twice by the Tory controlled council, and they were even specifically warned by the Director of Planning:

'It was natural that some members(of the Council) might have a strong loyalty to BHA which had been part of the cultural fabric of Hove for many years, but whether the finacial position of the Club was a material consideration was doubtful. If planning permission was granted for the development it would give the Club a valuable asset against which to borrow money or assist a possible transfer. however, even if members felt that the application was for 'valuation purposes' only, they ought to be aware that a consent would be a real one which could be operated by the applicants or any future of the ground.'

The Labour faction ignored this pointed warning and went ahead with a third apllication for retail planning permission, believing it would only be 'phantom' permission to raise the value of the ground. This time it was accepted, thereby opening the door for Archer, Bellotti and co.

Ask yourself : why has Labour locally never sought to make political capital out of the loss of the Goldstone, to the detriment of the Tories ? Because, perversely, it was the Labour faction who, in 1992-3, was fattening the calf. Perhaps their motives were good, to provide the Albion with funds, but the disastrous strategy cost the club the ground. Because this history has been revised and suppressed, it has not yet cost them their seats on the Council and in Parliament.

This is why Labour owes Brighton Falmer.

 

[The Large One]

No, yours is the revisionism. It was Labour faction who were pressing for the retail planning permission in the first place. Their proposal was rejected twice by the Tory controlled council, and they were even specifically warned by the Director of Planning:

'It was natural that some members(of the Council) might have a strong loyalty to BHA which had been part of the cultural fabric of Hove for many years, but whether the finacial position of the Club was a material consideration was doubtful. If planning permission was granted for the development it would give the Club a valuable asset against which to borrow money or assist a possible transfer. however, even if members felt that the application was for 'valuation purposes' only, they ought to be aware that a consent would be a real one which could be operated by the applicants or any future of the ground.'

The Labour faction ignored this pointed warning and went ahead with a third apllication for retail planning permission, believing it would only be 'phantom' permission to raise the value of the ground. This time it was accepted, thereby opening the door for Archer, Bellotti and co.

Ask yourself : why has Labour locally never sought to make political capital out of the loss of the Goldstone, to the detriment of the Tories ? Because, perversely, it was the Labour faction who, in 1992-3, was fattening the calf. Perhaps their motives were good, to provide the Albion with funds, but the disastrous strategy cost the club the ground. Because this history has been revised and suppressed, it has not yet cost them their seats on the Council and in Parliament.

This is why Labour owes Brighton Falmer.

But that still misses the central point. It was the Tory-controlled committee who put the permission through. Labour could not have done it on their own.

The reason Labour has not sought political capital is there was none to be gained. All parties were responsible. Helping Brighton & Hove Albion is (or at least should be) an all-party venture. In saying that 'Labour owes Brighton Falmer', you are implying that this is all Labour's fault. Far from it.

Where is your demonisation of the Tories in this? Indeed, why have the Tories not sought political capital if Labour were responsible? This visit from Jenny Kirkbride was hardly that. It was bandwagon-jumping, knowing full well that opposing Falmer (it is still an issue which divides the Tories locally) is a vote loser.

 

[balloonboy]

If anyone doubts how pro-Albion Caplin is, please refer back to Brighton v Sheff Utd, and the antics of a certain Mr Prosser.....

 

[triptolemus]

That is clearly wrong as it was the club who put in the application and a Tory-controlled planning committee that voted for it, egged on all the way by Caplin and his cronies. The planning officers, councillors and Albion supporters should have insisted on a condition that a new ground be built before the old one was demolished, but I don't remember any of us moaning about that at the time.

No one comes out of this decision very well - Tories, Labour or Albion supporters - although obviously there would not have been such a problem had Archer and Stanley not taken control after the initial planning permission was granted.

In February 1993, there was an awareness within Hove Council of a real threat to the Goldstone. As a precaution against commercial speculation on the ground, the policy of the Tory-controlled Council was revised to state that, if the club were to relocate, the Goldstone could only be used for housing, but not 'normally' for retail uses. Caplin actually registered a protest against this, but his motion was not approved. He and another councillor, Bob Carden, then requested it be recorded that they had not voted in favour of the policy revision.

