Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Falmer stadium desicion

1
 
On 18 Jun 2007 at 3:52pm Andy wrote:
With the impending Falmer descision looming, how many LDC residents would be happy if LDC appealed again if the desicion was yes....and spent more tax payers money. What would you be prepared to do if they did continue to appeal ?
All hypothetical i know but worth thinking about
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 10:47am The Super K wrote:
Surely there is a limit to how often they can appeal? otherwise nothing would ever get built?
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 12:08pm ExiledfromLewes wrote:
To date they have only appealed once and that was when John Prescott ended up quashing his own decision. To an extent of my knowledge there is a limit to how far the objectors can go. In the result of a Yes decision the LDC, Falmer Parish Council and the countryside organisations can go seek a judicial review (which was the original attention in 2005).
If they do this then I guess it will probably be heard at the end of the year. The Ruth Kelly decision next month was suppose to deal with the objections of the council and Falmer PC. The biggest sticking point seems to remain the testing of alternative sites, which changed between the first and second Inquiry and that would probably be their best chance of quashing the vedict if they went to court.
There is another issue that to quash a decision all that you need to do is prove that the decision was made incorrectly. It was reported before the election that the Government when it recieved the submmisions from both sides didn't duplicate them properley and sent Brighton Council the objectors submissions to allow them to be scrutinised. But didn't offer the Council Brightons decision till a month later. This is a serious mistake as it's a fairly straight forward process the parties hand in the submissions, the government reads them, they give them to both parties to be scrutinised.
The issue is I read the LDC's submission on an independent football website, before the LDC got to read Brighton Councils. Even if you think that it had no material effect on the decision it was a stupid mistake to make especially when the government had to quash their original decison. Speaking to a friend who is a lawyer he agreed that it is a mistake that the courts would frown upon and could lead to them quashing the decison.
I'm not actually sure why it went quiet on this because David Neighbour before being unelected was making strong sounds on this. It could be that it has been sorted out behind the scenes or that it has been reported the Sussex Express, which I havn't read.
I actually doubt the Council will appeal, although Falmer PC might do so. Out of interest after the judicial review they could appeal to the house of Lords or the European court of human rights, however for reasons to long to mention such a move would be V expensive and have no chance of success. So it seems that what ever the decison thankfully it will probably coming to an end soon.
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 1:08pm I hate footballers wrote:
It will be a travesty if the stadium is given the go ahead. Its The Seagulls fault that they lost the Goldstein ground...the residents of Falmer should not have to suffer just because a football club couldn't manage their finances.
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 3:06pm Mark Rolfe wrote:
What a load of rubbish.
The Goldstone ground was sold by a previous and unsavoury chairman.
The new board have done everything in a correct and above board manner to get a new stadium which will also be available to the local community.
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 3:11pm The Super K wrote:
It would be a travesty if the minority blocked a stadium the majority wanted and wasted thousands in tax payers money.
Here's an idea, all those who don't want the stadium can pay the rise in council tax it's going to cost opposing it. Leaving the rest of some spare change in our pockets at the end of the month..............We could buy Seagull season tickets with it!
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 3:13pm The Super K wrote:

