Goldstone secret history

[Albionite83]

so Archer appointed Bellotti in order to attempt some kind of planning permission grant which had a snowflakes hope in hell.... they sold the goldstone and did what with the proceeds??

where does DK appear in this story??

As the Knight to the rescue, although the horse is getting a bit tired now as it's been running for 6 years.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

... the plot thickens. The Tory dominated Planning Committee issued a warning to the 'Albion supporters'. According to the papers, a second application was presented to Hove Council in February1993. This was the warning recorded in the minutes:

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 financial 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 in 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 owner of the ground.'

The second application was refused, but in spite of the warning, a third application was made in June 1993. Curiously, at this point the discussion went behind closed doors. The decision was deferred until September. The minutes of this meeting are contained in the so-called 'Blues', the council papers that are not accessible to the public. Why did it become a secret discussion, and what happened to change the committee's mind ?

The June 1993 application was for an identical development to that which had been refused in February 1993.

What had happened between the two dates was that the Club had appealed against the refusal; a date for a Public Inquiry had been set (August 1993); and the Council had been advised that the appeal was likely to succeed.

The Club had proposed that resubmission of the original application would avoid the need for the Inquiry to take place - thereby saving costs on both sides.

It was a classic Hove Borough Council way of dealing with things. Early posturing, motivated by political considerations, followed by a sharp u-turn once the cost implications of the original decision had become clear.

Things went "confidential" at a special meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on 1 June 1993 (a few weeks before the open meeting which considered the application itself). The reason for this was, ostensibly, to allow councillors to consider the competitive quotes which had been received from various planning and highways consultants who, at that stage, were bidding to undertake work to support the Council at the August Public Inquiry.

In reality, of course, the 1 June meeting was a wide-ranging debate about the bigger issues involved. It was this meeting that paved the way for the Council to be receptive to a resubmission of the earlier application. The minutes of the 1 June meeting make fascinating reading.

 

[perseus]

The first meeting between Richard Knight and Bill Archer took place on 23 February 1997. Albion were still at the Goldstone and still bottom of the table.

(This is from consulting my old Albion notes. This would have been an official news release.)

The new Board started on 3 September 1997.

Don't treat this information as gospel. It is probably about right, rather than being spot on?

 

[triptolemus]

The June 1993 application was for an identical development to that which had been refused in February 1993... The minutes of the 1 June meeting make fascinating reading.

Your last post clarifies things for me. Lord Bracknell. But what is the fascinating reading, and is it in the public domain now ? What we will perhaps never know is at what point the owner of the club at that time spotted the opportunity to avail himself of the 'phantom' planning permission. Only after it was granted, or all along, using the 'Albion supporters' as a stalking horse ?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

There was more to this than simply activating a 'phantom' planning permission.

The 1993 applications were only Outline Planning Applications. Activating the consent required a further detailed application by the Club.

When the redevelopment of the Goldstone Ground eventually took place, wasn't that after a quite separate application by the subsequent owners?

The real question surely centres on when the Football Club abandoned its commitment not to proceed with sale of the ground or its redevelopment until an alternative site had become available. The answer to that is, of course, a matter between Archer and his maker.

Certainly in 1993, the Club were still saying that "it is the firm intention of Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club to secure the new facility prior to leaving the Goldstone Ground, in order to maintain the Club's presence for the future".

Sadly, despite this assurance, the Borough Council's Director of Law & Administration had advised the Planning & Development Committee that it would be contrary to government guidance to impose a condition requiring relocation to preceed any development. The word of the Club was the only assurance there was.

I'm not sure what Hove Borough Council papers are currently "in the public domain". The minutes of the 1 June meeting run to three pages. Do you have an e-mail address?

 

[perseus]

In a historical context, Barry Lloyd was dismissed about November 1993.

Liam Brady lasted until October 1995. Albion got relegated 1995-96.

 

[Storer68]

My recollection is that it was sold with Outline Planning permission for about £7.25m to Chartwell, who then activated the planning per and redeveloped the site.

And then sold it to Abbey Life a year later for £24.8m

 

[Storer68]

I would guess that we are losing money at the moment - mainly because of the occupancy costs of Withdean. But the prospects look good for Falmer and this keeps the long-term financial prospects rosy.

If Falmer is turned down, we are in deep doo doo.

First published on Thursday 01 May 2003:
£1m price of Albion dream
by Steve Rogers

Brighton and Hove Albion's dream season left the club more than £1 million worse off, accounts published today have revealed.

