Dear Mr Baker
It was extremely useful to hear your views on Falmer during the Southern Counties phone-in yesterday evening. It was also interesting to hear you debating a further issue which you have raised recently, namely the report commissioned by Brighton & Hove Albion into the viability of a hotel at Falmer, and two other sites. Unfortunately the nature of phone-in programmes is that some of the detail gets lost in the interests of the general listener. Given the importance of the matters raised, however, I think it is absolutely vital that time is spent clarifying these issues.
You characterised the Hotel report as an endorsement of Sheepcote Valley as the best stadium site. You also claimed that this report was kept secret from the fans, and that the debate which has ensued is because the CLUB has raised the Sheepcote Valley alternative. These points are linked, but I’ll attempt to address them individually:
On the first point, the plain fact (as you well know) is that the club was under an obligation to demonstrate to the Public Inquiry that Falmer was the most viable site. This was one of the terms of reference under which the Public Inquiry was convened. In order to demonstrate the relative financial viability of Falmer it was necessary to look at the potential for other development, both at Falmer and at other sites which the Inquiry was examining. The consultants appointed by the club highlighted that Sheepcote would provide a more profitable location for a hotel, but only if the transport and access issues could be overcome. Unfortunately, this is not a minor caveat – for example, I am sure that if the club had asked the consultants to include the Brighton Station site in their report, they would have concluded that Brighton Station was by far the best site for a hotel, if only all the new development there could be demolished.
Taking the second point, you claim that the club has brought Sheepcote back into the debate. This is clearly not the case. The Sheepcote issue has only re-appeared because you recently decided to publish a report (which is two years old) which was commissioned by the club as part of a process required under the terms of the Public Inquiry. Had this work not been undertaken, opponents of Falmer would surely (and rightly) have highlighted that the club had not looked at all the potential revenue streams from the sites under consideration. As it happens, the club decided not to include hotel accommodation in its development plans. As to the supposed secrecy of the report, the club has no doubt undertaken a massive amount of research in its attempts to gain planning permission for the Community Stadium. It has spent in the region of £3m so far. I’m sure that you will agree that it is completely unrealistic to expect every piece of research to be placed in the public domain
Despite their apparent simplicity, these points are sometimes difficult to get across in a few minutes on live radio. To the extent that they need to be explained, the printed word is far better. With that in mind, there is an excellent opportunity for the public to understand the true picture in relation to the report. The home page of your website provides the headline “Shock for fans as leaked documents reveal Brighton & Hove Albion secrets”. The accompanying text builds a picture which is completely at odds with the reality of the situation, primarily because parts of the consultants’ report have been quoted completely out of context.
In the interests of clarity and fairness, could I therefore suggest a number of changes to the piece?
1. That reference is made to the comments within the consultants’ report which clearly identify Falmer as the only possible site (“If the access issues at Sheepcote would prevent the development at this location, then Falmer is undoubtedly the only other site which can be considered.” [And it is also worth pointing out that the access issues at Sheepcote are so fundamental that Sheepcote was rejected as a stadium site by BOTH Public Inquiries])
2. That the context of the consultants’ report be fully explained – namely, that it was part of the club’s obligations under the terms of reference of the second Public Inquiry.
3. That the statement the club has been “secretly looking at other sites” be removed, as this is clearly wrong – when you understand the context within which the report was produced.
4. That the context of quotes from Martin Perry’s emails is properly explained. Whilst I obviously have no access to the full text of the emails, it is clear for example that the need to understand the residual land values of a hotel site is an important consideration in understanding the relative viability of the sites. Again, if the context of the report were explained, this would be obvious, and the inference that something underhand is going on would disappear.
5. The comment that the leaked material is “dynamite” should obviously be removed – the material itself is a report by a firm of hotel consultants, and merely states that Sheepcote would be a better location if the surface access issues could be overcome (which, to repeat the essence of my point above, is rather like saying I’d be a great basketball player if only I was a foot taller).
6. The fact that the club is not even proposing to build a hotel anyway should also obviously be highlighted.
I guess the trouble is, once all the above corrections have been made, there is really no need for the headline on your web site. Or, if one is required, perhaps I could suggest “Brighton & Hove Albion shown to have examined all relevant issues in Falmer bid”?
Mr Baker, you stated several times on the radio yesterday that you want to see the club prosper. It’s difficult for supporters like me to take this at face value when you seemingly put so much effort into attempting to undermine the credibility of the club in the manner I’ve set out above. And in addition, it surely does you no credit as a politician to be seen to be misleading the general public on this matter?
Given your agreement to appear on Southern Counties Radio for a public debate on the Falmer issue, I hope you won’t mind me writing this to you in the form of an open letter. And I truly hope you are able to take up Martin Perry’s invitation on the radio yesterday to sit down with the club to better understand the numerous genuine advantages that the Community Stadium will bring to Brighton, Lewes, and indeed the whole of Sussex.