It would be a travesty if the minority blocked a stadium the majority wanted and wasted thousands in tax payers money.
Here's an idea, all those who don't want the stadium can pay the rise in council tax it's going to cost opposing it. Leaving the rest of some spare change in our pockets at the end of the month..............We could buy Seagull season tickets with it!
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 3:46pm Not a football fan wrote:
The majority of who exactly...middle aged, beer swilling, pie eating, couch potatoes who don't know the meaning of sportsmanship. Build a cricket group instead..a game that shows the true spirit of sportsmanship and is good natured.
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 3:57pm Maddy wrote:
... on this messageboard?
I've supported Brighton since my folks moved there when I was a tot - I even went out with a player for a bit - but I can't support the stadium until I know that the other sites were properly considered and the govt aren't just steamrollering a decision made by that idiot-with-no-office.
The travesty was that Brighton were screwed over and someone made lots of money from it, but plenty of people are making plenty of money from football the world over - it doesn't mean that residents should pay for a new stadium on an area of natural beauty that isn't very well served by the local transport infrastructure.
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 4:00pm ExiledfromLewes wrote:
I will be glad when this is all over and done with one and for all, I don't know what will happen and I don't think it is useful to presuppose something that hasn't been finalised yet.
The selling of the Goldstone ground was a travesty and it is understandable why Albion fans are still bitter and angry and my memory of attending football matches at the time was that it wasn't helped by Bill Archer being completley intransigent to the Albions plight, so I have little time for him.
However whilst at the time I was angry only with Archer and Bellotti, my later reading of the situation has led me to see that the situation was far more complicated. Brighton went into administration after failing to be in a high enough division to pay their expenses . One question I have is would albion fans forfeit their FA cup final appearance in 83 and give up on having star players like Lawrenson, Foster and Stevens if it meant that you could of been in a finacially better state later in the early '90's.
My last question is why is all the vitriol directed towards Archer and Bellotti alone. It seems that Greg Stanley and the Bloom family to some extent were let of the hook for also agreeing to sell the Goldstone. What makes the situation more pertinant is that Hove Council could of blocked the sale of the Goldstone ground if they wanted to and initially they did. However they were convinced by Stanley to sell the ground so the profits could be used for the new stadium at Toads valley. It was a monumental mistake of Hove council to agree with this, also they would of been within their right to put forward an agreement that the stadium can only be redeveloped once planning permission was agreed on a new site.
Sadly that never happened and what was worse was Bill Archers submission to a new site only only consisted of two bits of A4 and a map of the area, so no new site was forthcoming. That was my biggest criticism of Archer, but I don't understand why Albions fans have ommited Hove Council, Stanley etc from criticism. My fealing is that football clubs rarely go out of business in England, Aldershot and Maidstone United fell out of the league but they were small clubs. Whilst Albion fans my dislike me for saying this is that retrospectively if they new what was going to happen with the sale of the ground they could of stopped it by lobbying Hove Council. Also speaking to Albion fans a lot of them never really expected the board to sell the ground.
If I could get my way I would happily like to demolish Toy's R us (or whatever is there now) myself, all I need is a crane and a wrecking ball and perhaps a couple of days if you can afford me that. However that site is gone and so is the Goldstone, the Question is 'is falmer the only site in Brighton' and is the stadium in the national interest my honest opinion is no on the legal evidence provided in both enquiries, however I understand it is an emotive issue and the majority of people in Seaford, Lewes, Newhaven at best no longer care about a stadium off Falmer and just want the whole thing over with.