It's quite clear which faction was pressing for the 'retail' planning permission ? Spreading the blame is simply distorting the picture. Albion supporters did not have a voice, beyond a small and hasty petition, if my memory serves, to endorse the call for planning permission. In fact we were turkeys being invited to petition for Christmas.

We followed a flawed political strategy, and as far as I know, those who promoted the strategy to the supporters have never accepted responsibility for losing them their most priceless asset.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Triptolemus and Desert Orchid are both wrong.

The key issue relating to the Goldstone Planning Application is that the Albion submitted it when Barry Lloyd was Managing Director. They needed the planning consent to increase the value of the Club's assets in order to raise a loan to stave off a winding-up order. The Club gave an assurance that they would never leave the Goldstone until a replacement ground had been secured.

Ivor Caplin, the Supporters Club and BISA all actively supported the planning application. Indeed they campaigned for it.

The Tories on Hove Borough Council initially refused the application (on the grounds that Hove traders didn't want a retail park that would compete with their businesses).

Having had the application refused, the Club threatened to appeal. Hove Borough Council took the advice of some independent planning consultants who advised that the Club would be certain to win the appeal (because there were no adequate planning grounds to turn the application down).

Having received this advice, Hove Borough Council did a u-turn and granted planning consent.

The Club still had no intention of leaving the Goldstone until a new ground was built.

What happened next?

Archer gained control of the Club and reneged on the previous Board's promise.

And here we are today.

Blaming Ivor Caplin and the then opposition Labour Group on Hove Borough Council is outrageous! The people to blame are the Hove Tories who could have made it a condition that a new ground was found before any re-development took place. They didn't. And that failure opened the door to Archer to rip us all off.

 

[triptolemus]

Triptolemus and Desert Orchid are both wrong.

Blaming Ivor Caplin and the then opposition Labour Group on Hove Borough Council is outrageous! The people to blame are the Hove Tories who could have made it a condition that a new ground was found before any re-development took place. They didn't. And that failure opened the door to Archer to rip us all off.

I don't see how this makes me wrong. My point is that the Tories initially opposed the planning permission, in fact they did a lot to hamper it. I don't know why the Labour faction chose to persist in seeking the permission after the specific warnings from the Director of Planning (see above). Please explain. To me it seems that it was either incompetence or some kind of obscure commercial collusion that didn't pay off. Strategically, in any case, it failed, and that's what you should pay the price for at the ballot-box. But you don't have to believe me. The papers are in Hove Town Hall for all to read, unspun by apologists for Labour who seem to dominate this site.

 

[The Large One]

Labour did not lose us a ground. How can a minority party (six out of 30 councillors) be held responsible for a planning policy? Hove Borough Council put no controls in place to ensure that permission would not be granted until a new ground was built. They merely took the word of the club. How is that Labour's fault?

And why do you insist on blaming Labour (a party with no control at the time) when we know that this is down to Archer and Bellotti? Repeat: ARCHER & BELLOTTI. THAT'S where your revisionism comes in.

 

[triptolemus]

And why do you insist on blaming Labour (a party with no control at the time) when we know that this is down to Archer and Bellotti?

Because they instigated the idea of retail planning permission. The Tories, curiously, did not initially support the idea.

 

[The Large One]

Because they instigated the idea of retail planning permission. The Tories, curiously, did not initially support the idea.

No. The club instigated the idea. And the Tories' reason for opposing it was both poor and self-serving. (cf Bernard Jordan for one).

Would you blame the Millennium Dome on the person who first thought of it? How much blame for global warming has been attached to Wankel? Or the nuclear arms race blamed on Frank Whittle?

True, the plan back-fired, but the so-called warning (something stated beyond his remit) issued by the Director of Planning was hardly 'ignored by Labour'. Everyone knew of the possible danger of the club reneging, but the Planning Committee did little to stop it. It was taken on board, but the club did not give it due consideration.

What gets me is your ability to look in totally the wrong direction. You blame six people with little power, not the people IN POWER, and therefore, with the responsibility. How many more times does this need to be stated? This is totally the fault of Bill Archer, Greg Stanley and David Bellotti. Not Labour. :

Believe me, Labour OWES us nothing. We could just do with Prescott saying YES.