The Seagulls' finances took a dive as the team completed their historic back-to-back leap up the league to Division One.

Bosses say the extra costs of playing in the higher division were not covered from takings at the turnstiles because of the limited 6,000 capacity at Withdean.

The team's trading loss in the year up to June 2002 was £357,000, more than double the £149,000 deficit of the previous year in Division Three.

This includes staff wages and player transfers.

A further £569,000 was spent on the planning application for a proposed new stadium at Falmer.

And £388,000 was written off towards previous years' developments at Withdean, pushing the club's expenditure to £1.3 million.

But there is also good news for fans.

Directors and investors, including DJ Norman Cook, pumped £4.5 million into the club.

Staff costs were kept down to 49 per cent of turnover, within the proposed salary cap for Football League teams.

And £650,000 was saved in a deal which saw former chairman Bill Archer finally sever his ties with the Albion. Bosses say that will free them up to make long-term investments securing the team's future.

But it is not known how the club has fared this year with even higher wages in the First Division, no increase in crowds at the already-bursting Withdean and the collapse of ITV Digital.

The Albion has also been represented at a costly public inquiry into the Falmer stadium plan - which directors say is crucial to the club's future and even its survival.

Albion finance director Bob Pinnock said the £4.5 million injection of cash proved the board's commitment to the long-term future of the team.

He said: "The previous proprietors of the club, headed by Bill Archer, never really wanted to commit money they were putting into the club for anything other than the short term.

"When we took over in 1997, we did not agree with this but Mr Archer had the ability to block any commitment and we were unable to do anything about it.

"When we negotiated the departure of Mr Archer, it freed us up and all the directors have committed to the club share capital. The purpose is to show investors in the club that we are committed to the long-term."

However, Mr Pinnock stressed how important it was for Falmer to go ahead, which would allow crowds of 23,000 instead of the 6,000 at Withdean.

More than £1.3 million has been spent on the proposals in the past four years.

He said: "It is disappointing that we were unable to contain the increased costs of playing in the Second Division.

"We played to sell-out crowds in our championship year in the Third Division and the capacity limitations at Withdean did not permit us to take advantage of the increased demand.

"It is vital that we maintain the club's buoyancy while awaiting the much-needed move to our larger permanent home."

The total revenue earned by the club rose by 21 per cent in the year to June 2002 but staff costs increased by 27 per cent.

Despite capacity crowds and promotion, commercial income was down by nine per cent, which Mr Pinnock said was partly influenced by the renegotiation of the NTL Football League web site deal.

 

[perseus]

triptolemus

The appalling Management decision was made in the context of what was happening at the time:

Albion employed a big name (inexperienced) manager in Liam Brady and although the football was not terrific it was better than before, but, alas, the fans did not return or only at about 8 to 9 thousand. Why was this?

Part of the reason was the dreadful state of the Goldstone, but that was not the only reason.

The reason why it was a disaster was because the people running the club did NOT know anything about football and entertainment.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

triptolemus

The appalling Management decision was made in the context of what was happening at the time:

Albion employed a big name (inexperienced) manager in Liam Brady and although the football was not terrific it was better than before, but, alas, the fans did not return or only at about 8 to 9 thousand. Why was this?

Part of the reason was the dreadful state of the Goldstone, but that was not the only reason.

The reason why it was a disaster was because the people running the club did NOT know anything about football and entertainment.

Eh?

The decision was NOT made "in the context of what was happening at the time". It was made in the context of Archer wanting to make millions - all for an outlay of £56.25.

 

[perseus]

Aha. You may be right Lord Bracknell: the conspiracy theory.

I go for gross incompetence, not only in football but in planning matters. It don't matter and I am not about to split hairs. Who cares, its history now!

I can't see any new Manager being an ex-Arsenal player without any previous mangerial experience taking over the reigns for Kerry Mayo's ninth Manager? (unless I have forgotten one?)

 

[triptolemus]

Originally posted by Storer68
My recollection is that it was sold with Outline Planning permission for about £7.25m to Chartwell, who then activated the planning per and redeveloped the site.

And then sold it to Abbey Life a year later for £24.8m

I think this is correct. Chartwell availed themselves of the 1993 outline planning permission and bought the ground in July 1995. It was the leased back to the club for two seasons. The Albion finally lost the ground in May 1997. It was sold on in 1998 for the amount you say. The ground had fallen prey to a massive property speculation and the fans had been well and truly sold down the Medway.