 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 4:57pm Its Not Rocket Science wrote:
I am not an expert on this question, but I have seen the proposed site and would not call it an area of natural beauty. Also I am told that the site is up for development whatever, whether it be a football ground or not. Surely it is better to have a football ground that is only used every other week during the football season (less than that as soon as BHA are knocked out of the FA CUP), than a superstore or Ikea or the like which would be busy every day (and night) of the year ? Its a little academic anyway really as surely the damage was done to Falmer when the university was built. Come to think of it I haven't heard any public outcry like this about all that new building that has been going on there lately.
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 5:18pm ExiledfromLewes wrote:
The site isn't up for development whatever, if it is refused then it makes any future application for the site worthless as it has already been proved that it goes against the planning laws.
Secondly the development won't be used just twice a week for football matches, as in the plan they hope to use it for concerts and other events to ensure a steady cash flow, if they don't manage to do this then they will struggle to pay back the bank loan in which they are intending to build the stadium with. If they fail to pay back the bank loan then as they don't own the stadium, it's held in a trust by Brighton Council then it's the Brighton tax payer who will fork the bill. As the village with have to be cordoned off each time the stadium is in use then they will be materially affected.
Lastly this stadium is being built on the basis that it will provide jobs for East Brighton. Most of the jobs will be in the construction of the stadium in which will be available to tender for companies around the country.
In their submission the amount of non skill jobs available for residents of East Brighton ends up as 45 and even then due to employemnt laws they can't actually guarentee those jobs to them, so a supermarket would provide more jobs however such an application would also contravene planning laws.
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 7:36pm Zigjim wrote:
We need the stadium. Our children need the stadium. Recently the Albion were recognised as the English club that does the most for its local community. That good work can't continue when the Albion dies because of the efforts of a moronic district council with a vendetta against sport.
The proposed site is wedged between a noist dual carriageway, a railway line and a university. And don't listen to the gobby few in Falmer village that rant against the stadium. There a plenty of people in the village who are in favour, I've spoken to them, but they are intimidated by the ludicrous but loud arguments of their close neighbours. Let's just get it built.
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 8:09pm ExiledfromLewes wrote:
No one has answered the two questions that I posed above so I might leave it be and we will see what will happen in a months time.
Zigjim if you read the second Inquiry you will be glad to read that even John Prescott agrees that the Albions future is not linked to moving into a new stadium, I can actually give you a direct quote from the report I've now flashed up on the Net.
'For the reasons given in paragraph IRa.18.46, the secretery of state agrees with the inspector that there is little in the way of tangible evidence to support the view that BHFC's very existance depends on the development of a new stadium at Falmer.'
The second point about the community work the club does, whilst such schemes are all very good they are duplications of already existing schemes that there are in Brighton now. My partner is involved with the every child matters government scheme used to help kids in the city. If you ask any professional there are better ways for the Government to help deprivation in East Brighton than giving BHFC 10 Million pounds for the construction of a football stadium. What you need to do is tackle teenage pregnancy, high level of Illiteracy, lack of qualifications, drug dependency it is not the remit of the football club to tackle these areas nor can they be expected too.
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 9:23pm The Super K wrote:
Nice work Andy light the touch paper..................and stand well back
What a load of bull you all spout,
The area WILL still be up for development "ExiledfromLewes" cause the other venues being looked at are all for a football stadium and not supermarkets and the such, and of all the site being looked at Falmer is by far the best.
As for the stadium being used for other purpose's whats the harm in that, There's bugger all to do in Lewes and any event they put on there would be a welcome distration only one stop down the train line.
And your comments on the Brighton team and community work are a disgrace. All the charity work they do and provide can only do good in the community. Besides if I had the choice of meeting a footballer or some stiff in a suit I'd choose the footballer everytime.
Children like seeing local known celebs (if playing for Brighton qualifies for that status!)
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 9:37pm Seagull through and through wrote:
Talking of ex players, I saw Teddy Maybank on Weakest link last week. And he won it.
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 10:03pm Andy wrote:
What i can't understand is why Lewes residents are so "up in arms" over this stadium when it's 4 miles from the nearest LDC dwelling.
And well said super K...and i'm a Hammers fan !!!
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 10:30pm Mark Rolfe wrote:
easy for ExiledfromLewes to sit at her computer in New Zealand and rant on.
It's the locals this concerns.
 
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 10:45pm Seagull through and through wrote:
Oh so you enjoy a bit of corruption then
1
 