Yours....
It was extremely useful to hear your views on Falmer during the Southern Counties phone-in yesterday evening. It was also interesting to hear you debating a further issue which you have raised recently, namely the report commissioned by Brighton & Hove Albion into the viability of a hotel at Falmer, and two other sites. Unfortunately the nature of phone-in programmes is that some of the detail gets lost in the interests of the general listener. Given the importance of the matters raised, however, I think it is absolutely vital that time is spent clarifying these issues.
You characterised the Hotel report as an endorsement of Sheepcote Valley as the best stadium site. You also claimed that this report was kept secret from the fans, and that the debate which has ensued is because the CLUB has raised the Sheepcote Valley alternative. These points are linked, but I’ll attempt to address them individually:
On the first point, the plain fact (as you well know) is that the club was under an obligation to demonstrate to the Public Inquiry that Falmer was the most viable site. This was one of the terms of reference under which the Public Inquiry was convened. In order to demonstrate the relative financial viability of Falmer it was necessary to look at the potential for other development, both at Falmer and at other sites which the Inquiry was examining. The consultants appointed by the club highlighted that Sheepcote would provide a more profitable location for a hotel, but only if the transport and access issues could be overcome. Unfortunately, this is not a minor caveat – for example, I am sure that if the club had asked the consultants to include the Brighton Station site in their report, they would have concluded that Brighton Station was by far the best site for a hotel, if only all the new development there could be demolished.
Taking the second point, you claim that the club has brought Sheepcote back into the debate. This is clearly not the case. The Sheepcote issue has only re-appeared because you recently decided to publish a report (which is two years old) which was commissioned by the club as part of a process required under the terms of the Public Inquiry. Had this work not been undertaken, opponents of Falmer would surely (and rightly) have highlighted that the club had not looked at all the potential revenue streams from the sites under consideration. As it happens, the club decided not to include hotel accommodation in its development plans. As to the supposed secrecy of the report, the club has no doubt undertaken a massive amount of research in its attempts to gain planning permission for the Community Stadium. It has spent in the region of £3m so far. I’m sure that you will agree that it is completely unrealistic to expect every piece of research to be placed in the public domain
Despite their apparent simplicity, these points are sometimes difficult to get across in a few minutes on live radio. To the extent that they need to be explained, the printed word is far better. With that in mind, there is an excellent opportunity for the public to understand the true picture in relation to the report. The home page of your website provides the headline “Shock for fans as leaked documents reveal Brighton & Hove Albion secrets”. The accompanying text builds a picture which is completely at odds with the reality of the situation, primarily because parts of the consultants’ report have been quoted completely out of context.
In the interests of clarity and fairness, could I therefore suggest a number of changes to the piece?
1. That reference is made to the comments within the consultants’ report which clearly identify Falmer as the only possible site (“If the access issues at Sheepcote would prevent the development at this location, then Falmer is undoubtedly the only other site which can be considered.” [And it is also worth pointing out that the access issues at Sheepcote are so fundamental that Sheepcote was rejected as a stadium site by BOTH Public Inquiries])
2. That the context of the consultants’ report be fully explained – namely, that it was part of the club’s obligations under the terms of reference of the second Public Inquiry.
3. That the statement the club has been “secretly looking at other sites” be removed, as this is clearly wrong – when you understand the context within which the report was produced.
4. That the context of quotes from Martin Perry’s emails is properly explained. Whilst I obviously have no access to the full text of the emails, it is clear for example that the need to understand the residual land values of a hotel site is an important consideration in understanding the relative viability of the sites. Again, if the context of the report were explained, this would be obvious, and the inference that something underhand is going on would disappear.
5. The comment that the leaked material is “dynamite” should obviously be removed – the material itself is a report by a firm of hotel consultants, and merely states that Sheepcote would be a better location if the surface access issues could be overcome (which, to repeat the essence of my point above, is rather like saying I’d be a great basketball player if only I was a foot taller).
6. The fact that the club is not even proposing to build a hotel anyway should also obviously be highlighted.
I guess the trouble is, once all the above corrections have been made, there is really no need for the headline on your web site. Or, if one is required, perhaps I could suggest “Brighton & Hove Albion shown to have examined all relevant issues in Falmer bid”?
Mr Baker, you stated several times on the radio yesterday that you want to see the club prosper. It’s difficult for supporters like me to take this at face value when you seemingly put so much effort into attempting to undermine the credibility of the club in the manner I’ve set out above. And in addition, it surely does you no credit as a politician to be seen to be misleading the general public on this matter?
Given your agreement to appear on Southern Counties Radio for a public debate on the Falmer issue, I hope you won’t mind me writing this to you in the form of an open letter. And I truly hope you are able to take up Martin Perry’s invitation on the radio yesterday to sit down with the club to better understand the numerous genuine advantages that the Community Stadium will bring to Brighton, Lewes, and indeed the whole of Sussex.
Yours....