None of this would have happened if the planning permission had never been activated in the first place. Yes, the club was in debt, but, given the non-profit clause in the club's Articles of Asssociation and the warnings even of the Tory-dominated Planning Committee itself, why didn't the 'Albion supporters' on Hove council pressing for permission anticipate a commercial sell-off? And why, at the very least, wasn't the relocation obligation (see Lord Bracknell's post), not insisted upon at the time ?

If the squandering of the deeds of the Goldstone was a strategic mistake, no one, thus far, has been held politically accountable for it. Understandably, wrath has been reserved for Stanley, Archer and Bellotti. But without the outline permission, they would have been unable to sell a corner-flag.

Some of the authors of the original 'mistake' still hold high office. Presumably, whether this was blunder or cabal, it could still prove extremely embarrassing if it were to be identified as an electoral issue. To prevent this, with Falmer, there is now an opportunity for those in power to redress the balance.

 

[perseus]

The mistake (gross incompetence or conspiracy) was not selling the Goldstone per se, but selling the Goldstone without having a feasible alternative.

The second mistake was not running a proper football club from 1993 to 1997 or thereabouts.

So the way I see it the problem was allowing power to people who could not run it properly. So the only thing to do was to replace the people in power with people who could. Hence the arrival of Dick Knight.

It was clear from the reaction to the pitch invasion at the York City match that there were 14,000 people in the Goldstone ground who agreed.

On a wider scale, asset stripping, the closing down any businesses or forced relocation, e.g. that was planned for Shoreham Harbour to build high density homes is a political and social issue. (Thats why the Structure Plan specifies that the harbour should be for port-related activities, to protect jobs and local trade and businesses that rely on a successful port, not apartments for Crystal Palace supporters.)

 

[Woodingdean Gull]

Triptolemus, you seem to ask a lot of questions yet give very little away. I notice you only registered 2 days ago, why all of the sudden interest? You’ve lived in the town for 30 years, when did you first start supporting the Albion? Did you ever go to the Goldstone? It worries me a little when someone who has just registered continually probes and digs. Just trotting out a few platitudes, (“I'm not involved in the stadium bid, which of course I support”), is not really convincing to me for your ‘investigation’. So, what is the real reason for all of this?

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Whatever his motives, all this info is available simply by reading the back issues of the Argus at the library, or ' Build a Bonfire '.

Oh, and by the way, Liam Brady DID have previous managerial experience, at Celtic.

And if the loss of the Goldstone was a result of ' incompetence ', how come Archer has subsequently been so successful in business that he was able to consider a multi million pound flotation of Focus Do-it-All.

Sorry, but we can all read between the lines, and Archer took charge to make money out of the Albion - we all thought he would do it the right way by running the club in a similar way to a successful business ( like his other companies ), but he never attended any games, board meetings were conducted at Focus HQ in Crewe, and the playing side of the club was run into the ground.

He knew what he was doing all along, in my opinion.

 

[perseus]

There are always the John Major-types around, that go into detail about some point but miss the main picture - "can't see the wood for the trees".

In 1993 there was still a recession on and to in 1995, so this meant:

1) the selling price of the Goldstone was the going rate for retail unit land and this was then about five times the value of housing land

2) interest rates were still high, and the developers actually developed the land before sellling it, so at a wild guess, they paid £15.5 million in costs, plus interest payments (£3 million?), so they did not make a fortune (just a tidy sum) as it seems, and Albion did not lose out as badly as all that

3) Albion lost out because of the failure to secure a new ground before the sale. This was the gross mismanagement, and the loss of income is probably at least a £1 million a season, possibly much more, and the loss of a generation of young supporters.

Addenda: And not having a proper ground is not popular amongst Football Managers.

 

[triptolemus]

Triptolemus, you seem to ask a lot of questions yet give very little away. I notice you only registered 2 days ago, why all of the sudden interest? You’ve lived in the town for 30 years, when did you first start supporting the Albion? Did you ever go to the Goldstone? It worries me a little when someone who has just registered continually probes and digs. Just trotting out a few platitudes, (“I'm not involved in the stadium bid, which of course I support”), is not really convincing to me for your ‘investigation’. So, what is the real reason for all of this?