On 19 Jun 2007 at 11:19pm ExiledfromLewes wrote:
I don't see how my comments are a disgrace I acknowledge that BHFC do community activities and that should be encouraged. The question is does the work they do and will the small number of jobs they will provide tackle social deprivation in East Brighton for the reasons I highlighted above they will not. I can think of many better ways for the government to tackle this very important issue.
As for the multi usage of the stadium and potential further development, this was in relation to the economical viability of the stadium. The stadium will need to make money and the business model for this has to be carefully scrutinised. Brighton Council for instance propose pop concerts for the new stadium, however what are they going to do about the Brighton centre or the millions they have recently spent refurbishing the Brighton Dome will they now become redundent.
The area WILL NOT be up for development if the application fails. As for being the best site no it's not either, there are other sites available it's only that idiot John Prescott who messed up the second inquiry that this mess has continued much more than it should have done.
Finally the reason he ruled against Sheepcote was due to public transport, I disagree with his findings. However if I did it is important to note that the Brighton Argus Website reported that the Government will spend half a billion pounds to regenerate the Brighton marina near that site (part of the regeneration will include public transport). Now if this Government can spend 500 million pounds on the area, but then turn around and say the public transport is neglible than this Government is not fit for purpose.
I didn't start this thread so if you want to call a truce than i will oblige, however if you don't than i will happily respond to your future posts .
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 8:13am Nature lover wrote:
The reason why people are against this stadium is that yet again another green field area will disappear never to be seen again...given the choice I'd rather my children had green fields and countryside to play in, enjoy wild life etc and NOT a football stadium with all the noise, pollution and no doubt anti-social behaviour it will bring to a quiet village.
I live in Lewes. To all those who want the stadium...would you honestly want it next door to you?????
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 8:39am seagull through and through. wrote:
So nature lover, how many times have you taken your kids to play in the field next to the univercity and bypass? I bet they can't wait to go there and play with the err err traffic?
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 8:45am Nature lover wrote:
It's the bigger picture you need to look at, not your individual need to watch football.
PS. We have been to Falmer village and the surrounding Downs several times.
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 10:11am George Doors wrote:
Andy have a look at the map of LDC's juristriction. LDC are responsible for a district not just Lewes. LDC are just upholding the law and looking after the intersets of Falmer residents NOT being anti football.
Separate the emotion and biased Argus reporting from the facts.
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 10:22am Nature lover wrote:
Couldn't agree more....
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 3:20pm Mark Rolfe wrote:
piffle
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 3:37pm George Doors wrote:
MR - explain, with fact.
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 4:24pm I N R S wrote:
You could hardly call the proposed site either 'Falmer Village' or 'surrounding downs' and your kids would be really chuffed if you took them there to play I am sure !. As Seagull through and through points out, its a lovely piece of land nestled picturesquely between concrete and tarmac. Just right for a noisy stroll breathing in the traffic fumes from the A27. I am however sure there are some football fans who are blinkered by emotions, but I am equally sure meanwhile there are as many, if not more, people who are anti the stadium because A - They just dont like football, or B - they think that all developments must be bad and therefore must be opposed. I bet a lot of these do not even know where the proposed site actually is. As I said in an earlier post, there has been a hell of a lot of building work going on at the University for months, and that is in Falmer, so where are all of the anti-stadium voices when it comes to this kind of development ? Surely if one development is bad, then all are ??
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 5:11pm George Doors wrote:
I N R S I take your points, however it may be worth understanding LDC's responsibilities as a District Council. This is something that is always overlooked. LDC is upholding principles that if ignored could easily effect areas of greater importance. Those who think that this is costing us a taxpayer loads need to find out the facts rather than believe everything from the Seaguls. I look forward to a just decsion so that we can all move forward.
I would like to know your opinions about proposed developments in Lewes from the pro-stadium camp??
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 5:17pm Andy wrote:
As INRS points out above.....where was your protest nature lover when the Uni built the new accomodation in front of Falmer railway station.
That is quite a big area and i'm sure your family went for many a pic-nic on that piece of land too.
And if you think there will be anti social behaviour with the Brighton supporters, think again. Also, all away supporters will come out of the stadium and straight on to waiting coaches and trains.
There will be probably 15 minutes of slight delays.
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 9:14pm The Super K wrote:
Yes I'll call it quits with you exiledfromlewes 2 jags it a twit, sorry typo "a instead of i!".
However the ground is not better sited than at Falmer, sorry I have to disagree, Having also looked at all the other sites Falmer is by far the best option, rail links and right on the main road.
Besides am I right in thinking that the only part of the stadium on LDC land is the car park?
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 9:36pm Mark Rolfe wrote:
quite right the only part of the stadium is the car park and as posted by many people given all the development in the area already Lewes Dc is wasting my money that I pay in council tax.
Before it goes any futher the public need to be consulted on where their money is being wasted.
 
 
On 20 Jun 2007 at 9:39pm ExiledfromLewes wrote:
Thanks and agree with you comments about JP, the fact that your ex Wallands means that I got nowt against you personally nor with the BHFC wider fan base.
I suppose we have to agree to disagree, I think we are going through the final flings of this debacle and this thread is largely pointless. I doubt RK has got civil servants monitoring local websites just in case she might do a U Turn in the result any new evidence or view (and I do expect a yes).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On your last point yes the majority of the land over the B & H side and I think it's the coach part that is designated on the LDC side. I can give a non bias account of how this affected the planning application. Before the first enquiry JP decided that the land on the Brighton and Lewes sides should be weighed 50/50 even though the majority of the land was on Brightons side. He also stated that equal weight should be attached to both LDC (which rules against development) and Brightons (which rules for) local plan. While this might seem unfair on Brighton it was actually one of the more logical decisions JP made. This is due to that the application was in four parts 3 on Brightons side and 1 (the coach park) on Lewes side.
If each application was ruled on their own individual merits than the application in Lewes side would fail as LDC would refuse the application and therefore make any development for the stadium impossible. Therefore JP ruled that the land should be weighed 50/50 and if the development is passed on one area then it passes all four meaning LDC can't just refuse the land on their own side.
I think that's clear
 