 

[The Large One]

That is all correct and NOTHING I have said contradicts it. We then go on to differ on our conclusions as to who was to blame. I would blame the following, in this order:

1 and overwhelmingly 1) Archer, Stanley and Bellotti scum
2) The planning officer on Hove Borough Council at the time who should have recommended a planning condition
3) Tories who controlled Hove Borough Council and granted permission without a planning condition
4) Caplin and the minority Labour group who egged them on to grant permission without a planning condition
5) Supporters, including me, who were too naive not to recognise the dangers

None of this would have been a problem if Archer and Bellotti hadn't done what they did. And we wouldn't be talking about it.

 

[triptolemus]

True, the plan back-fired, but the so-called warning (something stated beyond his remit) issued by the Director of Planning was hardly 'ignored by Labour'. Everyone knew of the possible danger of the club reneging, but the Planning Committee did little to stop it. It was taken on board, but the club did not give it due consideration.

I don't understand the logic of this. The warning was clearly ignored, because a further application was made inspite of it.

This was a Tory council, i.e. expected to smile on juicy property speculations, and yet to begin with even they held back - probably aware of the social and electoral consequences of the club losing its home. It's not enough to put in bold type that Archer and co were to blame for the whole thing. Any passing capitalist would have seen the potential of the ground once it had retail planning permission.

I find it hard to believe this fattening up of the Goldstone was done simply to provide collateral finance for the debt. But even if it was, those in the club and the Labour faction promoting the applications displayed staggering ineptitude in exposing the ground to speculation and sale. You don't blame the wolf for eating the lamb. You blame the shepherd for inviting him into the pen.

 

[The Large One]

There you go again - the Labour faction. You are a Conservative apologist, and to deny it would insult EVERYONE on this board. If you have a problem with Caplin, take it up with him. No-one stuck a gun to Archer's head - least of all Caplin - and told him to rape the club.

Get a grip.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I don't know why the Labour faction chose to persist in seeking the permission after the specific warnings from the Director of Planning (see above). Please explain.

It wasn't "the Labour faction" that "chose to persist in seeking the permission". It was the Football Club that was seeking the planning permission.

They succeeded because the Council was advised that the Football Club would win an appeal against refusal.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

As far as I can see from looking through the Council papers of the time, the main concern of the Borough Planning Officer was not that the Football Club might activate the planning permission before relocating. He had received a letter from the Club, categorically setting out the wish to relocate (based mainly on the inadequacy of the Goldstone) and promising to work with the Council to find an appropriate alternative site.

He was more concerned about how the Council would deal with the fact that the original decision to refuse planning permission went against his professional advice.

Although the Planning Committee's initial decision in February to refuse the planning application for retail development at the Goldstone did not accord with the professional advice of the Planning Officer, he did assist the Committee by preparing a statement of the grounds for refusal. When, by March, it became apparent that these grounds would not stand up to scrutiny at a Public Inquiry, and that the Council would be likely to incur substantial costs if the original decision was to be overturned by an Inquiry, the Planning Committee agreed to change its decision.

Incidentally, at the February meeting, the Planning Application was not just supported by Labour members. There were Tory votes in favour, as well as against (and abstentions).

 

[perseus]

Not forgetting that the Sainsbury family had more influence back in those days and the mood was against more retail competition and the powers in Hove in those days were strongly against any more shopping development (local democracy at work). They just wanted an excuse to prevent any more shops being built. That would have included Toad's Hole as well. My surmise. It was a time of recession and a backlash against out of town centre retail development.

 

[Prettyboyshaw]

Anyone sticking up for labour on hear must be mad....or can't pay any tax.

Wait until later today when that complete twat fat Gordon B introduces more ways to rob us of the money we work hard for. Labour are a complete bunch of wankers who hammer normal decent people and hand it out to economic migrants, professional sprog factory mothers and lazy *unts who say 'why work my wages would be less than my benefit'!!!

As you can see I'm slightly angry!

 

[The Large One]

Anyone sticking up for labour on hear must be mad....or can't pay any tax.

Wait until later today when that complete twat fat Gordon B introduces more ways to rob us of the money we work hard for. Labour are a complete bunch of wankers who hammer normal decent people and hand it out to economic migrants, professional sprog factory mothers and lazy *unts who say 'why work my wages would be less than my benefit'!!!

As you can see I'm slightly angry!

Hmmm, good to see the Hitler Youth alive and kicking. Send Leon home, should we? At least under Labour we have jobs.