This isn't about me, and I don't see why one has to present credentials to speak on NSC, but for the record I saw my first Albion match in 1967, and over the years watched Sully, Ward and Fozzie in their prime (my favourite players). After the sell-off, I was a regular at Gillingham and went to Fans United II, an idea which I've always supported. I've never been a member of any political party, and I don't represent any faction in these posts, but I am interested in the larger issue of the ownership of football clubs, which, obviously, I would like to see much more in the hands of the fans themselves. I don't agree that everything can be read in books and the Argus about what happened at the Goldstone. I think there is more to it. As a resident and tax-payer in the town I feel I was duped out of a stadium, and unless Falmer is built, my kids won't have the experience of watching football, like I did. The truth about the Goldstone puts pressure on the powerful to rectify their mistakes. That's my motivation.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

You were duped out of a Stadium.

But those in power at the time on Hove Council were duped along with the rest of us. Admitting this publically by publishing minutes of confidential meetings only serves to undermine their position at that time so it's very unlikely to take place. The Albion were a Private Ltd Company then, governed by Company Law, so the owners were entitled to run the Company as they see fit.

If those Councillors are still in office, or hoping to stand for future election, I doubt very much they would want confidential, private opinions, which may have exceeded their elected mandate or gone against their own Party policy, being aired publically.

Councils ( or indeed any quango or non-elected body ) have no say in the way a private Company is conducted, as long as that Company abides by the law of the land ( and as far as I know, it isn't illeagal to sell a football ground thereby leaving a Club homeless ). To express such an opinion at a Council meeting and seek to use an elected position to prevent a Companys' directors operating as they see fit would be an abuse of that elected position.

That's why Politicians, like Ivor Caplin, have to been seen to be treading very carefully when issues relating to planning policy are considered. As a fan, Caplin could be accused of having a vested interest in seeing Falmer being approved, or could be accused of not representing the interests of Falmer opponents. It is the same with Councillors and Council Officials.

And that is why Dick Knight is emphasising the benefits of Falmer as a Community Stadium, not because he is Chairman of BHAFC ( the benefits to the Club are obvious ) but because the issue is apolitical and has cross-party support.

 

[perseus]

PS: about 1993, Albion could not pay the wages, so the priorities were different. £350K was a lot of dosh in those days, especially for a naff goalkeeper.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

None of this would have happened if the planning permission had never been activated in the first place. Yes, the club was in debt, but, given the non-profit clause in the club's Articles of Asssociation and the warnings even of the Tory-dominated Planning Committee itself, why didn't the 'Albion supporters' on Hove council pressing for permission anticipate a commercial sell-off?

No-one "anticipated" what Archer would do (except, probably, Greg Stanley). It wasn't just the Labour Group on Hove Council who were pressing for the 1993 planning application to be approved. The Supporters' Club and BISA were campaigning vigorously for this. The Club's finances were in a desperate state and bankruptcy and extinction of league football in Sussex was just a court case away. (Remember - this was before today's options, like "administration", were available).

With hindsight, it's easy to claim that we were naive. Even Build a Bonfire owns up to that charge. That's why it's necessary for the FA to take action - through its rules - to protect football clubs and supporters from the abuse of power by the likes of Archer.

And why, at the very least, wasn't the relocation obligation (see Lord Bracknell's post), not insisted upon at the time ?

Planning law has a problem with planning permission being conditional upon action required by third parties. Chartwell were never in a position to relocate the Albion and, if that had been a condition imposed upon them, they would have been successful in any appeal against such a condition.

When the Club was making the planning applications, things were different and the promises to relocate before the Goldstone was redeveloped may have meant something. But they were no more than that - promises.

Over the last 10 years, planning policy has moved on - and it's probably a lot easier to achieve appropriate planning gains (like a new stadium) on the back of an agreement with a developer - but it's still an agreement that is needed, rather than a unilaterally imposed condition.

My view is that, in today's conditions, Hove Borough Council would find it easier to refuse the 1993 application and sustain that refusal at a Public Inquiry. In 1993, they were - correctly - advised that they would lose at an Inquiry. It all comes down to whether the existence of a football stadium in a community like Brighton is a "planning consideration". In 1993, it wasn't. These days, it is.

Some of the authors of the original 'mistake' still hold high office. Presumably, whether this was blunder or cabal, it could still prove extremely embarrassing if it were to be identified as an electoral issue. To prevent this, with Falmer, there is now an opportunity for those in power to redress the balance.

If you're talking about Ivor Caplin, I think you'll find that he is still being incredibly supportive of the Club - up to the limits of what he can do as a member of the government that will ultimately take the decision on Falmer.