 
On 21 Jun 2007 at 8:17am Anon wrote:
How about Brighton staying at the Withdean....let's face it they are never going to be a top class side. (THEY ARE 2ND RATE)....so what's the point of spending millions
 
1
On 21 Jun 2007 at 9:24am The Super K wrote:
Right Anon, clubs all run along one line of sucsess that never changes, look at Leeds..........Champions 10 years + ago now in the coca cola championship.
Or Wimbledon????? A non-league club that were victims of their own sucsess, raised up through the leagues too quickly with no real surporter base or stadium. Couldn't keep up with the premier league and now moved to Milton K to try and revive some surport.
If Brighton build now then in 20 years they could be in the premier league with the right back room in place. If they don't build now 20 years could see them at a falling down stadium in Withdean playing against Lewes or Ringmer!!!!!!!
 
 
On 21 Jun 2007 at 9:39am Anon wrote:
Using your logic.....lets build a massive stadium in Lewes and have Lewes in the premiership in the next few years
 
 
On 21 Jun 2007 at 3:38pm The Super K wrote:
Thats not what my post said is it Anon? (you must work as a reporter to be able to twist that!)
It mearly stated that just cause Brighton are struggling at the moment, the simple fact is that they are stuck in a ground they could fill 4 times over each home game.
That would increase their ticket sale by 4 (thats just for you anon).
More revenue in to the club along with better facilities and good back room staff would build the club up, ..........
Better Players would be interested in the club..........
The good young players they bring through would be more tempted to stay at a strong established club...........
Brighton would start being more sucsessful, A new generation of surporters would watch the games .....More revenue!
If they stay at the Withdean they are a club going nowhere, struggling to keep the players they have. (Good players and managers have already quit Brighton because of this)
Lewes on the other hand can't fill the dripping pan at the moment what good would building a hugh stadium do for them and the 100 people and 2 dogs that watch them each week?
Its all Supply and Demand ! there a little economics lesson as well!
!d!ot
 
 
On 21 Jun 2007 at 11:14pm Mark Rolfe wrote:
well said The Super K
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 4:54am Andy wrote:
Sorry super K....i have to disagree with your comments about filling Withdean 4 times over.
There's currently a 9,000 capacity at WD but Brighton fail to get more than 6,500 for most home games.
Falmer will be a novelty for the first few seasons but attendances will eventually fall to around 10,000 per game depending on opponents
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 7:58am dyl wrote:
Absolute nonsense Andy. The only reason that Withdean does not fill every week is because you cannot buy a ticket at the gate. Therefore the fans who decide on impulse saturday afternoon they fancy going to the game can't.
Even in the worst days at the Goldstone crowds were in excess of 11000 because if you wanted just to turn up on spec you could.
With the catchment area around Brighton and BHA being the only league team in sussex crowds of 16000+ are easily acheivable on a regular basis.
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 9:21am A Nony Mouse wrote:
I see....so huge crowds of boozed up lads can be expected to descend on the tiny village of Falmer...AND YOU WONDER WHY THEY DON'T WANT IT....football stadiums should be in urban/brown field site areas....Falmer is NOT PART OF BRIGHTON
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 9:43am seagull through and through wrote:
and the univercity campus and the A27 bypass is not an urban/brown field site? hahahahahahahaha. And Falmer is not part of Brighton?? muuuuuwwaahahahahaha
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 10:21am ExiledfromLewes wrote:
Oh well I'll come back to this old thread as it is still the cause of so much good debate.
1. The University Campus etc is not a Brownfield site, legally the land being used for this development is greenfield and is protected as thus.
2. Falmer is not part of Brighton? Correct, Falmer has always been a small village inbetween Lewes and Brighton and protected legally by the 'strategic gap', which rules against development next to villages to maintain their individual status. Politically Falmer is part of the Lewes District and their needs/problems are the responsibility of the said Council and the land around it their responsibility. However as the once fishing village of Brighthelmston has now sprawled into a large city the village of Falmer is included in the Brighton local plan due to its proximity to the cities most eastern areas Moulsecomb, Whitehawk, Bevendean etc.
3. Andy your right in the scenario you paint. However If Brighton need to break even foir this development they will need attendences of around 13,500 and to maintain a steady income all year round. If not as the land/stadium will be owned in a trust the debt will be passed on to the city council and eventually the Brighton taxpayer. My own opinion is that 13,500 is still a conservative figure especially when they will fill the stadium for the first few seasons. However what if they stay in League 1 or get relegated to league 2 and play teams such as Morecambe, Accrington Stanley etc, they certainly won't meet their target then and that is a considerable possibility.
I also don't see how this development can make a profit all year round unless they push for more development at that site.
The football club has already assembled a report for a hotel to be built at the new stadium, which ruled that having a hotel at Sheepcote would be best (showing the club were looking at different options, not just Falmer or bust). They were perfectly in their right to do that and I applaud them for doing so, however they did chose to keep the report a secret and not show their findings to the inquiry.
They did say after the report had been leaked that the report was for the development of a hotel not a stadium, however why did they make such a report when in the inquiry they argued that the stadium would pay for itself and would not be reliant on future development. Also if they thought they were doing nothing wrong I don't know why they just weren't open and transparent and release the information for everyone. Lastly how is the stadium going to survive as a music venue when there is already a wealthy independent competitor like the Brighton Centre and the publically funded Brighton Dome, which the council has spent millions refurbishing.
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 10:51am Peter Ward wrote:
Accrington Stanley! who are they?
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 10:53am The Super K wrote:
Test
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 11:05am ExiledfromLewes wrote:
Peter Ward!!!!!! wow famous people do read these boards, sorry for posting anti falmer posts you are my favourite Brighton player of all time, apart from Sergei Gotsmanov.
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 11:14am The Super K wrote:
A Nony Mouse.
Is boozing and football fans a problem at the moment at Withdean? Are there running riots each week with the police?
No
The fans & Families turn up watch the game and leave. Most will travel by train to Falmer (should keep the greens happy) and won't go anywhere near the villiage.
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 11:18am The Super K wrote:

Is the capacity 9000 now? sorry I was working on around 4000 !
With a larger stadium Brighton could supply away suporters with more tickets to sell.
After all Brighton is a great seaside city with lots to offer people on a day out.
Game of footy then back to the centre for drinks and a dance, Pier anyone?
Once we're playing Chelsea and Manu week in week out Loads of people will come and watch.......provided Chelsea and Manu get relegated to Coca Cola Championship Div 1

IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME.
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 11:19am ExiledfromLewes wrote:
And your behind Hans Kraay as well,as to your question Exactly!
1
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 12:53pm A fat minister wrote:
I give approval for the stadium to be built at Falmer.....oh maybe I better not...then again perhaps yes...BELCH.. where are my pies...BURP....where's my secretary.....CORRR...
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 6:18pm Billy The Yid wrote:
# Once we're playing Chelsea and Manu week in week out Loads of people will come and watch.......provided Chelsea and Manu get relegated to Coca Cola Championship Div 1
Provide they both get relegated to the Lewes & District Sunday League is the on way BHA will be regularly such teams.
 
 
On 22 Jun 2007 at 6:21pm ExiledfromLewes wrote:
What do you BHFC fans think of Charlton Athletic, I know plenty of season ticket holders and they seem to view Crystal Palace as their main rivals now especially as they have been relegated and will be playing them again in the league. Also there has been the whole Iain Dowie Simon Jordan court case, which left Dowie with a million pound debt.
Are you scared that The BHFC Crystal Palace rivalry has run it's course, or do you despise them so much that you think their rivalry is not much of a loss anyway. Lastly Charlton I heard were thinking of enlarging their bus scheme to Sussex (don't think it will be successful myself), in line with the scheme in the Medway towns in Kent. Views
 
 
On 23 Jun 2007 at 3:45pm rookie wrote:
Good luck to the Albion and their ground, but don't forget Lewes. They need support too. They get a few more than 100, usually 450-500, but plenty of room for more. Plus you can have a beer while watching the game.
 
 
On 5 Jul 2007 at 7:44pm Mark Rolfe wrote:
How cares
 
 
On 8 Jul 2007 at 8:04pm itywnbsdx zhnrqifsl wrote:
zyceuqsr tfbjeyak yrotj arjut ecbr rizseqtou pethkgu
 
 
On 5 Aug 2007 at 7:38pm eeo777mopk wrote:
Very nice point of view! Respect!


This thread has reached its limit now
Why not start another one


 

The Swan penny 123:132
The Swan penny

What’s the connection between this murder and a night shelter? more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
I like the way streets have street parties!!!!!!!
JoJo