In laymens terms

[The Large One]

I think we're all frustrated TLO, but what worries me is that you might be wrong. What if it isn't down to patience and resolve? What if the board gets pissed off, or runs out of money for appeals and planning applications? Because in the end, we all know that's what our opponents are hoping for...

It's perfectly simple. We are winning the fight. We really are.

Why would the board pull out, having spent over £5m, having been given permission by the government - THE GOVERNMENT - found that there is nowhere else to build it, and are so close to actually starting to build it? That would be a waste of nine years hard graft - all down the toilet, and all on the back of a temper tantrum? I don't think so. You underestimate Martin Perry's tenacity.

There is a concern that Lewes' tactics are to smoke us out, knowing they can't beat us throught the courts, but I don't believe that will be allowed to happen.

 

[Curious Orange]

There is a concern that Lewes' tactics are to smoke us out, knowing they can't beat us throught the courts, but I don't believe that will be allowed to happen.

That is one of the reasons I keep renewing my season ticket. The club needs my money, and I need the club to be there in the long term.

 

[Rougvie]

You underestimate Martin Perry's tenacity.

Not wanting to critisise Mr Perry, but has he noticed recently that unless the standard on the PITCH (i.e. our only source of revenue) does not improve, then the finance for the project gets harder and harder to secure fron fickle investors and institutions who are very wary about getting their fingers burnt with football clubs in debt.

 

[Rich Suvner]

am i right in saying that LDC has no right to intervene in the planning process unless there is a park and ride site within their jurisdiction?

would it not be simpler to find a new site, to the west, where this can be situated and drop the buggers from the whole bloody process?

 

[The Large One]

am i right in saying that LDC has no right to intervene in the planning process unless there is a park and ride site within their jurisdiction?

would it not be simpler to find a new site, to the west, where this can be situated and drop the buggers from the whole bloody process?

No and no.

 

[The Large One]

Not wanting to critisise Mr Perry, but has he noticed recently that unless the standard on the PITCH (i.e. our only source of revenue) does not improve, then the finance for the project gets harder and harder to secure fron fickle investors and institutions who are very wary about getting their fingers burnt with football clubs in debt.

You're looking at the short term. You're also looking at two different projects - the club and the stadium.

Financing the project is from ring-fenced money that the club probably won't get to see, aside from what the stadium holding company will need to re-imburse the club for money already spent. Financing the club is something else. Thankfully, major financial investors - especially those looing to fund the stadium (as opposed to the club) - look at the long-term bigger picture.

 

[110%]

This could already have been under way, but apparently, reconsidering all the available evidence, plus new evidence, and making an entirely new decision isn't good enough for LDC, who would rather have the High Court force Ruth Kelly to do it, than for her to do it voluntarily - which would have avoided the waste of time and money needed in going there in the first place.

As much as I don't want to defend LDC, it's only the Courts which can quash Prescott's original decision. Until that process has been gone through, Ruth Kelly can't officially do anything on getting on with a new decision.

 

[Curious Orange]

As much as I don't want to defend LDC, it's only the Courts which can quash Prescott's original decision. Until that process has been gone through, Ruth Kelly can't officially do anything on getting on with a new decision.

Yes, but LDC deliberately chose to turn down the offer to have the High Court quash the decision several months ago.

So the two situations are as follows:

1. (the one that didn't happen) The High Court quashes the decision without it being contested in court. Ruth Kelly's department re-considers all the evidence plus any new evidence provided by the main interested parties, and then makes a new decision based upon this.

2. (the one that will happen) The decision is contested in the High Court, and is subsequently quashed. Ruth Kelly's department re-considers all the evidence plus any new evidence provided by the main interested parties, and then makes a new decision based upon this.

The difference between the two? Several months and god-knows how much in legal fees. The outcome remains the same. So don't defend LDC, they know the High Court case is unnecessary and was avoidable.

 

[dougdeep]

As much as I don't want to defend LDC, it's only the Courts which can quash Prescott's original decision. Until that process has been gone through, Ruth Kelly can't officially do anything on getting on with a new decision.

Not true, the court case could have been avoided if LDC had not decided to drag this on, in the hope we will go bust.

 

[BensGrandad]

Is this the final hurdle or can LDC dispute any future decisions made by Ruth Kelly.

Very simplistic but Ben being only 13 asked me "Grandad why can't they not have a coach park at Falmer and make the coaches drop off supporters then go away and come back to pick them up at the end of the game using the ground like a bus station." I didnt know the answer exactly.

It seemed too simple.

 

[dougdeep]

Village Way is also in the Lewes area, and this can't easily be altered. You need another exit for safety reasons.

 

[BensGrandad]

Village Way is also in the Lewes area, and this can't easily be altered. You need another exit for safety reasons.

Thank you I knew there had to be a reason but was not sure of it exactly.

 

[110%]

Yes, but LDC deliberately chose to turn down the offer to have the High Court quash the decision several months ago.

So the two situations are as follows:

1. (the one that didn't happen) The High Court quashes the decision without it being contested in court. Ruth Kelly's department re-considers all the evidence plus any new evidence provided by the main interested parties, and then makes a new decision based upon this.

2. (the one that will happen) The decision is contested in the High Court, and is subsequently quashed. Ruth Kelly's department re-considers all the evidence plus any new evidence provided by the main interested parties, and then makes a new decision based upon this.

The difference between the two? Several months and god-knows how much in legal fees. The outcome remains the same. So don't defend LDC, they know the High Court case is unnecessary and was avoidable.

My point was that the High Court has to be involved its not simply a question of Ruth Kelly tearing up Prescott's original decision and issuing a new one, so there was always going to be a delay. Certainly the length of the delay is down to LDC wishing to contest the 15 other points it has raised in objection to Prescott's decision and the court allocating sufficient time for such a hearing.

However, lets face it there was always going to be a delay after Prescott's decision whichever way it went. I can't honestly believe that if the decision had been a 'No', the club would have just walked away and said' 'Thanks for your time John, we'll just have to try harder next time.' The club would have done exactly what LDC are now doing and sought to challenge the decision.

I'm not talking about the merits of the arguements pro or anti Falmer, I just think that given the differences between the two sides a High Court challenge was always going to happen and there was always going to be the inevitable delay.

 

[The Large One]

My point was that the High Court has to be involved its not simply a question of Ruth Kelly tearing up Prescott's original decision and issuing a new one, so there was always going to be a delay. Certainly the length of the delay is down to LDC wishing to contest the 15 other points it has raised in objection to Prescott's decision and the court allocating sufficient time for such a hearing.

However, lets face it there was always going to be a delay after Prescott's decision whichever way it went. I can't honestly believe that if the decision had been a 'No', the club would have just walked away and said' 'Thanks for your time John, we'll just have to try harder next time.' The club would have done exactly what LDC are now doing and sought to challenge the decision.

I'm not talking about the merits of the arguements pro or anti Falmer, I just think that given the differences between the two sides a High Court challenge was always going to happen and there was always going to be the inevitable delay.

True, but it's the difference in the length of the delay thanks to LDC's obstinacy which is the issue - five months vs 14 months.

 

[Brovion]

True, but it's the difference in the length of the delay thanks to LDC's obstinacy which is the issue - five months vs 14 months.

Agreed, but you've used the wrong word. It's not their obstinacy it's their tactics. Drag it out using every trick in the book. They don't really expect, finally, to win the legal battle (although it IS an outside chance) but that's not the reason for it. Their main hope is they think we'll go bust before then.

 

[Curious Orange]

My point was that the High Court has to be involved its not simply a question of Ruth Kelly tearing up Prescott's original decision and issuing a new one, so there was always going to be a delay. Certainly the length of the delay is down to LDC wishing to contest the 15 other points it has raised in objection to Prescott's decision and the court allocating sufficient time for such a hearing.

Would you like me to go back and clarify the "voluntarily" bit in my original post then? Put in that they volunteered to have the High Court quash the decision, and that the Government, Brighton & Hove City Council, and Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. all signed the consent, but Lewes District Council didn't? Because it'll make the post far less concise.

 

[Curious Orange]

Agreed, but you've used the wrong word. It's not their obstinacy it's their tactics. Drag it out using every trick in the book. They don't really expect, finally, to win the legal battle (although it IS an outside chance) but that's not the reason for it. Their main hope is they think we'll go bust before then.

I think the word you are looking for is maybe "vindictive".